Slashdot Mirror
EU Central Court Could Validate Software Patents
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."
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.
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.
If Richard Stallman says so ...
I mean seriously ...? The line separating this "news" from pure FUD is a very thin one ...
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
Abolish patents. Trust me, history has shown that without them, the world is a better place.
See this for reference:
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
You'll be parking a Yugo in that garage. Not a BMW.
Have gnu, will travel.
*note: this does not mean "performed by a specific computer" is not obvious. This is purely about whether a class of subject matter is potentially patentable. Yes, performing software on a computer is obvious, but if the software is new and non-obvious, then the claim as a whole can be patentable.
Disclaimer: I am a US patent attorney. I've gotten many patents issued on software performed by a computing device, as well as software embodied in articles of manufacture, both here and in Europe. That said, I'm not your attorney, and this isn't legal advice, and is purely for the purposes of (my own) amusement.
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
A dictator can make a decision which you might like; a democracy can make a decision which you do not like. Criticism of the EU is about the decision making process, not necessarily the actual decisions themselves (though enough of those have been criticised too).
The EU is undemocratic. The public did not have a say in the ratification of the EU constitution (in all but name). The politicians dragged their electorate into the scheme with out any consultation. It is a project driven by a European elite who care only about economic momentum (with you as a commodity). The public don't get to decide what legislation will be put before the council of ministers (or vote the ministers into their post) and the EU increasingly imposes decisions on the member states.
That's all great while the decisions they are making suit your point of view but wait till it swings the other way. The executive in the EU have more power than any individual European state and are unaccountable.
They were trying to push ACTA too, and look what happened in the end ? Eu Parl effectively banned acta eu wide so efficiently that it would serve no purpose. and thats why you dont hear about much these days probably.
Read radical news here
Not logged in but mod me TROLL. Ain't gonna happen. FUD, again. The only truth of this is that /. will post it as fact. Good night. Mod me Troll. Sheeeeeesh............. Come on guys, WTW?
The analogy I use is that if Karl Benz had filed his patent for the combustion engine in the way software patents are filed, it would have read something like:
1). Put hydrocarbon compound into metallic structure.
2). Get power out of metallic structure.
And Ford's would be "Use labor reduction to increase profits" for the business method patent of the assembly line?
Learn to love Alaska
Exactly. At least now in Europe, the courts are better for smaller guys than in the USA. As I understand it, in many European countries (particularly Germany), there's a "loser pays" rule, so if some jerk tries to sue you over something that's BS, and of course he loses, he has to pay all your legal fees. It's not like that here in the USA; you have to have plenty of money to mount a legal defense, no matter how ridiculous the lawsuit. Sometimes, depending on the whims of the judge you happen to be assigned to, and just how ridiculous the case is, he may grant you legal fees, but it's definitely not a sure thing.
However, Europe does have one big problem going against it: bankruptcy law. As I understand it, it's basically impossible to get out of debt by declaring bankruptcy, the way you can in the US. So here, if you start up a company, get some business loans to fund the venture, try it out for a while but it goes belly-up, no big deal, you just declare BK and the company folds. Obviously this means lenders have to be more careful about who they lend to, but shouldn't they always? In Europe, you're personally liable for all your business debts, so if your small business fails, whether due to incompetence or a bad economy, you'll become a debt slave for the rest of your life. As a result, not many people start businesses.
Just look at where all the small-business innovation is going on: even these days, it's all in the USA. How many innovate start-ups have you ever heard of in Europe? Where did all the Silicon Valley giants start up? The industries that Europe's really good at are generally big industries with Big (with a capital B) companies, such as Airbus, Siemens, Mercedes-Benz, etc. A lot of these companies are even partially state-owned, which is like the Chinese model.
Not true at all. I'll use the UK as an example because that's what I know. When starting in business you simply create a Limited company And Limited means limited liability. So the company can be sued for debt, but your exposure as a director is limited to the amount initially invested (most typical), or the amount you guarantee when you take on directorship.
Personal bankruptcy works much like the US with a credit history ding for six years, and debts written off after a year.
compared to how they just copy (in many cases poorly) from other nations and peoples?
While your view of China sounds grandiose and wonderful the fact remains, they don't innovate nearly as much as a society that protects the physical and intellectual property rights of individuals. While the idea of working for the common good is appealing human nature shows we are more likely to work harder for the common good when the individual rewards are considered worth while.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
European Stop Software Patents Petition
Furthermore, pirate it for profit and use the profits to undertake actions that will eventually undermine their authority.
Like buying ammunition, explosives and flammables? Because those are the only things that will do.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
That's not what I've heard about Germany specifically. I do know that the UK is very different in many ways from continental Europe (in everything, not just bankruptcy law), and a lot closer to the US, so I would tend to think of the UK as an exception for anything.
Everything you wrote sounds exactly like the US.
That's good to hear; I guess the information I read was a little dated. So why'd it take so long to bring that about anyway?
Exactly. At least now in Europe, the courts are better for smaller guys than in the USA. As I understand it, in many European countries (particularly Germany), there's a "loser pays" rule, so if some jerk tries to sue you over something that's BS, and of course he loses, he has to pay all your legal fees. It's not like that here in the USA; you have to have plenty of money to mount a legal defense, no matter how ridiculous the lawsuit. Sometimes, depending on the whims of the judge you happen to be assigned to, and just how ridiculous the case is, he may grant you legal fees, but it's definitely not a sure thing.
Yes, there's a loser pays rule in the UK....but you don't often get all of your costs, normally you get 70%, and you don't get them until afterwards. If you're the plaintiff you might also find your case thrown out because you won't be able to pay the other side's costs if you lose. If you're the defendent you're going to have to find many hundreds of thousands to pay lawyers and may run out, leaving you likely to lose, or go bankrupt before the end of the case. Better, maybe, but still likely to be instant death for the smallest companies or startups.