Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Software Patent War Ignites Again

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the another-skirmish dept.

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."

16 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. the best solution, obviously by User+956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    Yes, because clearly the best solution isn't to simply fix the law, but to create an entirely new governmental bureacracy.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:the best solution, obviously by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the best solution isn't to simply fix the law

      The law is fixed. The law specifically disallows software patents. The "infamous" directive mentioned in the writeup failed, so the law still specifically disallows software patents. The patent office issues them anyway. Isn't it funny how laws telling people what to do result in fines, jail time, and execution if you break them, but laws telling the government what to do have absolutely no punishment when the government breaks them?

      So to enforce the patents, whoever is behind this clusterfuck intends to create an entirely new court system, specifically for the purpose of "legislating from the bench".

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  2. Nostalgia... by patrixmyth · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ah, remember the good old days with patent and copyright law was crafted to ENCOURAGE innovation and PROTECT creative work, rather than STIFLE competition and REWARD petty lawsuits? No? Well, me neither, but I've seen the footprints in the woods.

    --
    "Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
    1. Re:Nostalgia... by kfg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

  3. It's too bad... by TheWoozle · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's too bad that I can't patent a political process by which ridiculous laws are passed by clueless people. I'd be the richest man in the universe.

    --
    Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
  4. Sad, isn't it ? by mickwd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article:

    In rebuttal, the three groups have filed a motion calling for "balance between the interests of patent holders and the broader public interest in innovation and competitive markets"

    Sad, isn't it, when the groups opposing this are calling for a "balance" between patent holders and the greater public good.

    Surely, the whole point of patents was "the broader public interest in innovation and competitive markets" ?

    So how can McCreevy and co. get away with opposing "the broader public interest in innovation and competitive markets", the will of our elected EU politicians, and the wishes of by far the majority of the population who have expressed an interest in the matter ?

  5. international issues by sedyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?
    1. Re:international issues by Burz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For example, if patent office A says that something is obvious, but patent office B in another nation claims that it isn't

      The answer is you sign a "free-trade" treaty to "synchronize" your "intellectual property" laws with the United States. Then you just do whatever the Americans tell you.

  6. Why SMALL businesses reject software patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The enormous cost (3million EUROS) of litigating any patent dispute means small businesses simply cannot benefit from having patents when a large company infringes their patents . We absolutely do not want software patents because they are harmful to innovation in our own businesses. Indeed, we demand any attempt to introduce them in Europe is completely rejected. Two years ago, over 200,000 small businesses in Europe signed a petition to the European Commission totally rejecting the idea of introducing software patents in Europe, and totally rejecting the idea of harmonising legal processes in a way that might support software patents.

    1. Re:Why SMALL businesses reject software patents by csirac · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your naivety is scary. The problem isn't whether you can copy the idea -- it's whether you can actually COMPETE.

      Your ignorance is scary. Do you really believe they need your help, and the patent office's help to continue succeed as they are already? They don't need software patents NOW, so what makes you think they need them at all?

      Do you have millions of dollars to throw at advertising? Government lobbyists? Exclusive contracts with major institutions?

      This is absolutely laughable. Why the hell do you think litigation should be the answer to everybody's problems?

      Have you ever worked for a small company? Worked with one? Worked in a country outside the USA? _LARGE_ business names that you've never even heard of, let alone the ones you have, employ a tiny tiny fraction of employment to the workforce the world over. Consequently they also provide a tiny fraction of overall services to other businesses, and government.

      Your understanding of business seems to be lacking, although I'll also admit I'm just an engineer that happens to work for a small company. This year we've done several contracts for the federal government of Australia; and one for a large multinational. The rest of our business is to other small businesses, but by no means do we need: government lobbyists (well, we do now - because we have software patents, thankyou FTA!), advertising dollars, or "exclusive" contracts with major institutions (we're already their best choice based on technical merit, we don't need secret handshakes to earn money).

      I don't think you understand what it takes to be successful against these companies. ... I can't respond to that statement without resorting to expletives... all I can suggest is try and open your eyes a little, and look before you think.

      All these guys are asking for is the status quo, like he said. Not world domination - just to keep doing what they're doing. Patents are meant to encourage innovation which benefits mankind by way of enabling a temporary monopoly that rewards the inventor, NOT to encourage monopolies (using ideas that are often: obvious, duplicates of, or outright created by other inventors years earlier), NOR are they meant to simply act as a vehicle to crush competition.

      MOST engineers I know from university are employed by small niche companies, some of them even employed by big names/big government for parts of contracts these guys tend to be best at. It's amusing that without even looking, they are fully aware of some of their products infringing on patents (thanks to industry journals publicising stupid patents) from their big-name competitors - the best they can do is hope they stay small enough to avoid attention. You do not need to be "number 1" to be a useful entity. Are you saying all small businesses should be abolished because they're useless? That there's no point to them, so stepping on their toes doesn't matter? The point is that without patents, small businesses are turning a profit, employing most of the workforce, but what you're saying is that you know better?

      Next we'll see music patents. Seriously, the biggest threat to small business is other businesses ripping off their copyright, which is much simpler to prosecute even if the other side has a huge army of undead lawyers.

      I'm an engineer at a small company (less than $2 million AUD a year), and I'm holding up a small system that's completely developed in-house used as part of our service business. We are profitable because my wages plus off-the-shelf hardware costs a fraction of what the license fees for an off-the-shelf software product with proprietary hardware would be. Thanks to the Free Trade Agreement with America, we're now open to frivilous patent litigation from the big name companies selling their solutions in the USA and elsewhere.

      Where does that leave my small company? Up shit creek, actually. We have no interest in filing patents for "our" innovations; what the hell would we fight them with? A

    2. Re:Why SMALL businesses reject software patents by Anomalyst · · Score: 3, Insightful
      copyright laws aren't sufficient to protect software inventions
      Sorry, I have been coding for over thirty years there is NO "invention" taking place in that process any more than a plumbers or carpenters solution to a tricky bathroom remodeling around a basement support pole is patentable. Solving these issues can be done by any competent practitioner, similar coding would be created by a majority of the programming community given a correctly defined problem. I.E. what we do is OBVIOUS and NOT patentable.
      Despite the ignorant opinion of a Judge, there is nothing patentable in any piece of code in and of itself. If the USPTO had a history of correctly, consistantly and properly doing their job, I might concede that its possible that when software is intimately embedded in a physical device that such a device in its entirety might be patentable, but it would have to be something non-obvious and provably absent of prior art, and not just "with a computer" or "over the internet" of some other solution. We in the US are already inundated with big business garbage sliding down THAT slippery slope and software patents have proven to be a decision whose negatives far outweigh the positives.
      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  7. Welcome to Democracy by ClamIAm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it's safe to say most Slashdotters prefer a form of government where they have a voice, and this probably means most of us favor some form of liberal democracy. Well, Wendell Philips said it best when he described the price of liberty as "eternal vigilance". There will always be forces in the world trying to subvert liberty to serve their own ends, and this means that there must always be people who will stand up for what is right.

    I realize this is kind of a sappy/idealistic post, but, um, I think there's some measure of truth here.

    1. Re:Welcome to Democracy by Shawn+is+an+Asshole · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't for the life of me figure out what makes people hate software patents more than other types of patents...

      For one thing, software already has copyright. Why does it also need patents?

      Say I write a song with a I-IV-V progression. I have copyright on that song now. Should I also be able to patent the I-IV-V progression and begin suing everyone over it?

      --
      "It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
    2. Re:Welcome to Democracy by KwKSilver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actaually, your arguments in this thread--taken at face value--make a powerful case to outlaw all patents. Thanks.

      --
      If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
  8. Hard to enforce. Fortunately by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  9. Eh,,, by Barts_706 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once in my life I felt proud to be Polish - it was when we blocked the issue of software patents.

    It looks like we have won the battle, but the war will continue as long as there is overload of bureacracy in EU and moloch corporations to be lobbying.

    Personally, being a Linux user (perhaps not the most advanced around, but at least trying) I shiver at the tought of software patents being introduced and what effect this might have on our distributions. No left-click, no double-click, no <insert_your_favourite_nix_feature_here>?

    I do hope this issue will be bounced back again. For the sake of us all.