Slashdot Mirror
EU Software Patent War Ignites Again
pieterh writes "ZDNet UK has a detailed article on the heating-up of the software patent debate in Europe. A new motion before the European Parliament calls for a harmonised patent court (EPLA) that would be able to enforce software patents across Europe. This comes just 15 months after the EP rejected the infamous Computer Implemented Inventions directive." From the article: "Patents on software are formally disallowed under the European patent system, but are routinely granted by the European patent office, according to critics. They are currently difficult to enforce in many EU member states, something critics say would be changed by the failed software patent directive, and now by the EPLA. Software patents are generally considered to add to the legal costs of large enterprises, as well as creating a hostile legal environment for smaller software businesses and open source projects."
I've always wondered about how patents work beyond their own borders (I don't understand patent law very well).
For example, if patent office A says that something is obvious, but patent office B in another nation claims that it isn't (and subsequently grants the patent, potentially to another company) what are the possible ramifications and remedies? Or is a company expected to request patents by all offices? Or once a patent is declared invalid in one jurisdiction is anyone else (in another nation) allowed to apply for it?
What I just asked could be complete non-sense, but it is something that I am curious about.
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
Yes.
The mission statement of the copyright act under which I grew up:
"The main object to be desired in expanding copyright protection accorded to music has been to give the composer an adequate return for the value of his composition, and it has been a serious and difficult task to combine the protection of the composer with the protection of the public, and to so frame an act that it would accomplish the double purpose of securing to the composer an adequate return for all use made of his composition and at the same time prevent the formation of oppressive monopolies, which might be founded upon the very rights granted to the composer for the purpose of protecting his interests"
The term was 28 years renewable, giving a maximum of a 56 year monopoly, double the previous time limit. Who knew that I would one day be looking back at those footprints in the woods with nostalgia for a time when copyrights might last more than a century longer and cover every laundry list and office memo?
KFG
The best solution would be to simply disallow patenting software altogether. Software implementations are already covered by copyright, and that's about as much as there should be to keep competition running. The US have patentable software, and we've seen far too many instances where the system has been abused to patent ridiculous implementations for the sake of stifling competition.
And that's anything but free market!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.