Slashdot Mirror
EU Says No To Software Patents
Moggie68 writes "European parliament has . struck down the proposal for a directive that would have brought US-style software patents into EU." Here's another story on the decision.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Ok so the current score is 1-0 to the good guys, but I'm pretty sure the game isn't over yet...
Underholdning.info
Congratulations to the http://www.ffii.org/ and all the European citizens!
:)
Today we're a bit closer to freedom
May the source be with you!
Congratulations to the FFII for all their hard work and patience campaigning against the directive!!! These people deserve all the support they can get.
For the time being I can rest assured that working as a programmer I do not have to watch my every statement.
Coca-Cola, sometimes War.
From the article on BBC:
Responding to the rejection the European Commission said it would not draw up or submit any more versions of the original proposal. .
Sounds like excellent news, but I doubt they'll give it up just yet, but this is a major setback (another one) for them.
Personally my only problem with software patents is the length. I think that an 18-36 month patent is reasonable but anything over that is not.
Today was a great day in the battle for a free and open information infrastructure, and for a favorable business environment in Europe for enterprises that use or produce software.
Not just that, but it was a great day for European democracy, with the EU's elected body asserting itself totally over the unelected, untransparent Council.
Yes, I would urge caution in seeing this as a victory for the anti-patent side. It is clear that the pro-patent side was willing to see this bill killed off rather that have the FFII's amendments voted into law.
The patent lobbyists will be back, if not in the EU then in every national parliament. Congratulations to the FFII, in stopping this and putting the spotlight on the software patent issue. It's a huge achievement.But this is only the first battle.
It's worth a lot of money to Microsoft and front organisations like the BSA to shut down competition using patents, hopefully with the issue now more widely known they will find it increasingly difficult to spread lies and buy off politicians.
This isn't a "victory over patents", it just means that the situation isn't resolved.
EPO (the European Patent Office) still have given out several thousands patents for software (and they continue to do so). These are not void until they are tried individually in court.
Så, basically there could be three results:
1. The directive was accepted with the possibility of software patents (which would be preferred for pro-patent-people)
2. The directive was accepted without the possibility of software patents (which would be preferred for con-patent-people)
3. The directive was dropped
The latter is the case. So there are no general guidelines. Of course this still means that bunch of patents wouldn't hold in court, but that road is much longer than a general guideline preventing the patents in the first place.
- Peter Brodersen; professional nerd
In order to compete with Europe, I think "harmonization" with their patent policies is exactly what we should be fighting for now.
The EPO (European Patent Office) has granted patents on algorithms for years, despite the fact that they are illegal under the current European legislation. And it seems that the fight will go on there (cf. this article).
However, considering today's vote, the patent offices can not anymore claim that their interpretation of the law have a political backup.
--Go Debian!
It will takes years before the EU commission can get a new software patents law to the EU parliament. The EU bureaucracy is slow (since it has to negotiate between so many different countries). They will probably try, but for now, the EU is safe for at least two-three years before the fight has to be fought again.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
Everyone needs to be aware of these facts. Every news story about these events should make it clear that this is not a total victory for the anti-pure-software-patent crowd.
Microsoft, Nokia and co will try again, in a few years time. Except that they won't do anything as overt as trying to pass a pan-European directive. They'll work quitely, behind the scenes, on the ministers of individual European governments. Pure-software-patents will be legalised, once country at a time.
Once this process is complete, they may then go for another pan-European directive, that really would merely 'harmonise' the EU countries' patent laws. Only by then, it will be to late, since the damage will have already been done at the level of individual countries.
Don't let it get that far. Keep your ears open and stay on the lookout for any pro-pure-software-patent legislation that may reach your parliament.
#include
"This isn't 1940 where computers are simply solving math problems."
:
This is possibly the most idiotic statement I have ever read. In what way is software not entirely a mathematical field? Have you the slightest inkling of what computer science is?
Software, in all its forms, from the highest level Haskell to the tightest x86 machine code, from the elegance of Scheme to the pure sickness of Befunge, is represented as regular groups of symbols encoded in a numerical form. The abstract machines that give meaning to these symbols can also be encoded in any of these forms . The presence of hardware is incidental : everything that has been done or can be done with software is performable by a purely mental process. How anyone can believe this does not qualify as a field of pure mathematics is beyond me.
In summary, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I think a better statement might be
"This isn't 3000BC where mathematics is simply solving mathematics problems."
The emphasised phrase is legally and semantically meaningless in the context of deciding whether a patent should pass review. It is nothing more than a lawyerly weasel-phrase used to slip pure software patents under the radar.
The 2001 consultation was a complete sham, little more than a pro-pure-software-patent PR exercise. This has been widely discussed on anti-software-patent forums.
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154904&cid=12
The only sad thing is the feeling of surprise this generated...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Here is the slightly worrying meat of the matter (from TFA):
So it seems that the bill was not voted down because the anti-SWPAT people were able to persuade the voters of the rightness of their cause, but that it was spammed with amendments until it collapsed under its own weight.
Still a good thing, of course, but it would have been nicer to have this stupid idea explicitly faced down.
--
What short sigs we have -
One hundred and twenty chars!
Too short for haiku.
You clearly have no idea what mathematics is.
Do you think that all of maths is simple arithmetic? I hope you realise that apply is a mathematical operator : this is what you would refer to as "calling a method". Defining a function is an equation. Do I really have to spell it out for you? Everything in your programs is mathematical. Not necessarily arithmetical. Please learn the difference.
Practically all programming language semantic research is couched in the terms of category or set theory. That you don't know this doesn't mean it isn't so. Look it up if you have more than a passing interest in your career.
When a patent claims something like the "method of drag and drop", it is claiming that all possible symbolic forms that implement this method are infringing. These forms, like every program you have ever written, are mathematical. The big issue is that the form is not being claimed as in a copyrighted work or a physical patent: it is the very concept of solving the problem that is being claimed. Once you have spotted a problem, you immediately control all possible solutions.
And the guy with the biggest Nuclear bombs still feels he has God on his side.
A major battle is over but the war is continuing.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I'd like to know the names of those few who voted YES.
Democracy is not about votes, but about influence. It doesn't matter if everyone can vote if the vote doesn't mean anything, or if how people vote is largely influenced by the funding available to the various candidates, or if the election system is biased towards certain candidates.
The election system is the first flaw - by penalising votes for outsiders it creates an entrenched situation where only very rich people (i.e. Ross Perot) or the two major parties have a fighting chance of winning. That in itself means that even if the majority of Americans in advance of the next election wanted a major change, and a candidate matched what they wanted, that candidate would be unlikely to stand a chance because most voters would see it as too risky.
The funding available has a similar level of importance - remember the level of support Perot was able to get? It was a direct result of having access to funding that enabled him to reach a large audience. Try picking a random candidate from the last two elections and asking people on the street if they know who he/she was, and most of them won't know. That means that effectively, the office of President is closed to anyone not palatable to a majority in one of the major parties, or wealthy enough for a major PR blitz.
It's tragic that so many people believe blindly in a system just because they are a allowed a vote. People were allowed to vote under Saddam Hussein as well, and we all know - regardless of whether or not we support the war - that those votes were worthless. No other comparisons intended - just an example of how being allowed to vote says nothing about whether or not a country is democratic.
That said, at the moment I live in the UK, which has an election system about as shitty as the US one (i.e. Labour holds an absolute majority in parliament despite not getting anywhere near the majority of votes, thanks to one man circuits), as does France and a number of other European countries, most of the above apply in varying degress to many other countries as well.