Slashdot Mirror
Software Patent Debate Over in Europe For Now?
Anonymous EPA writes "The website of the European Patent Office is running a story about a recent agreement not to revive the debate on software patents in Europe nor to promote new legislation. To quote: 'All speakers welcomed unequivocally the opportunity to discuss the issue at a high level and made clear that a new CII (computer-implemented inventions) debate followed by legal modifications was neither necessary nor desirable.'"
IMHO, because software patents can still be filed in Europe, there will always be the threat of passing some kind of legislation in the future that will enforce European software patents...this danger changes forms as necessary, but does not go away.
Just because you get modded "insightful" on Slashdot doesn't mean you actually are in real life.
They tried such a stunt already. And as far as I recall it didn't go over too well.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
The current European Parliament members have learned what soft patents mean, and know their consequences.
Hence these guys are going to crawl back under their rock and try to make themselves forgotten until after the next elections.
That'd be my take on it, too.
Alternately it's just a PR move to get everyone to drop their guard so that the pro-sw crowd (aka MS) can try fast tracking it through some agriculture and fisheries committee or other unexpected venue. It'd be a clever trick to get suckered in to giving up just as we're about to finalize the victory. So, if it's the pro-swpatent crowd saying the debate is over, I'd recommend extreme caution.
It'd be very unwise to consider the debate over until even the very possibility of sw patents has a wooden stake in it and is buried upside down at a Crossroads with garlic and holy wafers in its mouth. One way to do it would be a re-affirmation of the 1974 European Patent Convention which, in Article 52, explicitly excludes "schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers".
Currently there are parts of Europe which, rather than follow EU law, style themselves as a 51st state and take after US law instead. That occurs in spite of being member states in the EU and not in the US. Sweden, for example, is one which has a patent office promoting software patents. For that matter the European Patent Office is still granting (invalid) patents on software. Until these and the others actually start following EU law by refusing further patents on software and annulling any previously granted software patents, the danger is not reduced. If anything, complacency increases the risk.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
It seems to me that you are a victim to the illusion that anything important that happens, happens in the US. Other parts of the world develop stuff as well, you know. Especially Europe.
and as far as i know (which may not be much), h.264 was developped in an international context, by the ITU-T and MPEG, a subgroup of ISO/IEC. The "I" in each acronym stands for international. The ITU-T is actually based in Switzerland. It doesn't sound like the US alone developped it, and that now Europe wants to steal hard-working americans' money to use it.
~~~ Paf. Le chien.
The debate may be over for now at the European (i.e. EU) level, but it rages on in the UK, with recent decisions from the UK Intellectual Property Office ruling that computer program product claims are not allowable. See the following for more details:
- aerotelmacrossan.htmlp rogram-claims-at-uk-ipo.html
t op-asking-questions.html
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2007/07/fallout-from
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-computer-
The EPO, however, have said that they don't even want to address the questions:
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2007/06/epo-please-s
The debate will rumble on for a while yet.
"They would much rather have EPO create new case law without debate and without those pesky MPs."
The European Courts don't use an English Common Law system of precedents, so so there is no such thing as "new case law". ECJ Judges will often use prior decisions as a basis for their opinions, but are in no way obliged to, so the fact that one group of judges interpreted laws in a particular way doesn't mean that a different set of judges will do so. One can therefore have a situation where one software patent is upheld while another similar one gets rejected on the grounds that software patents aren't valid due to the fact that two panels of judges interpret the spirit of the existing laws differently.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
To be fair, Eva Lichtenburger replied personally to my email correspondence on this issue in 2005 (much to my surprise - being a "nobody") and has taken great personal interest and not a little political risk in her position on this. Not only did I learn how the EU works as a result of this, I also feel genuinely listened to and part of it - so long as such debates are seriously continued.
I believe, technically, it's only if the murder occurs on EPO grounds, which are like embassies, beyond the reach of local national law. If an EPO employee committed a crime on German or Dutch soil, I believe he would be answerable to the local police. Also, an examiner gone postal would probably be arrested if he stepped outside the EPO's gates. However the independent sovereign status of the EPO does mean that its top-level staff can make a lot of money by escaping taxes; these advantages would be reduced if the EPO became an EU office. There is a lot of economic self-interest behind the politics.
There's a short summary of the EPO's origins and motives on the Digital Majority web site.
My blog