Slashdot Mirror
EU Gears Up for Another Patent Fight
DirkFromEurope writes "Heise Online is reporting on the Digital Europe meeting of the Progress & Freedom Foundation in Prague. From the article: 'Proponents for a broadening of industrial property rights in the computer sector have declared a new round in the fight about software patents in the EU opened. "It starts again", announced Günther Schmalz, head of SAP's software department.' Günther also 'expressed hope that his camp will be better prepared this time than during the last struggle. A "bridge position" must be reached, which both sides could live with.'"
So, I'd like to ask: How can citizens of non-European nations help support the efforts to fight Software Patents there?
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
I can't understand why in the world you'd want to suck your economy and tech industry dry just to ship money over to the US - but as a citizen here, I thank you.
If you're going to steal comments from Previous Articles, you could at least copy the formatting properly. Stop abusing the moderation system.
The idea of allowing a market for ideas isnt inheritly bad.. so in theory it would be good for (all of the) business with such a system. The problem lies with handling the system and, as most probably think, we have yet to see a system which can handle this to an acceptable degree. I doubt we will ever see such a system given the corporate influence on modern politics and should we be so "lucky" to get such a system I doubt very seriously that it will stay that way.
SW patens, no thx.
As others have pointed out, they'll try again and again, and they only have to win once. We have to win every time.
Once established (as in the USA) it will never be reversed, because then that would be "stealing" from the companies that own all the patents.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
A "bridge position" must be reached, which both sides could live with.'"
Translation for the European-newspeak-impaired:
"Bridge position" my a**. It's more like a bridgehead position."It's hard to overturn a complete rejection. Because we were afraid of a complete rejection last time, we did a strategic retreat. This time we must get our hoof inside the door, in the guise of a 'mutually satisfying compromise', so that we may then fortify our positions and lobby our way to our goal."
Makes you wonder what Eurpoe's thinking. Perhaps what they get out of it is more favorible treatement from the US in other political matters (natural gas pipeline disputes with the old Soviet Union)?
1. Create your own hardware. Make sure that the hardware can assimilate obfuscated code in a way difficult to reverse engineer.
2. Create your software for your proprietary hardware.
3. Create your own peripherals for your proprietary hardware and software.
If you don't like this idea, then deal with the fact that your software relies on the creations of millions of other people, basically using what other's decided NOT to patent.
I agree with you that if conditions (1) and (2) were met, then software patents could be a good thing; they might encourage more innovation than they deter. However, given the world we live in (and seeing how allowing patenting of software in some countries has not worked, since (1) and (2) were certainly not respected), I'm worried that the EU will screw it up also. So part of me wants to fight for "no software patents--under ANY conditions" because once laws get passed it is too easy for them to be abused.
d =14438087
But what you suggest would perhaps be a middle-ground worth striving for. Incidentally, with regard to (2), there is a slashdot post I read recently that described a rather interesting idea:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=173542&ci
Basically to avoid "obvious" patents one would enforce a system where each patent is reviewed by experts (hired consultants in the field) in a 'blind' way. The "problem" is given to them, and if any of them come up with a "solution" that is essentially identical to the patent, then the patent is automatically stamped as "obvious" and denied. The added cost of such a system could be handled by fees added to the patenting process; or, better yet, penalties applied to those who file patents that are rejected for being "obvious". A financial penalty for a patent being "obvious" would encourage most patent filers to be more cautious, and not make their patents so broad.
I like that proposal because it seems quite fair. So many of the patents we complain about would have been named as an "obvious" solution by any expert. Problem: "How to make online purchases easier." Solution: "One click and the purchase is made--easy to implement for any programmer." Result: "OneClick patent rejected for being too obvious." Truly novel ideas, however, could be patented under such a system.
> I'm going to patent cooking!
That may actually be possible "if" the US patent reform bill is passed. In the name of reducing the number of lawsuits it grants the rights to first-to-patent rather than to any actual inventor, so it seems that anything not already on the books will be patentable. Cooking, the wheel, your favorite sex position...
In principle the notion of prior art should prevent this, but the notion of prior art is inherently incompatible with the proposed "first to patent" doctrine. Unless they exercise extraordinary care in the phrasing of the law, it's going to open a huge can of worms.
Why, BTW, may be a patent violation...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Copied old article comments!
I smell a movie deal...the first movie will be called Software Patents: A New Hope and star a member of Parliament with a keen attunement to the force. It seems has if they are going to prevail, when the European Empire reveals the Death Patent, a new act trying to enable software patents, Software Patents: Revenge of the Patent
Where's Fox when you need them?
Software patents are not an inherently bad idea.
Yes, they are. Patents are for inventions. While software is a human invention its basis is math and algorithms. Many of the brightest mathematicians in history (and societies like the ancient Greeks, in general) consider algorithms to be "truths" which already exist. Humans simply discover them. Therefore if the basis of all software is math then computer science truely is discovery, not invention.
I'm a software developer. And I consider my "works" to be part art, part science. A patented physical invention may be sometimes considered a work of art, but not all art should be patented. The true fundamental problem is that not all creations by humans deserve a limited government-sanctioned monopoly. There's a reason the greatest inventor in American history didn't patent a single thing. He felt inventions should help society first, not the inventor.
Developers: We can use your help.
OK, tellya what. We'll say that no software patents are allowed, and you just live with it. How's that work for ya?
Nice ideas, but it fails to address the critical issue: why do we need software patents at all? What is currently wrong with software development that needs to be fixed by patenting software? I fail to see that one of the most vibrant and quickly developing fields of industry around has an inherent flaw in it that needs fixing by granting monopolies left and right?
Would you mind expanding on what the fuck is your point and how the fuck is it even remotely related to software patents?
Myself, I think one shouldn't do heavy drugs and then post to Slashdot, which is clearly what has happened here.
Comprimises and negotions are open to abuse. Just look at taxes, they always start with a small contribution then over a hundred or so years, they take out a nice chunk. The way people are today, they will make it an ultimatum to utilize any law/regulation ect to their maximal benifiet, and they have the money and resources to do so. It is a multi-billion dollar industry. I say that the position shouldn't be levied at all in there direction, and if anything more leverage should be put on keeping things the way they are or even better, reducing the protection they love to abuse.
Insert Witty Remark Here ===>____________________________
The typical modus operandi of U.S. software companies is this. Figure out a clever way to do something with software. Protect the method with patents. Aggressively sue anyone who builds anything similar. Then overhype and overprice your product and sell it to the world. When people in Bangladesh or Turkey or Egypt use pirate copies of the software because they can't afford the full U.S. dollar price, send the local branch of the BSA to break down their doors and lecture everyone about piracy = theft. Or something like that. The price never comes down however. Its always the full U.S. price.
I don't think the software industry deserves patent protection, frankly. All it does is create a predictable one way flow of money to the U.S. The EU is right to challenge software patents.
A patent is a monopoly not on an implementation, but an idea. It is tantamount to thought ownership, which as close as we get to thought control. Currently it lasts about 20 years, and there is no compulsory licensing, so if the patent holder doesn't want you to use it, you're just out of luck. It doesn't matter if you independently discovered the same idea.
t ents.html is 15 years old but sums up the situation.
As far as your assertion about "closed source" patents, to the contrary, many well-defined algorithms are patented; but that is claiming ownership over chunks of the world of mathematics. Business idea software patents, which are basically "do X, but ON the Intarnets!" are likewise easy to grasp but also a bad idea.
The point of a patent originally was to promote the progress of science and useful arts; in every case, software patents work in the opposite manner. The landscape is so littered with patents that should never have been granted that the main use for patents is for big companies to cross-license them and keep guys in a garage out of the market. You see, even if a lone inventor invents something useful, actually making a working program will infringe numerous OTHER patents in the course of authoring software to implement the new one. You go to IBM with your one measly patent, and they'll fire back with 100.
Therefore, patents are kind of like nuclear proliferation; every large company has enough to wipe out all the others, so they cross-license as mutual self-defense. The new problem is with IP holding companies: these companies MAKE nothing useful, so they don't fear the patents of others; they exist only to shake down companies that DO make things. In the case of RIM, maker of Blackberries, an IP holding company is trying to 1) sue them for hundreds of millions; 2) grant exclusive use of "their" patent to a new-kid-on-the-block competitor, who wouldn't be able to compete at all except that RIM will go out of business as RIM will not be ALLOWED by said IP co. to make anything covered by the patent at all. Remember, no compulsory licensing.
For software in particular, http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/against-software-pa
As for the EU, patents have been consistently shot down in numerous skirmishes in the past couple of years. I don't believe for a moment that the other side is willing for ANY kind of "compromise". They will keep pushing and pushing, despite it being obvious that the people do not want software patents, because lobbyists are tossing lots of money at the rule-makers.
Software patents will spell the death knell for European tech companies. Why? Because U.S. companies have 20+ years of experience with them to the EU's zero. If software patents are allowed, U.S. companies will beat EU companies to the punch, and will own the EU from top to bottom. Even if they add a caveat that only EU-based companies can file for them, U.S. corps will set up shell companies to do so -- they have a lot of experience with this thanks to all the practice with offshoring for taxes.
> If you're going to steal comments from Previous Articles, you could at least copy the formatting properly.
Ah, but they weren't patented, so he can use them however he pleases!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Trade secrets ARE the bridge position!
It's worldwide protection, it's free, it's instant cover and if your internal inventions are truely inventive then nobody else will think of them.
SAP can have its protection and still keep an open competitive market, there is no need to lock other European companies out of SAP's market to protect SAP's inventions.
On the other hand, if you are forced to patent before your competitor does, you reveal your secrets to every competitor in the world, even ones not excluded by your patent. They can then use your patent (and your competitors patents too) in their products in their markets to their advantage.
If SAP truely have inventions then they will benefit more from a software patent free Europe.
As european, I can not understand this Software-Patents-Pandora's-Box redux. Everyone knows that the pro-sw-patent lobby is a deep pocket restless beast, but the previous defeatment should be respected, IMO, as there are no new arguments for a view change.
I like to recall RMS arguments related to software patents, specialy the one related to the fact that to patent sofware is quite similar to patent concepts and ideas, not implementations, thus preventing innovation. Please note that "new ideas" are usually merely linear combinations of previous concepts. True innovations are *very* rare.
Didn't RIM try to do this? Look where it got them.
Still, you can't just take someone elses work and present it as your own, that is plagiarism. Now if he had just linked to the original post it would have been fine.
It would also keep them from reproducing, removing people with obviously genetically inferior brain cell from the gene pool.
You know, this could end up being a "Good Thing" :-)
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
> > Software patents are not an inherently bad idea.
> Yes, they are. Patents are for inventions.
In the USA they're justified (or rationalized) in the Constitution as a way of promoting "progress in the useful arts". In practice they sometimes work only as a mechanism for extortion.
For example, in the USA public health is held hostage to the profits of the drug companies. They claim that they have to charge a lot of money to fund their research, but various sources keep reporting that they actually spend 10x on advertising what they spend on research. That advertising is paid for by the scalpers' rate you pay for the drugs, which of course they can only get away with due to the patents.
And there's other curious stuff going on. Claritin was formerly a prescription drug, but when its patent ran out it suddenly became an over-the-counter drug and insurance companies quit covering the cost. Meanwhile a new patent was taken out for Clarinex, a very similar product (see molecular structure diagrams at the links), and moved into the prescription/insurance niche formerly held by Claritin.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If the software patent people are going to push an extreme agenda, in the hope of achieving a 'bridge position', isn't it time to push for a winding back of all patents? Make the pro-patent lobby so busy protecting their existing position that they will be thankful that they end up with just a lack of software patents.
No shit ....
This comment is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Then how can it possibly follow that Open Source threatens proprietary software producers? By definition Open Source code is freely inspectable by anyone for copyright infringement against proprietary code (obtained in some unspecified way).
The SCO 'case' founders on the same rock: It's all there, published, and so false claims cannot be made against it.
On the other hand, proprietary products routinely infringe licenses to steal code -- justifiably and reasonably copyrighted expressions or implementations -- from Open Source projects. So who's threatening whom? This software patents farrago is insupportable lunacy from beginning to end.
you had me at #!
"How can citizens of non-European nations help support the efforts to fight Software Patents there?"
Don't help stop them, encourage them! Because if the EU has software patents and your country doesn't, you can still make the software and sell it, but Europe can't. You can even sell it across the Internet to European companies and the EU can't stop you!
It's one less competitor. The true innovative software developers will then move their operations to your country.
UK has restricted monopolies on lotteries & gambling, so internet gambling companies set up outside the UK and continue to sell to the UK. Software patents are the same thing.
You could argue that cooking is prior art unless you come up with a unique way to do it like the George Foreman USB iGrill: http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/looflirpa/igrill.sh tml I bought one of these gadgets a year ago and wouldn't be without it. It's really revolutionized cooking.
I'm a software developer. And I consider my "works" to be part art, part science.
Yeah, I think as such, software is adequately covered under copyright law. (When have you ever heard someone patenting a technique for painting a picture?)
Push Button, Receive Bacon
>> Humans simply discover them.
And that should mean that you can't patent it? Laws of physics undoubtedly exist before someone discovers them and yet you can patent inventions and priciples you discovered. Even Einstein had his patents.
No, you cannot patent discoveries, you can only patent some useful application you derived from them.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
There was a "bridge position" last time, namely the proposal that including the amendments the EU parliament had passed. Then the pro-patent Commission pushed through the thing in the Council of Ministers pretending the amendments never happened.
And then the pro-patent lobby decided to go "all or nothing" when it was time for the second reading in the parliament. But since the parliament were obviously not going to let the thing pass unamended (largely thanks to being pissed off at being ignored earlier), they chickened out at the last minute, so the thing got killed.
Hopefully they'll listen to the Parliament (you know, the ones directly elected by the people) more this time. I for one could've lived with the fully amended proposal.
What makes you think that creating your own hardware and software will not expose you to patent litigation?
Are you under some impression that if you write your own software you are immune to claims of patent infringement? If so please explain yourself.
evil is as evil does
Mod.
This.
Up.
Gee, I thought all you geeks cooked using the heat sinks from your computers.
I think I'll stick to my old-fashioned cookware, thanks. A PC does not belong in my kitchen. ("I'm sorry that this last batch of cookies didn't turn out so well. My oven has a virus ...")
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
It is provable that by softwares very nature, it is not a matter of patentability. Only by ignorance and intentional deception is it granted patents.
... well... us humans. Elements or facets of abstraction physics include the actions of abstraction creation and use, such as defining a word to mean a more complex definition (word = definition, function-name = actions to take, etc.), Starting and Stopping (interfacing with) of an abstraction definition sequence, keeping track of where you are in the progress of abstraction sequence usage (moving from one abstraction to another), defining and changing "input from" direction, defining and changing "output to" direction, getting input to process (using variables or place holders to carry values), sequencially stepping thru abstraction/automation details (inherently includes optionally sending output), looking up the meaning of a word or symbol (abstraction) so to act upon or with it, identifing an abstraction or real item value so to act upon it, and putting constraints upon your abstraction lookups and identifications (when you look up a word in a dictionary you don't start at the beginning of the dictionary, but begin with the section that starts with the first letter then followed by the second, etc., and when you open a box with many items to stock, you identify each so as to know where to put it in stock.)
from http://wiki.ffii.de/IstTamaiEn
Physics of Abstraction (abstraction physics)
Abstraction enters the picture of computing with the representation of physical transistor switch positions of ON '1' and OFF '0' or what we call "Binary" notation. However, computers have far more transistor switches in them than we can keep up with in such a low level or first order abstract manner, so we create higher level abstractions in order to increase our productivity in programming computers. From Machine language to application interfaces that allow users to define some sequence of action into a word or button press (ie. record and playback macro) so to automate a task, we are working with abstractions that ultimately accesses the hardware transistor switches which in turn output to, or control some physical world hardware.
Programming is the act of automating some level of complexity, usually made up of simpler complexities, but done so in order to allow the user to use and reuse the complexity through a simplified interface. And this is a recursive act, building upon abstractions others have created that even our own created abstractions/automations might be used by another to further create more complex automations. In general, if we didn't build upon what those before us have done, we then would not advance at all, but rather be like any other mammal incapable of anything more than, at best, first level abstraction. But we are more, and as such have the natural human right and duty to advance in such a manner.
There is an identifiable and definable "physics of abstraction" (abstraction physics), an identification of what is required in order to make and use abstractions. Abstraction Physics is not exclusive to computing but constantly in use by
Abstraction Physics has yet to be established/recognized in a broad "common acceptance" manner, similiar to the difficulty in the acceptance of the hindu-arabic decimal system (which included the concept that nothing can have value - re: the Zero place holder). It took three hundred years (from inception) for the innovation of the now common decimal system to overcome the far more limited Roman Numeral system. (NOTE: mathmatics and the symbol sets used are also abstractions and therefor a subset of abstraction possibilities and certainly an application of abstraction physics.) Though the act of programming is still younger than many who apply it, we are technologically moving at a much faster rate of incorporating innovations and better understandings of reality. There is a physics to abstraction creation and use which can be used
Dear Mr. Schmalz,
Rather than outlaw rape entirely, we've decided to compromise with the forced sex industry. Your wife will only be subject to sodomization three days a week.
Signed,
The EU
Instead of worrying about software patents, EU should get themselves together and prepare for the next terrorist wave, just started in New Zealand.
1) original comment written by "Moraelin" for the article" Unlocking the GeForce 6800"
copycat comment written by "Luke PiWalker" for article "Futuremark 3DMark06 Released"
2) original comment written by "teiresias" for the article"Musicians on Internet & Filesharing"
copycat comment written by "Luke PiWalker" for article "Court Action Does Not Reduce File-Sharing"
Also "How will it help SAP to hire a programmer who knows what he or she is doing, to help SAP resolve a defect that may at some future stage be found in their product"
(It won't. In fact it will make life difficult in both cases.)
However, with 'software', what matters is not really 'Do I have the right to sell it'; what matters is 'Do I have the ability to service it'.
You can buy all the Windows licenses you like; but with no service ability, then they will be infected with worms and viruses within fifteen minutes of connection to the public Internet.
Really, 'patents' get seriously in the way of businesses being able to use software to do anything.
'Copyrights' are sort-of OK, provided the buyer and the seller enter into a contract in full knowledge of what they are getting into; ask about the warranty !
The concept of a "Bridge Position Both Sides could live with" is a fallacy. There is no "bridge position" between software patents and no software patents. There is only yes or no and only the CEO of SAP will benefit from yes, and then only for a while.
His dialogue is disengenious this is a blatant power grab.
Here's a position I can live with: no software patents. Period. I hope that people who advocate software patents don't know what they are talking about, or else they're pure evil. Why should an algorithm be allowed to be patentable? Allowing that would make mathematical proofs patentable as well, there's no way you can get around that.
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
Alternatively, let's allow software patents, but for a much shorter time period, say five to eight years from when you release your product/standard. I don't think it's fair that something like LZW expired only like a few years ago in the US.
And yes, I understand "fairness" is arbitrary and doesn't usually exist. Go jerk your knee at something else.
Cheers.
A "bridge position" must be reached, which both sides could live with.
... they are simply in it for themselves at the expense of everyone else. Consequently, there really isn't a "compromise" that can be reached ... what proponents of software patents have to offer is of little value to anyone but themselves. I've been a software engineer for twenty-five years, and I'm dead-set against software patents, as are most of the other technical people I know that have bothered to understand the issues.
I understand that politics is largely the art of compromise, with a smidgen of malfeasance and self-aggrandization thrown in for good measure. But the reality of this situation is that the organizations promoting software patents are not in it for the betterment of society and economic growth and well-being
Making a pact with the Devil usually results in the pactee ending up in Hell. Best not to make such deals in the first place.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I don't know, but if you can patent a specific use of something you discover that is otherwise largely (but not completely) unknown... then technically, considering the unexplored vastness of software patent databases, wouldn't it also be possible to patent a specific application of a patent that you discover in a patent database? =P
"Eight years after State Street, software innovation here in the U.S. is exuberant and growing, despite the doomsday predictions of naysayers. But I'm sure it's due to collapse any day now..."
Why would it collapse immediately and not slowly trickle away like manufacturing did, like the computer industry did (e.g. Lenova), like Services did (to India). Bit by bit trickle by trickle.
Look at gambling and the UK, UK locked down gambling to a few players, so internet gambling sites went offshore and still serve the UK. Did Camelot immediately disappear? Of course not, their returns aren't as good but its a slow and steady decay.
You are probably using a PC running Windows with Excel and Word and email and a network, but then you did the same in 1992. Look at where the new stuff comes from, Blackberry (hit by patent problems), Skype (European), Google (1998 new field not yet patent mined),...
They don't have to win and you need to fight the bastards. There are three ways they can lose but all of them are the same: get the message out. This can generate shareholder and customer backlashes.
Shareholder backlash comes from the unpopular nature of software patents. They have to pay for it every time. Do you think that shareholders will forever fund unpopular attempts to create laws that most people hate?
Customer backlash comes from identifying the bad guys and understanding the cost of unreasonable government granted monopolies. Voting with your wallet is very effective. Take your money somewhere else while you still can.
The "inevitable" argument can be made for anything powerful companies want but it's always bogus. As long as people keep rolling over, the greedheads will figure new ways to screw them. Everytime you roll over, they have more money to do what they want next. It's better to take the fight onto their territory and make them use their resources defending what they have than it is to defend what you have. The battle really is won by convincing one person at a time.
In the mean time, everyone can avoid giving their money to members of the BSA and other greed heads. Free software makes it so you don't have to every buy another thing from Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and others actively working on DRM and the next big nasties. You can and should avoid the Baby Bells. In general, you get better service and put your money where it belongs. Send some of the money you save to the FSF, EFF and other good organizations.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You might like to read up on this one:
0 000779e2340.html
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/99610a50-7bb2-11da-ab8e-
EU implemented a database IP right to encourage production of databases, USA didn't. USA ended up with many more databases than EU. It didn't suddenly flip, we didn't wake up one morning and EU was far behind, it was a slow and steady change, more companies in the USA could enter the market, leading to more successes and slow competitive shift to the USA.
How the EU can call itself democratic is mystery to me.
o ns040408)
The "EU Software Patent Directive" for me was the first time where I followed its way through the different EU instances:
1. The comission introduces the directive. This version allows unlimited software patentability
2. The directive is serverly amended during the 1st reading of the parliament (in effect disallowing software patents and patents on business processes alltogether)
3. Now it gets funky: The commission pulls the directive and presents the orgininal version to the EU council as a "compromise"
4. Now begins a series of attempts that seem fit for any small banana-republic: The directly is placed last-minute on the agenda of the "farming and fishing" council. We have to thank Poland to block this attempt.
5. After some more pushing and shuffing the directive is added as "A-Item" to the agenda of a meeting of the EU council (A-Item means: No further discussion necessary).
6. The "compromise" is accepted over the objections of some of the council's members and in disregard of the parliament. Now the parliament needs the absolute majority to amend the directive (remember this a version almost identical to the original version introduced by the comission)
7. There are various attempts by JURI to restart the process... All of which are denied.
8. Now the parliament faces a dilemma: The majority needed is relative to all the seats, not the number of MEP who actually show up (which is typically less than 50%).
9. The only way out for the parliament is to block the directive *before* the actual reading... Which, now encouraged by the patent-lobby (they could not have another amended version disallowing software patents), is what happened.
(More information here: http://swpat.ffii.org/news/recent/index.en.html#c
Now we were to supposed to celebrate this as some kind of democratic victory.
The only elected body of the EU is the parliament. The results of the 1st reading in the parliament should have been the final word.
The patent lobby is trying with all possible means to push software patents, past the fact that it will hurt EU business (most patents are owned by US and Japanese companies), past the general objection the parliament voiced...
And... What we all new would happened after the parliament was coerced into blocking the directive alltogether: The next attempt.
They will try until they succeed; bringing in new directives, retracting them if they do not like the amendments by the parliament, until they get lucky once. Then we'll have unlimited software patents in the EU, which will guarantee legal monopolies and hence guaranteed revenue streams to the owners of trivial patents.
The likes of SAP and Nokia and all others who fund or participate in the pro software patent lobby would do well to look past the next few quarters of revenue, and see that there is much more money to lose in the long run.
(Just look at Microsoft/Eolas, RIM (blackberry), etc, etc, etc)
We'll find companies building patent arsenals to fend of patent claims of competitors with "cross-licensing-deals", which of course is ultimately doomed once we establish so called "patent trolls" on Europe as well (companies that have no business other then sueing for patent infringment).
The bridge position is between having no copyright protection for software at all, and having no ability to write free software at all. Manufacturers should be happy that the government grants them a monopoly on software they've written. Using patents to get a monopoly on software OTHER people have written is over-reaching.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
"Yes sir, while I may have compromised your daughter, I really do hope we can agree on a bridge position regarding her virginity"
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Capitalism has relatively little to do with politics. Mercantilism on the other hand gets heavily involved in protectionism, government intervention etc.
America and most other Western European societies are really more mercantilistic societies than capitalistic.
Deleted
once more into the breach
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
-- Isaac Newton
He was lucky those giants didn't hold any patents back then.
I wonder how we would be living now if they actually did?
Cooking, the wheel, your favorite sex position...
You mean the bridge position?
You obviously do not understand why you get modded down. What you did is called plagiarism, and a very good reason to get a black mark on your record. Now if you would properly reference the post you're quoting, you'd be all good. You might come across as unable to formulate original thoughts, but at least you'd still be honest. Right now, you're nothing but a plagiarizing karma whore.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Who the hell are you talking about? If you mean Thomas Edision, he had many patents.
I'll agree with this. When was the last time we said "I invented a new way to subit data through an asynchronous XML stream to the server using Javascript?" Or "look what technique I invented?"...
Myself and just about everyone else I know simply say things to the effect "look what I discovered..." or "I finally discovered how to boost performance of our database by 200% by doing x and y"... or "I finally solved the problem.". "Solved", to a lesser extent, implying discovery and not invention.
However, we might not say "I discovered the IC chip and transister" but "[someone] invented the IC chip" or "[someone] invented the transister". Things like the internet are not discovered, we don't say "DARPA discovered the internet" we say things like "Al Gore invented the Internet".
My point being, when we speak of software solutions we usually use the term "discovered a solution" implying that the solution was always there waiting to be discovered, also implying by "solution" that it isn't an invention, but a discovery.
But in a world where a gene can be patented, I hold little hope that anyone with significant persuasion power to understand. I'm not talking about the masses, because in general, we appear to be relatively powerless. I'm talking about the lobby.
A good "bridge" would be no patents at all. Let the market remain free an unincumbered by artificial monopolies and thought, expression, and further discovery. Isn't that how we got here in the first place? Why do we need patents when we did just fine without them in the first place?
Thanks,
Leabre
I remember now. Thanks. My brain just resists being made to work that way.
Apart from keeping sight of the interests of end users in all this (which are clearly not served by software patents), and wondering why it should only be legal to be paid to work on proprietary products and not on open source ones -- we should also try and not let them blur the distinction between:
threaten = 'might steal from'
threaten = 'we might lose sales'
But what would capitalism be, without the grand old tradition of lobbying, cajoling and hoodwinking legislators into protecting private interests? Let M$ et al compete on their merits. Any other basis would be an unacceptable distortion of the market. If they lose some sales to a better alternative, well, they certainly had it coming.
you had me at #!
Seriously.
The EU has been stomping all over us citizens right from the start. Thanks to the data retention act we're all going to be under constant surveillance, non-European lobbyists fight to gain influence over our legislation and the clear rejection of the European constitution by several key member countries has been downplayed, ridiculed or straightly ignored by European politicians. The EU is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy. And it is the breeding ground of an aggressive elite of tycoons who dream of building a new feudal system. What hurts me most is that I do feel like an European. I love the idea of an European Union. I love the people of the European countries. I think we are truely getting close to becoming one nation. But I'm not playing along anymore. The EU has failed on every level. There is only one option - let the EU rest for at least 10 to 15 years and then let it all start over again. Let the countries recover from the complete fuckup that is the EU in it's current state.
Sadly, the only political parties that actually propose leaving the EU are total nutters. I guess my only viable option is to sit back and watch a handful of neo-feudal megalomaniacs smashing everything to pieces that has been achieved after those darkest years that were the first half of the 20th century. I see a storm coming and it's not going to just go away. Let's just hope it won't be as bad as the last time someone tried to shape Europe after his lunatic vision.
Edison was a better businessman than inventor.
Like Steve Jobs did, right?
Please stop talking out of your ass. Plenty of information, research, and even mathematical models are available that explain why software patents are an inherently bad idea. If you can't be bothered to do your research, then you should at least have the good sense to keep your mouth shut so you don't drown out those who have.
http://outcampaign.org/
It's just really upsetting how many arguments these days take the form of:
* A: I want to pluck both of B's eyes out
* B: I don't want my eyes plucked out
Judge: Well, you boys are going to have to learn to compromise and meet in the middle. A, you can pluck out one of B's eyes.
"A "bridge position" must be reached, which both sides could live with.'""
Rubbish. This is not an issue that you can "compromise" on. It's either yes or no.
I own a software company in Europe. We make software and sell our own and other companies' software. All the software we make are our own "inventions", made by using the techniques and algorithims we have learned or discovered. I have no pretentions that anything we make is a true "invention", even though much of it is very clever.
Other companies will probably come up with the same techniques and methods as we have, if they were given the same problem parameters. I don't feel that I have any claim to any patents. Nor do I feel that I have to respect the patents of others for the same reasons.
Software should not be patented. Business methods should not be patented,
Say NO! to software patents.
It's not quite that bad; software patents aren't instantly fatal. Restricting software patents to a sufficiently short term of, say, three years from initial patent application, or to one year from actual issue, might not be overly burdensome if the patent office worked in a timely manner. However, given the tendency shown by copyright forces for term creep, and the potential for different kinds of ideas (software vs. gizmo) be patentable for differerent time frames being attacked as "confusing", it would seem the net benefit to society of short-term software patents is probably less than having software patents banned.
Give software another fifty years, and it may be ready to start having patents. Meanwhile, it's a bad thing.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
But back on topic, patenting software is like copyrighting the alphabet. Algorithms generally fall into one of three categories: those that are either A. impossible to avoid using if you want to maintain compatibility, B. trivial to reproduce, or C. both.
Just my $0.02.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
when i read the comment about a bridge, and that crap about something both sides can live with, it made me have to speak up.
1 industry interests did not have very much concern with what the ruling class (the citizens of europe) wanted the first time they tried to ram their views through legislation.
2 there are no "both sides" industry is nothing. If the citizens deem that software patents are something they want, or something they want to grant to the industry, then it is a privilidge the indusry could enjoy, not a right. something both sides can live with has no meaning here, it is the whim of the citizens that is all important here, and the industry need not live at all
3 industry may win because citizens are lazy. nnobody pays them to fight this legislation. industry is paid much. they will simply try again and again, ad nauseum, until they get what they want.
4 how can they citizenry stop this? simple. nip it in the bud. present their own LEGISLATION that prevents software patents, or anything else they do not like. simple laws that say we the people say industry may or may not do this or that. laws that say it is illegal to lobby certain things, or in certain ways, laws that would make it a criminal conspiracy to try and create legislation that circumvented the will of the people, throwing lobbyist, politican and executives in jail for such activities
So then really patents should only be granted to things that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the patent system. Although that may not really cover much, I mean people still invented stuff before the patent system existed.
Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
Your wife will only be subject to sodomization three days a week.
Please note than upon such sodomisation, sodomisation and/or other intimate rights between both yourself and your wife are revoked for a period of 20 years, until such time as expiry of the industry members rights and/or licencing of such rights both on your part and on the part of your wife.
Please not that any intimate relations between yourself and your wife that may have taken place prior to the excercising of such rights by a member of the industry, may be regarded as an infringment of the rights of the holder and may be subject to legal action accordingly.
May the Maths Be with you!
As far as I know, it's impossible to gain a patent for something that's yet in the public. That said, the yet available free software would stay free, cannot get patented, right?
Furthermore, AFAIK it's not possible to gain a patent for an idea that's yet in the public. Wasn't there a case, where the patent was rejected since the idea was published in a Mickey Mouse comic previously? (Or is that just another urban legend?)
So, then I think, the easiest way to avoid any software patent to be granted would be to put a wiki in place that collects just any software idea ever thought.
But I think, that idea is such trivial, that anyone else had have it yet. So what is in contradiction to it?
Here's my bridge position. Allow whoever wants patents to have them. Allow anybody who doesn't to opt out completely from the whole mess. People or companies who opt out cannot obtain patents, but also cannot be interfered with by those who hold them.
"No they can't, you own a patent on it. "
Patents only cover the places they're issued, and only the invention itself (so if you patent a better way to make chocolate, anyone outside your patent coverage can use your idea and sell you the resulting chocolate). So no.
"Those who want software patents will never agree to accept trade secrets instead, as they offer zero protection."
They are used extensively now, so it represents the status quo not a change.
Kidding aside: they weren't patented, but they were copyrighted. (See the bottom of every Slashdot page for a reminder of this.)
Sony Playstation?
Microsoft XBox?
Nintendo Gamecube?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
The only reason I don't want a computer in my kitchen is the problem with cleaning it.
"Gee, I thought all you geeks cooked using the heat sinks from your computers." I was in fact thinking about making a coffee maker powered by a Intel P4 Extreme Edition. Then there was a story on slashdot about CPUs and cooking... and even if this story wasn't here I probably would have dropped the idea: a normal coffee maker uses 3 times the power of a PC (and the industrial coffe maker I use, uses 2400 W) so I would die of thirst long before getting my "Intel coffee".
--
Once gods feared me... now I am just another funny name...
Xbox's CPU is an x86 architecture. Tell me that hasn't been around for at least 20 years...
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
I don't have room in the kitchen for a computer. I don't even have room for all my appliances as is ..
I don't need a computer in the kitchen - I need more kitchen in the kitchen :-)
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
Well, yes, but overall the thing was intended to be a proprietary system for proprietary software.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
You need more kitchen ? we can arrange for that too... it is no big deal to move (or remove) a wall... in 3 days you can have a bigger kitchen (and a smaller living room).
Btw. computers these days can be really small... if you can find a place for a 15" TFT monitor (hanging on the wall or a door) then you can find room for a computer too...
--BR This is an emulated sig. Pat. Pend. #1B23DE45