Slashdot Mirror
German Parliament Tells Government To Strictly Limit Patents On Software
jrepin writes "On Friday the 7th of June the German Parliament decided upon a joint motion to limit software patents. The Parliament urges the German Government to take steps to limit the granting of patents on computer programs (PDF, German; English translation). Software should exclusively be covered by copyright, and the rights of the copyright holders should not be devalued by third parties' software patents. The only exception where patents should be allowed are computer programs which replace a mechanical or electromagnetic component. In addition the Parliament made clear that governmental actions related to patents must never interfere with the legality of distributing Free Software."
... like copyright did. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg
computer programs which replace a mechanical or electromagnetic component
What would be realistic examples of this?
The only exception where patents should be allowed are computer programs which replace a mechanical or electromagnetic component.
Congratulations. You have just created legislation which will create a mechanical algorithm implementation industry.
If security of the code is paramount, then wouldn't it make more sense that it be completely open, moreso than common utilities?
This has always been a mantra of cryptography; security by obscurity is not security.
computer programs which replace a mechanical or electromagnetic component
What would be realistic examples of this?
software based radio? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software-defined_radio
Excerpt:
A software-defined radio system, or SDR, is a radio communication system where components that have been typically implemented in hardware (e.g. mixers, filters, amplifiers, modulators/demodulators, detectors, etc.) are instead implemented by means of software on a personal computer or embedded system.[1] While the concept of SDR is not new, the rapidly evolving capabilities of digital electronics render practical many processes which used to be only theoretically possible.
A basic SDR system may consist of a personal computer equipped with a sound card, or other analog-to-digital converter, preceded by some form of RF front end. Significant amounts of signal processing are handed over to the general-purpose processor, rather than being done in special-purpose hardware. Such a design produces a radio which can receive and transmit widely different radio protocols (sometimes referred to as waveforms) based solely on the software used.
Software radios have significant utility for the military and cell phone services, both of which must serve a wide variety of changing radio protocols in real time.
IMO, free is not free enough. For a mechanical patent, you provide specifications that must be detailed enough so that after the patent expires, other companies can build it. If the other company has to clean-room the code and rewrite it from scratch, then the source code provides no additional benefit to other companies beyond the specification of the data structures and math and what not.
No, any software company that wants a patent should be required to publish that software under a 2-clause or 3-clause BSD license.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
All software can be implemented using physical circuits, and vice versa. This looks like enough of a loophole to ensure that any legislation resulting from this motion accomplishes absolutely nothing whatsoever, other than wasting public money in its drafting.
How is that a better idea?
Surely you realize most business models built on software charge for distribution of said software? Everyone being allowed to redistribute copies or derived work to anyone else is clearly incompatible with that.
Or maybe you said "open-source" without realizing what it was. Releasing software in source form is fundamentally different from open source.
Can copyright possibly be worse than patenting? Copyright seems better to me because
A patent locks down the idea: "Story Patent: hero rescues the princess from evil knight".
Copyright allows different versions of that story, e.g. Star Wars: Episode Four, A New Hope.
There are lots of books, songs, plays, movies, games (console, pc, online); the creative side of the entertainment industry manages.
Copyrighting software like we copyright books makes wayyy more sense to me than patenting software.
There are plenty of books about mathematics; programs too.
Patenting math seems... patently absurd?
This isn't a better idea. Here is why:
Most software in the world is designed by companies seeking to make profit from selling this software. Software, as with any information, does not naturally support scarcity. Without scarcity value of any resource goes down to zero. As such, offering new software will not be profitable.
Now companies are not going to engage in non-profitable activities, so they will shift focus from producing software to some other activity revolving around software. There are multiple monetization methods available to open source software - they are service, customization, and deployment for compensation and in-software advertising. Aside from advertising, these do no apply to consumer-grade off-the-shelf software as it exists today.
So by advocating "open source everywhere" you are advocating one of the following: a) ad-ware b) end of user-friendly installation and patching, so it can be sold as as service.
Open source software is a hammer, it has plenty of good uses, but not everything is a nail.
Seems that while other countries are stuck in their backwards application of patent law on technologies for which it was never intended, Germany is recognizing the significant repercussions of allowing such actions. The German Parliament has taken positive steps here to declare that it should not be allowed to be abused in such ways. Bravo, Germany! Bravo. Keep up the good work.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
That's not true.
Unless you mean "most copies of software" instead of "most of the different programs".
Does your local grocery chain try to sell their logistics and backup scripts? No, didn't think so. Thanks for playing, try again...
On a related note: Canada threw out the patent for Pfizer's Viagra for this type of reason (U.S.C. 112 down here in the US). Pfizer didn't actually identify sildenafil in their patent, they just gave a set of chemical formulas with some of the positions as variables, and then a list of functional moieties (methyl, ethyl, butyl, futile) that can be placed at each position. Each formula thus covered millions or more actual compounds - which is standard operating procedure for patents of small molecule drugs. But most small molecule frug patents also have a claim that identifies the actual molecule specifically. Chemical patents also have to disclose the "best method" (some arguments there - lets call it a "reasonably good" method) of making the drug. For a software patent on an actual product to survive the same level of scrutiny, it would have to disclose both the source code and the techniques/APIs necessary for people skilled in the art to to write it, compile it, etc.
I've been documenting this and have all the background here:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/German_parliament_petition_against_software_patents
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Proud to be a European. Proud to live in a German(-speaking) country. Proud to live in what is an economic province of Germany. Just fucking proud, as the engineer loving his trade that I, ultimately, am.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Congratulations. You have just created legislation which will create a mechanical algorithm implementation industry.
TIL steampunk is the future.
The parliament isn't the government? How interesting....
You don't patent ideas, you patent implemenations of an idea to perform a useful function.
You don't patent math, you patent uses of math to perform a useful function.
I think I see what you're driving at, but does it matter?
Example: Consider Amazon's One Click patent ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click excerpts below ).
So... Amazon patented an implementation instead of the idea of One Click.
If that matters, help me understand why Apple licensed that patent (Wiki excerpt 2,below) instead of just creating their own implementation?
----
Wiki Excerpt 1:
1-Click, also called one-click or one-click buying, is the technique of allowing customers to make online purchases with a single click, with the payment information needed to complete the purchase already entered by the user previously. More particularly, it allows an online shopper using an internet marketplace to purchase an item without having to use shopping cart software. Instead of manually inputting billing and shipping information for a purchase, a user can use one-click buying to use a predefined address and credit card number to purchase one or more items.
Wiki Excerpt 2:
Amazon.com in 2000 licensed 1-Click ordering to Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) for use on its online store. Apple subsequently added 1-Click ordering to the iTunes Store and iPhoto.
----
The mods who modded this up are morons who don't actually know anything about patents, but will happily parrot any idiotic thing they see on the interwebs if it happens to line up with their own idiotic thinking.
So... are you saying all is well in the Land of Patents then? Perhaps for the lawyers & trolls.
To my simple mind, it seems like a lot of headaches just go away if our society copyrighted software instead of trying to patent it.
As long as the source isn't opened unless/until the patent is granted, I don't see a problem here (and it would be easy to write the license that way). The whole point of the patent system was a better alternative to keeping secrets - legal protection is the reward for open disclosure, and it's likely a stronger protection anyhow. Once you have a patent, why do you need copyright - patents are broader.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
YES... this is what's missing for software patents; for something to be patentable, you must give up copyright and provide working source.
You'll still get people using outdated custom compilers to hang source on, but the working implementation would be understandable and re-creatable for those reading the patent (they'd just have to pay royalties during the limited time).
This is a software patent idea I could actually get behind.
Why not just limit? What's the difference?
It is the INTERFACE that does the changing.
The most the programming can do is tell the interface what frequencies/protocols to use.
It is impossible for software to do anything that the processor was designed for... Software can only follow the instructions defined by the CPU. And basically that is only add/subtract/multiply/divide, test for 0, and branch (which includes subroutines).
Everything else is a peripheral interface.
Newsflash for you: There are "some representatives" (sic.) of those "sovereign countries"* who have no problem to keep the discussion about "trade treaties" (read: punishments for anyone doing something the BigCorps(tm) do not like) a secret from their constituents, because divulging the fact that they are bartering for a good position "would be decremental to obtaining that position".
In simple words: "the population" was not allowed to know about the talks (and the new laws he would be forced to obey) till te moment the "deal was done" and no ammount of input from them could change anything about it anymore.
Nope, I do not think the gouverment was representing the population at all.
And yes, that above "treaty" (again trying to give US-based companies more ways to criminalize civilians in cases of mere copyright infringement) was brought forward by our good friend the US of A.
*There where multiple countries involved, all pointing at each other saying "because he wanted it" when asked to explain the secrecy.
An European convention from 1974 says software are not patentable. Member states included that in their laws. Many software patents have been granted anyway, but they cannot stand in court.
The EU commission tried to pass a directive to make software patent legal, but it has been defeated in European parliament (a quite rare event). EU commission now plan to make the European Patent Office the juridiction for patent cases, instead of regular courts. That way software patent would still be illegal, but the EPO would rule as if they were.
German parliament stance runs against that plan. But since 2008, we now the real masters in Europe are the German parliament and the German constitutional court. We can therefore trust them to prevail. If they managed to impose a suicidal economic policy for the whole continent, I guess they can impose something on the much more frivolous patent front.