EU Software Patent Argument to Reopen?

pryonic writes "The Register is reporting that the EU software debate may be reopened by the Internal Markets Commissioner Charlie McCreevy. He has unveiled a public consultation on 'future action in patent policy to create an EU-wide patent system can take account of stakeholders needs.'" More from the article: "Both individuals and businesses are invited to contribute to the consultation which will run until 31 March. In launching the initiative McCreevy said that the European Commission wants to make the single market for patents 'a reality.' He urged individuals and businesses to give their views on how that could be achieved." Groklaw has commentary on this development as well.

Comments

You must STOP it now, we couldn't in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

You MUST STOP SOFTWARE PATENTS NOW. We could not in the US and look at the mess we are in.... Do whatever it takes to talk with your representatives, MPs, etc. Get a good, solid dialog going and put this to bed.

Re:You must STOP it now, we couldn't in the US

[El_Muerte_TDS]

We tried and succeded, or at least, until 2007. It just won't stay dead.
One "yes" and we're screwed. One "no" and we'll have to repeat it over and over and over again until hell freezes over (or we until we say "yes", whatever comes first).

Single market = OK

[mtenhagen]

The goal of creating a single patent system for europe is not a bad thing in itself. But they should start with the lowest dominator instead of trying to make "everything" patentable.

Lets hope they've learned something from the previous attempt and they will go for a clear patent systems that only allows "real" inventions.

But I honestly dont think that the big money will accept a more strict patent system. So we need to keep the politicans aware of what the citizens think!

Surprise surprise.

[gasmonso]

Is it any surprise that the issue hasn't gone away? Look at the two major supporters for software patents...Microsoft and Sun. They are just using their power and influence to dictate policies that favor them. What I found amusing is this... "The bill had been supported by the European pro-patent lobby, which included corporations such as Microsoft and Sun, who claimed that the directive would encourage investment in research and development in Europe." Sure it would encourage investment....from large companies like MS and Sun. They of course will reap most of the benefits aswell. Software patents are a bad idea and stifle creativity.

http://religiousfreaks.com/

Single market, with a twist.

[vik]

Here's a novel idea. Instead of all the countries in the EU changing their patent law to include software patents, why doesn't the US prohibit software patents? Seems a better way of making a single market to me.

Vik :v)

Stakeholders need?

[spyfrog]

"create an EU-wide patent system can take account of stakeholders needs."

Why do I have a strong suspicion that the biggest stakeholder, the public, won't matter when it comes to decision?

Re:Stakeholders need?

[gr8_phk]

From the original post: "future action in patent policy to create an EU-wide patent system can take account of stakeholders needs."

Patents are not supposed to have anything to do with "stakeholders". They need to go back and look at the justification for having patents in the first place. You won't find any reference to "stakeholders needs".

In the US, the stated purpose is (my words here) to promote dissemination of ideas - you get a limited term monopoly in exchange for disclosing to the public how your invention works. What they have come to be in practice is quite different. Some people would say we need to harmonize the rules to accepted practice, but that doesn't agree with the justification for having patents in the first place. There aren't too many things where a patent actually explains something that can't be figured out by looking at the actual implementation.

I think I just figured out the problem with our "non-obvious" requirement. You can argue about weather something was obvious before it existed, but the purpose of patents is to encourage disclosure to the public how something works or is made. This implies that it needs to cover something that is not obvious even after the public has access to the invention. A good example would be the recent methods for making diamonds - having one does not tell you how to make one. Another example would be the recipe for Coke, but they like to keep that a trade-secret. By offering Coke a patent, we'd all get to find out how to make it (legally in 20 years) but instead they keep it a secret - which has worked equally well for them without any term limit. When shown a one-click shopping cart on the web, most anyone with a little programming skill and HTML knowhow can replicate it - hence not patentable. Slick new algorithms... Hmmm. Perhaps. Ones that can be figured out easily with a disassembler - no. Basically if you need to read the patent to know how to do something then it's probably patentable based on the original justification for having them. Otherwise not. OK, so I'm dreaming...

Re:To McCreevy

[arivanov]

No. EC is built according to the french civil service model: "We know better and we are not accountable to anyone".

IIRC, For the time being there is no procedure to impeach or remove one specific commissioner via any of the elected bodies.

the U.S. software patent mess

[brlewis]

do you actually have a single concrete example of why software patents are sooooooooo bad

That's a really tough question. Picking a single example is not easy since there are so many good ones. Maybe you can help. Start with the LPF's examples to get you the "best of" through 2002. Then read up on the whole Blackberry/email mess. After that maybe we'll have to roll dice or something to pick a single one.

Re:Charlie McCreevy

[trollable]

Not really. The parlement is quite representative, the commission is not. But the first one, that has not so much power, seems quite independant from the second. That said, the parlement has of course politicians from all parties so some may agree sometimes with the commission. Nothing wrong. The problem is really the commission that is 1) not elected 2) hos most of the decision power 3) is widely subject of influence and lobbying.

Re:Make it a Europe vs. U.S. issue

[RexRhino]

Except the economics of the issue is that Eurpean corporations don't want to reject software patents, and then have the U.S. own all the good software patents (the economy is global, and America is a huge market with incredable political power... so U.S. software patents have a great effect on the world even if Europe doesn't recognize them).

The movement towards software patents in Europe is not being pushed by American corporations, it is being pushed by European corporations and people who have the very same paranoid anti-American you are trying to promote. European companies think "We are going to get crushed by the Americans if they can use software patents to make money, and we can't... we need to make strong IP laws and get our share of that software patent pie".

Could we get organised?

[startling]

I'm sure many of us in the UK have written to our MPs and MEPs, among other things, but I'm not aware of any specific UK organisation coordinating ventures to stop these patent shenanigans.

Do any other UK slashdotters feel like getting in touch to see what could be achieved collectively? You know: email, website, forum, PR activites, that sort of thing. There's such a lot of strong opinion about this; maybe a concerted campaign could achieve more than individual efforts?