Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Central Court Could Validate Software Patents

Posted by timothy on from the we-have-come-seeking-rent dept.

protoshell writes "'Software patents in Europe could be validated with a central patent court,' warns Richard Stallman in an article published in the Guardian. After the rejection of the software patent directive in 2005, large companies have shifted their lobbying towards the validation of software patents in Europe through a central patent court, which is foreseen with the Unitary Patent project. Even if the European Patent Convention literally excludes software from patents, the European Patent Office and the German courts interpret the exclusion narrowly, which makes software patents valid in the end."

8 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the European Patent Office and the German courts interpret the exclusion narrowly, which makes software patents valid in the end.

    Pathetic...so it's narrowly interpretable whenever they chose so, but broadly interpretable when they chose so too?

    Fuk dis shit.

    1. Re:Pathetic by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I really wonder if what we're seeing here is the complete and utter failure of democracy as a viable form of government. You don't see this kind of stuff in China, where the government is more interested in the whole nation actually advancing, instead of particular people or companies who pay off the right people. What we have in Western democracies is a ridiculous amount of blatant corruption from corporations, and there doesn't seem to be any kind of mechanism to deal with this. In theory, the ballot box is supposed to be a check against corruption, but in practice it simply doesn't work as voters are too stupid and easily swayed to vote for the right candidates, instead of corporate-backed corrupt candidates.

    2. Re:Pathetic by GumphMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Graft, corruption, and self-interest exist, even in China.

      In theory, the ballot box is supposed to be a check against corruption, but in practice it simply doesn't work as voters are too stupid and easily swayed to vote for the right candidates, instead of corporate-backed corrupt candidates

      You are supposing that there is a "right candidate" (and that that candidate is the one you would choose).

      It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
      Sir Winston Churchill
      British politician (1874 - 1965)

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  2. And You Could Be The Next Winner! by F69631 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a citizen of the EU, I know that EU has a lot of flaws. The economic policies, the subsidies, etc... However, so far both the legislative branches and the courts have been simply awesome when it comes to not giving in to the lobbying of multinational companies. The courts have been handing fines for anti-competitive practices, privacy violations, etc. left and right (and yes, for european companies too) and the legislators have destroyed software patents, 3-strikes copyright laws, etc. at every occasion. When we do get horrible laws, they're generally based on "think of the children" or "terrorism".

    So yeah... The software patents could be validated but frankly, I'm rather optimistic about this.

  3. If Richard Stallman says so ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If Richard Stallman says so ...

    I mean seriously ...? The line separating this "news" from pure FUD is a very thin one ...

    1. Re:If Richard Stallman says so ... by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I, too, am glad that we are fortunate enough to live in a world where none of RMS's 1980s predictions about future attempts to increase corporate and governmental control over technology have come to fruition.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  4. Re:Good for me? by knarf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So if I am a garage startup in Europe: Is this a good thing?

    Of course not. Suppose that you come up with something that piques the interest of one of the big boys. You'll soon be ceasing and desisting whatever it was that they want under the onslaught of a megaton of patents on everything from the way you press the 'Q' key on your keyboard to the best time of day to pick your nose. In the end they will have what they want - namely whatever it was that you did which got them interested - and you'll be left bankrupt.

    Patents are not for small inventors. They are there for those with war chests full of them and, of course, lawyers.

    --
    --frank[at]unternet.org
  5. Re:Good for me? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are good for people who create things that are actually novel (nobody in the computer industry does). When you create a new moustrap that is provably different in every way than all others, then they won't have anything else to get you with. But with computers, almost nothing is close to novel. It's all been done before, it's just being presented/assembled in a different manner. Someone owns a patent on "using a compiler to compile software people want to buy" so there's nothing you could ever make that wouldn't be covered by someone else's broad and silly patents. That's why software patents need to be destroyed. They are patents on math. You can't patent a new formula, no matter how hard it was to prove. But you can patent that formula when you add "on a computer" on the end.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska