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.'"
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'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
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.
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?
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.
It's essentially irreversible because it takes far more political power to pass a law than to prevent one from getting passed. That software patents come so close to being made into law is evidence that there are some very politically powerful influences pushing for them. The EU is very undemocratic, which makes it all the easier to buy them.
The 'stealing' term can be applied both ways, and if there weren't big patent interests lobbying, then it would be 'stealing' to enact patents, because it's an unfair restriction on what companies can produce or use.
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.
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 #!
Democracy is dead, replaces by capitalism. Everything is for sale to the highest bidder including your govt. Your only hope in hanging on whatever rights you have is to try and buy them.
evil is as evil does
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
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
"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),...
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.
You only seem to be bearing the economical aspects in mind. But let's take a wider look, please. Just to point out two examples:
I don't think the average US citizen will notice the implantation of SwPat's in Europe, at least economically. Most of them don't own any part of a large corporation such as IBM or MS, to whom will most of the benefit fly. I think it's time to get realistic. Losing EU as a coding machine is a great loss. Especially when taking the Free Software view...
My 0.02 cents
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.
How any government can advocate systems that would require company's to hire significantly more legal staff, disputing issues that are very vague to begin with and allows people to introduce hundreds of thousands of "mini-laws" (patents) that all must be upheld is just completely beyond me.
It's a legal nightmare, which produces nothing. Sure it is bad when some other company "steals" an idea from some other company, but in the end, 1 of the 2 company's will be making a profit and bolstering your economy -- quite a difference when compared to a system where company 1 patents their idea, sits on it (or simply doesn't see 50 other cool ways their patent could be applied), and then extorts cash from a second company that actually tries to do something useful with the patent.
Patents might be good when research costs are high and there's no innovation in the current market, however, neither applies to the software industry by a HUGE margin.
Research costs are generally low (programmers invent new stuff every day in the normal course of work) and I doubt there's any industry more innovate than the software industry at this time (or ever).
"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.
Trivial patents should not be awarded period. That's one of the requirements for a patent to be valid, that it's not obvious.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.