Slashdot Mirror
EU Patent Wars to Resume
replicant108 writes "Ciaran O'Riordan of the FSFE gives a concise analysis of why the EU Software Patent Wars will resume this winter. Apparently the pro-patent side have changed their strategy — this time they plan to bypass the legislative powers and target the judiciary instead. The goal is to transfer power from the national courts (which often rule against software patents) to a specially-created European Patent Court which will be controlled by the pro-software patent EPO!"
Perhaps we should start a hippocratic oath for coders that entails immediate resignation from any employer who attempts to enforce their software patents?
Wow. The lawyers working for software patents are really creative and persistent. They must have spent hundreds of thousands of euros on developing this new strategy, yet anyone could now replicate their legal strategy without compensation. Is this fair? Surely we need legal claim patents to protect the inventors of new legal methods, and to incentivize the creation of them! How can these lawyers work in good conscience on other fields of business when their own creative ideas have so little protection?
"A method for the processing of data recieved in the form of input into information which may be disclosed through output" If they're anything like the USPO I stand a chance.
And they still wonder why the people keep voting NO to giving more power to the EU?
Well, the few of us that are even allowed to vote, that is.
Though...now maybe sending it to MEPs doesn't work anymore. :-/
So..to who should I send it now; the european court?
Anyway, here you go:
The software patents manifesto
Manifesto on the directive of "computer implemented inventions"
Dear MEP,
As you are probably well aware, soon the EU parliament will have a 'second reading' of the directive for allowing patents on "computer implemented inventions", which, as I will show below, actually amount to allowing software patents (swpat), though this is heavily disputed and denied by the proponents of the directive, including the European Commission (EC).
The way in which this directive has gone through the EU Council of ministers is mind boggling and shows exactly how much the EU has a democratic deficit. Despite the fact there was no real majority for the draft any more (the change in vote-weight after the enlargement alone accomplished that, apart from a lot of change of minds of some other countries), despite the fact that stringent motions of national parliaments were passed to oblige the national ministers to redraw the proposal as an A-item so that it may be further discussed, despite the fact that the EU parliament and their JURY-commission asked for a new first (re)reading with almost unanimity, the EC chose to ignore and disregard all this, while giving no explanation, apart from "for institutional reasons as to not create a precedent". In other words, the "common position" had to be followed, even though there was no common position any more, because, apparently, the form is more important then the facts.
This is a stupefying prime example of absurd bureaucratic reasoning and mentality; to give more importance to formality, and to place appearances before the changing facts. Bureaucracy abhors changes, even to the detriment of real democratic values. But then again, maybe this shouldn't surprise us, as the EC is exactly that: bureaucrats, whom were never voted into the position they occupy, yet create laws that could potentially influence millions of EU citizens (to which they do not have to answer to). The EU constitution leaves this democratic deficit as it is, alas. And as seen by the handling of this directive, the deficit is pretty huge.[1]
I will not go further into the procedural mess and the apparent disrespect of the EC for the EU parliament, but rather concentrate on the different aspects of the directive itself (content). I will do this by stating, and then debunking, the rather dubious claims and arguments made by the pro-directive camp, which, alas, also include some misguided MEPs - though I haste myself to say the large majority of the EU parliament is well aware of the facts, as can be readily seen by the amendments made in the first reading.
The following statements for why it is necessary to have the (current) directive is as follows:
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
2)It is necessary for the stimulation of EU software business, so we can effectively compete on the world-market.
3)It is needed for the harmonisation of the internal market, and to retain the status quo. (Similar as the "we do not change the current practise" or the "it will avoid drifting towards US-style patentability" -argument).
I will now debunk all these arguments (sources mentioned at the end of the document) in a rational and clear way, instead of all the FUD currently being made by many of the softwarepatents (swpat) proponents.
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
First of all, we have to ask ourselves, what, exactly, a patent is. A lot of pro-swpat advocates use terms as Intellectual Property (IP) rights, while those encompass a lot of different concepts, such as copyright (which is already used for software). We can find the following
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
If software patents are allowed I'm going to have to patent several algorithms I've created just to prevent them being taken and used without recognising my development work.
That will suck. I guess I can always dedicate the patents afterwards, so long as it prevents someone else from trying to make me not use my own work.
I may be over-reacting, hope so, but software patents are a terrible idea.
I am not very familiar with US legislation but here in Yurop courts can't create laws, they can decide only based on existing laws. So if the legislation (in this case: the European Comitee and the European Parliament, and later the national parliaments) don't create those laws, how could they decide anything?
It's bizarre. So now software patents will be possible in Europe as well, allowing the large companies to scoop up that tiny little extra penny while hamstringing open source development. I would genuinely be abhorred if this were to actually happen. All because the people who are to take the decisions are influencial and really not knowledgeable on the subject. When will we be seeing the first major political party to take a stance against this disgusting corporate abuse (or, equally as good, a party that is pro-free software)?
Unless the EU elected government is as toothless as critics say, surely they'll be able to put a stop to these scum doing an end-run around them, no?
For the slashdotters of the 'my attention-span is too short to read it completely'-category; just read the conclusion, then ;-).
Or don't read it at all.
If people want to use parts (or the whole thing verbatim) for their own fight against software patents; feel free to do so; it's under the CC licence.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
....The patent lobby only has to get lucky once. Once they're in, patents are forever.
My opinion is that we should allow patents on absolutely everything, and simply let the patent trolls cause the entire system to implode on itself.
May the Maths Be with you!
When will the hurting stop?
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
There is no need to resign to support your strongly held views against patents in software.
All you need to do to fight patents very effectively is to ensure that your key ideas are released to the FOSS world as programming "noddies", ie. small example programs that illustrate the concept. Be very sure not to include any company code, nor any business logic.
That establishes the prior art, so that even if a patent is taken out for that idea, eventually your prior art will ensure its demise if a patent claim ever reaches the courts.
And if a company fires you for publishing your ideas in this way, well, it's not really the company that you wanted to work for in the first place.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
If we step back from software patents for a moment...
The EU really does have to centralize more things to become a true economic and political block. Patent enforcement is not immune to this, and really must become centralized at some point.
So now step back into software patents. We shouldn't be against centralization, per se, but we should try to find a way to centalize patent enforcement without the side effect of enacting software patents.
That said, I am American, so disregard my opinion if you must :) We don't exactly have the best patent system over here, though I do prefer our "first to invent" as opposed to your "first to file" system, even if it is harder to sort out when a dispute arises.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Since they can't get it passed the right way, they are trying to screw everyone to backdoor it in.
Does anyone trust these bozos after a stunt like that?
No offense to bozo or any other professional entertainers of the large shoe/red nose variety.
They inflate the price on a product while the patent is valid - which is kind of the point, but an example from just last week where I had to buy medicine for infection in one nail. The pharmacist told me that I was "lucky" that the patent had expired, the drug used to cost $500, but now since the patent had expired it was available at $40. Theres no bloody way you can tell me that you need more than a 10 fold markup to cover the research!
What's more, if the law were patentable it would increase the cost of and appetite for litigation and requirement for lawyers proportionately. A win-win situation, unless you're unfortunate enough to be a lawyer.
In the current atmosphere of funding cuts to universities and researchers, they are looking for ways to monetize their 'intellectual property'. That means that data is jealously guarded and things aren't published the same way they used to be. The result is a lot of duplication of effort and a general slowing down of science. In that regard, patents are having an adverse effect on human progress. We got to where we are because scientists shared their findings after all.
0 .html
Bill Gates realizes that secrecy among scientists is slowing down aids research. As a condition for his funding of their aids research, he is insisting that they share their data. http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,,1824606,0
In general, patents are being abused and are not fulfilling their original purpose. The people lobbying for patent protection for software are actually evil. They want to enrich a certain group of people at the expense of the rest of the world. When you see someone like Bill Gates acknowledging that, you know it has to be true.
The strategy is brilliant. While I disagree with circumventing democracy because I am a strong (little d) democrat, I have to admit it has been a very effective way of a minority imposing a public policy decision over the objections of the "less enlightened" majority. Over time (a few decades), the people become accustomed to the new "right" and forget that it was imposed on them. Not only is the policy not reversible by election because it was imposed by an unelected and unaccountable branch of government, but it takes precedence over all enacted laws everywhere because it is now a federal "right". Brilliant.
I just read it as "UN Patents Wars" and let out a big WTF.
Bah... can we just pretend thats the headline and discuss?
Do not fool around. Its impossible that a half-assed, entertainment industry fueled and manned makeshift 'court' that is claiming to be international will be able to overrule national high courts.
In brussels they have condemned ariel sharon as a war criminal. What happened ? If he is to step on belgian soil he is to be arrested - only belgium. thats what happened.
Read radical news here
Last time it was big in the news, I read a lot of opinion-peces about European softwarepatents.
There is one part of patents that I miss in your explanation of them. And that is part of the history behind them.
Or, as Paul Graham writes:
You don't get a patent for nothing. In return for the exclusive right to use an idea, you have to publish it, and it was largely to encourage such openness that patents were established.
Before patents, people protected ideas by keeping them secret. With patents, central governments said, in effect, if you tell everyone your idea, we'll protect it for you., http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html
The publishing is why they work for better mouse-traps and so on. After a reasonable period for getting back the money invested in designing a better mousetrap (the period the patent is protected), everyone can improve again on said mousetrap. The reason CocaCola didn't patent the recepe for it's product is that the protection is time-limited. Having a secret formula is better (for them) then sharing it and have a temporary monopoly.
One of the problems with swpat is the length of the monopoly. During the protection-period innovation is not improved or promoted. Only after this period is innovation by other people possible. It was, long ago, usual for innovation to go slow (think windmills and waterpumps). These days it goes very fast. The patentsystem does not and can not take that into account.
I remember reading a piece on this, just can't remember where.
Hope this helps a bit, cause these patents have to be stopped.
Greets,
David
The FSF Europe's Ciaran O'Riordan wrote in his article about the role of the European Parliament:
in the EPLA they have no influence
That is not necessarily correct. The first procedural question to be clarified concerning the EPLA is whether any of the 25 (soon to be 27) member states of the European Union are allowed to ratify it on their own. The European Commission's legal services say that the EPLA can only be concluded by EU member states as a so-called mixed agreement, which means that the EU (or in legal terms, the European Community, but to most people that's the same anyway) would have to become a virtual contracting state to the EPLA.
I have already predicted in my blog that the European Commission is going to ask the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for an opinion on this question. They're not going to take their chances and create a court that might later be illegal from an EU perspective (with the effect that all of its rulings would be invalidated overnight).
If the ECJ were to support the opinion of the European Commission's legal services, the immediate follow-on question from our perspective is whether the European Parliament, which is the most important bastion of balanced patent policy in Europe, is going to have a decisive role or whether it's just going to be consulted (in which case its opinion could be ignored). I already discussed this question with specialists of the European Commission more than five months ago, and they said that the EPLA would require modifications to certain parts of the existing EU law (the so-called "acquis communautaire") that are subject to the codecision procedure. The codecision procedure is the one under which the parliament has more influence in the EU than under any other procedure. My book No Lobbyists As Such - The War over Software Patents in the European Union discusses in detail the way the codecision procedure works: it's the procedural framework under which the software patent directive got rejected.
Therefore, it's little surprise that certain die-hard proponents of the EPLA take the position that the EPLA can be ratified by any European country, including any member state of the EU, without EU involvement, while we (the anti-software patent camp) very much hope that the European Parliament is going to be needed.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fighting-software-p
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/savingeurope.html
Stallman: "Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and especially whenever you used an algorithm that you read in a journal or implemented a feature that users ask for, you took a risk of being sued."
The key difference is that one person can easily create a single software product that sinultaneously contains any number of 'patentable' ideas. This is the opposite of patenting in eg. chemical engineering or pharmaceuticals, which tend to focus on a single complete process or product (such as a compound).
The basic problem with the current European patent law is that it disallows
software patents but is vaguely worded to the point that some courts interpret
it to allow software patents. Thus in Europe today some countries' court
systems allow software patents and some disallow software patents. The pro
software patent lobby is trying to create a single Europe wide court that will
allow software patents all over Europe. The anti software lobby is trying to
block the single Europe wide patent court in an effort to keep software patents
from spreading. Part of the problem with fighting the proposed new court is that
aside from the software patent issue the single Europe wide patent court is
basically a good idea.
I propose that we block the single European patent court as a delaying tactic
only. In the meantime we should lobby to get the European patent laws amended
to where the anti software patent clause explicitly bans software patents in no
uncertain terms. There is a fair bit of support for such amendments among the
members of the European Parliament. Once we get the law amended then we could
enthusiastically support the creation of a unified European patent court
because the new court would disallow software patents all across Europe.
------------------
Steve Stites
"There is one part of patents that I miss in your explanation of them. And that is part of the history behind them."
;-)
;-) In any case, swpats *ARE* much more researched, and on top of that, it is very incremental in nature, and differs considerably from physical objects (near zero-cost in multiplying comes to mind), and vry broad claims can be made which are virtually impossible to verify (and the 'publishing' of the 'secret' often is completely useless too, in most cases (souce code is not necessary, after all, for getting the patent; a 'description' suffices).
Well...I thought it was long enough as it is, seen it was originally meant for a MEP to read
In fact some complain it's too long as it is (that's why I made a seperate page of the 'concusion' when I send it).
But anyway, regarding the history: I remember reading a research-paper where it was investigated if the 'innovation' was less in countries that had copy-right, compared to those that didn't (around the 19th century, I believe). It turned out that, contrary to popular wisdom, this wasn't the case, though the countries did differ in the *kind* of area's where they were most innovative in. If this holds true, then even the basic premise whether or not patents (as a whole) are useful in promoting innovation could be false, or at least, not nuanced enough. I believe there was another research during the 1980ies in australia, where the conclusion there too was that there were no indications that patents improved innovation (this was not about software-patents, mind you). Now, this kind of research on the patent-system as a whole is rather rare; it's like no researchers even doubt the premise it's good for promoting innovation.
I sense you are making a different variant, by saying that it keeps things non-secret. But honestly, I don't care about WHET kind of research is kept secret or not, as long as society as a whole gets better, and thus, if innovation and progres is, on the long run, augmenting or not, because of the use of a system. There are indications that the patent system as a whole does not acomplish this, but more research should be done (leaving the question: why isn't it done).
It could be, that the beneficial versus the counterproductive (in terms of innovation) aspects of patents depend strongly on the matter it deals with (R.Stallman has made a video-explanation of that), and of course, how long the period of patents lasts, and how extensive the 'publication' is. Regarding the area or matter it deals with, some products, like physical machineries or new medical drugs may indeed be stimulated by the fact they get a protection (though even there, it is the question how long that protection should last; what is the 'optimum' to get incentive for the corps to go for it (R&D), and the benefit to society. It could well be, that 2 years would be enough as an incentive in some earea's, where 20 is overkill and society is worse off. Seen most profit is made in the first two years by many products, one can not shed the feeling the current patent-system is (for most products) not a good deal for society.
Now, again it must be said: not all that much research has been done about this, exept about one specific area, namely software-patents. This is probably due to the fact it is fairly recent (in europe they are still not allowed), and because, well, IT-nerds can make quite a fuss about it.
The fact it got reasonably well researched showed very clearly that, at least for swapts, it *DID NOT* promote innovation and progress in its field, using the current patent-system - on the contrary, there are indications it inhibits it.
That alone is sufficient for me to keep software out of the patent-system. And more-over; I would argue there is a need to research the proclaimed benefits of the patent system as a whole (or at least, in different fields/area's), and if it would be shown that it is not beneficial, or that it would be more so in some fields, if the time-period
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
This has nothing to do with the US battle over abortion, please don't attempt to associate anti software patent campaigners with the lunatic pro-life fringe.
The EU Patent office is not the diploma mill that the USPTO has become. And the USPTO itself was much more sensible until the 1980s when Reagan tried to turn it into a profit center.
There are legit software patents, the RSA algorithm for example is a non trivial piece of intellectual work. 98% of software, business model and genetic patents are unadulterated crap but that does not mean that there is no legitimacy possible.
The Free Software movement is fixated on ending software patents because that is the personal obsession of RMS. It is not a realistic political goal. Reform of the USPTO on the other hand is very realistic and can gain support from both Open Source advocates and from the major software companies like IBM and Microsoft. The diploma mill even hurts the legitimate small inventor who has actually invented something. Send a notice of infringement to any large company today and it will be ignored. There are simply too many notices sent, to get attention you now have to file suit.
I wrote an essay on how we could reform the USPTO its on my blog some time I will get round to finishing part 4.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
The average cost of developing a drug is about 3/4 of a billion dollars nowdays. Thats to cover the many, many failure cases that initially looked promising ('we cured the disease but destroyed the kidneys', etc.) and things like human trials, long term health studies, etc. Only after paying these large up front costs can a drug be sold at a profit. Actual manufacture of most drugs is very cheap, so after the patent expires the price represents manufacturing costs. This is a case of patents working properly. No private drug company would develop drugs without patents because you could never compete on manufacturing price with a company that didn't have $750 000 000 in debt.
The big difference, as I see it, is that the requirement that patents be 'non-obvious to a skilled practitioner in the art' is being ignored in fields where patents are detrimental.
Frankly, the problem is that lawyers and to some extent business people don't understand how programming works.
But they understand biochemistry, metallurgy, and electrical engineering, right?
If that's the problem, then the same problem applies to the other areas mentioned. Lawyers understand law, and society, and logic. The good ones also understand people. In general, they aren't too knowledgable about the sciences and engineering fields.
I used to think that patents were a good thing. I don't think so any more. The more we try to tie up knowledge of any sort whatsoever, the worse we are as a whole. I used to think it was only fair to give the inventor of a new method a temporary monopoly, but that's when I thought individuals held patents, not major corporations.
I see only two solutions. One: get rid of patents altogether. That's the best solution. The second solution isn't as good, but it'll work a lot better than the current system: only the individual or individuals who create a new method may hold the patent. It is non-transferable. Corporations may not hold patents themselves, nor can the inventors sell or give away the patent. They may, of course, license the patent, but they are the only ones who can enforce the patent rights. A third party may not attempt to enforce the patents at all.
Yes, I know. Corporations would then enter into binding contracts with the patent holders for exclusive, transferable rights to a patent, then buy and sell those as if they were the patents themselves. But it's a start.
Come to think of it, the same system could be applied to music and movies. Only those individuals who create the song or film may hold copyright, and copyright is non-transferable. The only thing a music company can do is negotiate distribution rights.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
If the EPO and European courts rule in favor of a patent, most member countries will feel bound to apply the European laws and not many politicians will still fight against software patents.
I would not even be opposed to software patents myself if new patent applications didn't tend to be like their worst predecessors, in terms of conciseness, effective scope and later on taking responsibility for bad patents (instead of interpreting them in court).
My distrust arises because the move towards the lowest common denominator is hastened by standardization across countries and nations, and because the next move might be standardization with the practice of US patents. If the USA reviewed all of their patents or the moon is made of green cheese, then there would be less to worry about.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
was
You understand correctly, however stance and practice are different so your post could be misleading ;-)
The following email contains snippets from earlier EPO rulings involving art52. These rulings are clear and consistant.
Now for the EPO's current practice:
The EPO have become a joke!
The thing is, I don't personally have a problem with restricting the freedom of coders to rip off the results of others' hard work before those others have a chance to gain some reasonable return on their investment. That's what software patents (or any patents) are supposed to do.
What I have a problem with is a patent system that:
None of these things is necessary to achieve the objective that patents are supposed to support, and it is problems like these that lead to abusive companies that just hoard IP and sue others, and more generally to cross-licensing among the big guys to keep the little guys out of the market.
I oppose software patents because, in practice, these things seem to be inevitable under any scheme similar to what we see around the world today. I don't oppose them because I object to the principle of rewarding worthwhile investment.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I am not very familiar with US legislation but here in Yurop courts can't create laws, they can decide only based on existing laws.
Which is exactly how software patents were originally created, by lawyers and courts, in the US (as I, who ANAP(atent)L understand what happened.)
US law explicitly excluded "mathematical algorithms" from patentability. The patent office and the courts interpreted this to include programs (which are algorithms for performing computations involving arithmetic and boolean logic, both of which are branches of mathematics.)
But an inventor and his lawyers rendered a computation for process control into a logic circuit and applied for a patent on it, as an invention in process control (or perhaps a patent on the process itself). There were plenty of similar patents on the books going back to the foundation of automation, so this was nothing new, and the invention was clearly patentable.
But they included a claim on replacing the complex logic circuit implementing one part of the process with a computer programmed to do the same thing. This seemed reasonable. So the patent office granted the patent.
The claim was challenged as patenting an algorithm, and the courts upheld it. (Absent such a ruling, anybody could sidestep the patent on a process involving automation by replacing the special-purpose circuitry with a general-purpose piece of process-control hardware programmed to emulated it.)
And the camel's nose was in the tent.
Further rulings clarified the doctrine: You couldn't patent a mathematical algorithm per se. But you COULD patent doing something USEFUL with it.
So a program, or component of it, that does something useful becomes something patentable.
Thus, for instance, the RSA patent doesn't patent the COMPUTATION. It patents the USE of the computation to ENCRYPT INFORMATION.
Now tell me how the EU's courts couldn't do the equivalent, and thus "legislate by interpreting".
(Please note, by the way, that the US legal system is explicitly based on English Common Law, which shares principals with much of the law of Europe (excluding France's Code Napoleon). I would presume the EU's system would be compatible with that, if only to enable the EU to include England.)
(In case this posts as "Anonymous Coward": it's really by "Ungrounded Lightning (Rod)". yro.slashdot.org doesn't seem to understand cookies today.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
My opinion is that we should allow patents on absolutely everything, and simply let the patent trolls cause the entire system to implode on itself.
Back in the '60s a LOT of people thought the same things would work on the drug laws (as they believed it had on alcohol prohibition). So they tried it.
Didn't work worth a damn.
Instead the US now has the largest percentage of population in prison of any country in the world. It has federal laws requiring long-term incarceration for drug offenders creating prison overcrowding that results in court decisions releasing violent felons. It has prison tent camps in the desert on the model of WWII concentration camps. And it has the RICO laws creating the same incentive structure that drove the Spanish Inquisition: The "criminal"'s property is forfeit to the law enforcement organization that accused him.
And you think this will work with patents, where the main entities that would have to be "civilly disobedient" would be corporations, whose officers have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders to avoid breaking the law, even in tiny ways, and thus have their assets siezed?
No, I don't think so.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You're missing the point. It's not about the merits of the policy (good or bad), but how the policy is enacted. The patent people have lost democratically, now they are using the courts to circumvent democracy. The g-grandparent post was about this being a novel tactic, but it is not novel, because it has been used repeatedly in America to get around a recalcitrant majority that simply refuses to enact certain policies that some people (including you apparently) feel strongly about. Abortion and contraception are simply illustrative examples of sucessful use of the same tactic of using the courts to override the majority in the legislature. The comparison is valid.
Again like the AC, you are missing the point. My point is about they are using the same successful tactic, regardless of the actual merits of the individual cases. So now, what if the Euro-Court finds that the right to software patents has always existed under Euro-law because it falls within the unwritten penumbra of existing property and patent rights, and not issuing the patents violates the rights of the software developer who is seeking the patent?
Of course, who would object to the principle of rewarding worthwhile investment?
It is the unethical nature of the reward that is the problem.
Think of a king that rewarded the inventor of chess with a hundred slaves and concubines to do with as he would. Perhaps a financial reward would be better than one that involved the enslavement of one's fellow men - irrespective of whether such power is in the king's gift?
Software patents are a reward that consists of impacting the freedom of all other software engineers for a limited period, in order that the unscrupulous patent filer, blighter that he is, can enjoy making hay while his competitors' hands are tied.
Don't you think, for just a moment, that perhaps it's a tad unethical to restrain everyone's right to practice their craft, just because it might possibly encourage some genius who has an algorithm that no-one else has thought of, that this genius isn't even willing to tell anyone else about, to publish that algorithm?
Without software patents, such a genius must demonstrate to his fellow men that he has an amazing algorithm, and why it is so fantastic, and that he is prepared to disclose it to any person, or group of persons, in exchange for a goodly chunk of money. Why on earth can't this chappie be satisfied with money?
And if he can't find anyone who is interested in buying his secret, and yet continues to believe that his secret is amazingly powerful, well, perhaps he jolly well should simply keep it secret. When he has successfully exploited it, people can start offering him money for it.
If the point is, that's it's highly likely that someone else may think of it, well then, it bloody well shouldn't be patentable!
And if the problem is that the idea can't be exploited unless it is disclosed, well, no need for patents to encourage disclosure. The public acclaim would easily be sufficient to tip the balance between keeping a privately unexploitable algorithm secret vs published.
I will not accept the enslavement of my fellow man, nor any imposition upon his liberty, as reward for my ingenuity.
No, I'm not missing the point. What I was saying is that using that same tactic may not work in Europe because it may not have an "unwritten penumbra" concept like the US does (and the US only has this concept because of the Amendments I quoted).
In other words, your tactic may not be applicable because the legal frameworks are different. This is especially true in the area of patents: in the US, patents exist "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," * while in Europe patents exist explicitly as the moral entitlement of the inventor. Because of that, arguments about what is or is not reasonable to patent that are applicable to the US are not applicable to Europe.
If a European citizen can provide a definitive answer on this, it would be nice...
* Prior to the Berne Convention, that is, when the US basis for patents and copyrights was (unconstitutionally) aligned with that of Europe.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I have no problem with companies making money off programs, but they should not be able to patent the parts that make the program, just the program itself.
There already is protection for software producers, it's called copyright. As far as making money off of software there are a number of companies who do that with open source software.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You've heard of "the twinkie defence": a mthod and system of avoiding legal culpability by claiming that one's competence was temporarily abeyed by the consumption of sugary confectionary.
Arguing for the patenting of legal argument is taking the fight to the lawyers.
(cue Star Wars song here...) ....
It is a dark time for the (Anti Software Patents lobby). Although the (Software Patent bill) has been destroyed, (the pro patent lobbyists) have driven the (Anti Software Patents lobbyists) from their (strong position in the patent discussion) and pursued them across (Europe).
...
Evading the dreaded (pro patent lobbyist laywers), a group of freedom fighters led by (Florian Müller) has established a new secret (anti-patent lobbying plan) on the remote (server of www.nosoftwarepatents.com). The evil (EPO), obsessed with (introducing software patents), has dispatched thousands of (FUD-remarks) into the far reaches of (Europe).
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
This is about the same thing I said to the FFII: our struggle is too passive; we're just waiting and fending off attempts to get softwarepatents validated.
What we *should* be doing is being more pro-active, and try to get a law passed (or at least proposed) which would unify the patent law (which, on itself, is a good thing), but which explicitly forbids patents on software.
We can never win on the long run, if we only defend, and the megacorps keep attacking: WE have to be pushing forwards with our goal as well, so THEY are in the defense!
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Some industry insiders' views on software patents as well as links to several interesting papers can be found in the blog of Sun's Simon Phipps.
The Free Software movement is fixated on ending software patents because that is the personal obsession of RMS.
Your items on this topic would in general be better regarded if they weren't prefaced with anti-RMS digs.
The danger of patents to the FOSS world is immense, and you know it. Just because you don't like RMS doesn't make it any less so. And if you'd read why the FSF and RMS are so anti patents without wearing your anti-RMS glasses, you'd know that they absolutely must do so, or the entire concept of Free Software becomes dead in the water.
Try to avoid scratching your personal itch about RMS. It just undermines any valid points you may have.