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."

Comments

Nostalgia...

[patrixmyth]

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.

It's too bad...

[TheWoozle]

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.

Re:the best solution, obviously

[Qzukk]

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".

Why SMALL businesses reject software patents

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why SMALL businesses reject software patents

[csirac]

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

Welcome to Democracy

[ClamIAm]

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.

Re:international issues

[Burz]

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.