Slashdot Mirror
Petition against EU software patents
ZeroTolerance writes "The FFII has set up a letter to the EU competition commisioner about the proposal for the introduction of a software patenting system similar to that in the US. Read more about it at swpat.ffii.org (in German)
And sign the petition here (in English; German, French, Italian and Esperanto versions also available) " Trust me. You folks don't want the US style patents. Unless you have a silly lawsuit fetish.
Where do we go to write good free code? China?
b3Rn 1N tH3 f13rY f|_4m3zZ 0v FuXx1Ng h3lL j00 F4gG0+. r4P3.
Before the GPL began to gain momentum, I opposed the notion of software patents -- strenuously. But now that Stallman's propaganda has caught on, and the GPL threatens the livelihoods of programmers and authors, my mind has changed. While software patents do have many inherent problems, they are the only way an innovative programmer can now stand a chance of benefitiing from his contributions.
Now, if a programmer writes a truly useful and innovative program, it'll be cloned -- under the GPL -- and given away. He won't be rewarded for his valuable contribution to the state of the art. Only via a software patent can we ensure that -- for a limited time -- he has at least the chance to reap a reasonable benefit. And only if he hustles.... Having a patent does not guarantee that he'll make a dime. But it can hold the GPL at bay, which means he stands a chance of not being ruined by Stallman's spiteful, malicious vendetta against rewarding creative efforts.
--Brett Glass
I'm going to assume you're in the US, as you've responded to a "US" thread.
Don't bet on that fact even if it is in your contract, as it may be null and void. Most states don't allow employment contracts to take all ideas, only those which are 1)developed on company time or with company resources, or 2)developed on personal time, but which may be useful to the company. This is more or less what mine said. Of course, IANAL and I know nothing of the specific laws of your state, so check with one in the know.
You know, I've never quite understood what people have against lawsuits.
Ok, so we make the patent office research every patent before issusing a patent. What happens? Well, the US government starts spending huge amounts of money in order to research patents and delays the time to patent by months, years or decades (yes, more than 5 patents a year are filed in the US) resulting in lost money by everyone involved.
In the current system, a patent is issued to a person. If someone else violates the patent, the person who originally patented the item may sue, however if the person who violated the patent has ample proof that the patent is invalid, then they will win the lawsuit.
The people who are paying for these lawsuits are private citizens or corporations, not the US people as it should be.
The same thing basically happens when a law is passed by the executive branch of the government. The executive branch's job is not to make sure laws passed are constitutional, that is why we have 3 branches of government.
I find it rediculous when people bitch and complain about how the US government is corrupt when an unconstituional law is passed (like the CDA) because people do not fully understand how the government works.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
Exporting lawyers? Who would want them?
This'll be great for the lawyers in the EU countries though! Think of the business!
The only ones who are able to enforce patents are the big companies. Said small time programmer's invention would be slurped up by big time company with many lawyers - and just waited out until small timer runs out of funds, or gives up.
The vendors next move will be to push UTICA-like legislation overseas as well - giving all rights to the companies and none to the individuals.
The goal is, quite simply, to eliminate any 'free' (as in speech) software.
I worked for a company who made a similar demand. Now, there was another comment on the thread that hinted at this, but, if it's LAW, they can't make you sign your legal rights away.
If a contract contains a "the boss may brutally kill you anytime he darn-well feels like it" clause, it wouldn't stand up if taken to task... just because you sign it, doesn't make it legal.
Maybe I should have chosen a more sensible example, but you get the idea... Like, in Australia, the old "We reserve the right to inspect all bags on leaving the store" sign in stores isn't worth the card it's printed on, and a store detective cannot make you stop (They class that as "arresting" you) at checkouts etc(now, whether this is right or wrong, who knows, but that's law)
The distinction between "ideas" and "implementations" makes perfect sense. The words "method" and "algorithm," however, could be interpreted either way. The fast-Fourier transform and Quick Sort are both ideas that have only one obvious implementation. Either could be patented in the US today, if new.
(Reality reasserts itself sooner or later.)
The US is to blame for this. European firms are loosing out badly because their US counter parts are able to patent software and then lock them out. In the face of the refusal of the US to end software patents the EU feels it has no option but to provide a level playing field for firms in member states.
Actually, the infringement. How do you know if MS or anyone else is using your patented code?
It's not like MS is going to turn over the source. You'd need to sue them to prove infringement, which isn't any different than today's world.
Be careful about that, using xor to draw a cursor has already been patented.
In the current system, a patent is issued to a person. If someone else violates the patent, the person who originally patented the item may sue, however if the person who violated the patent has ample proof that the patent is invalid, then they will win the lawsuit.
This is the wrong part -- the defendant is PRESUMED GUILTY and has to prove his innocence while plaintiff doesn't have to present any proof except the fact that he at some point sent patent application, and it was approved (and there was no sufficient proof necessary to get a patent).
If there was a proof requested initially to issue a patent, that proof could be used in the lawsuit to validate the plaintiff's claim, however since there is no sufficient proof (patents are issued without necessary research), and lawsuit is handled like there is one implied by the patent application, it's a violation of defendant's rights.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
At least not compared to the US dollar ;-)
I agree with you at some points, however patents can help inovation, as an example I will use Philips (the Dutch Electronic Powerhouse), Philips used and still is doing very much research in many different areas, they can do this because the patents give them a 'edge' so they can get back their investment before other companies borrow the idea and technology and fabricate a clone at a cheaper price (easy they don't need to do expensive research). So no patents, no more expensive research by big firms (like say IBM).
Let's see ... some smarties come up with a good idea and so are in need of some venture capital. Some large company thinks it *is* a good idea and there goes your startup.
... it is all how they are applied and there the trouble starts.
Patents are not good or bad
...are not lawyers.
In Denmark, many politicians are "cand.polit.", which means they have an academic degree in Political Science. Some have degrees in Social Science or in Economics.
France is similar, except that most of them come from the same school. I don't know about the rest of Europe, but I suspect it is the same.
There are some exceptions, our Minister of Economics is a public school teacher, and the Minister of Agriculture is a mailman.
Then you really should have made them change the contract before you signed.
I did.
You got that right! Where do I sign.
Official Pi Ambassador -- inquire for details!
http://swpat.ffii.org/miert/sign/siglisten.html
Why do we even need patents???
The only result I have seen from patents is holding back a market.
Remember the car? There was a patent on the car. Mr Ford wanted to make the car available to everyone. But the car patent royality payments did not allow it. Mr Ford found a loophole and made the car industry what it is.
Remember the windsurfer? A company called Windsurfer created it. They did nothing with their patent and did not invest in their idea. Other companies realizing that Windsurfer would do nothing with their patent, decided to invest in that market. As a result Windsurfing became popular. Then Windsurfer in the last two years of the patent demanded "back payments". Many companies went under. What did Windsurfer do with the money? Nothing they retired from the industry.
Sorry as I see it patents are for those that want to make tons of money at the expense of the consumer. You want a monopoly, look at what patents do. Patents promote old style static thinking. Patents fragment standards since if one person hold a patent to the standard all others have problems.
How do you reward companies that invest in the technologies? Simple if the company is inventive and nimble and offers the technology and services at the best price then it will win. Look at how far we have gotten in software.
They will keep US companies from blatantly stealing our intellectual property. All we want is a level playing field.
Ah. I feel better now that I've signed the petition. But did they really have to make our phonenumbers and email adresses publicly readable? A dedicated spammer would have a field day with this.
--- Premature complacency is the evil of all roots
hehe, if you thought i was serious, do something very bad to yourself, right now!
*insert pithy sig here*
Patents themselves can bring monopolies, and such, and cause buisness to go out out of business or change there business practices. Cyrix is an example of this where it could not compter with Intel and AMD. The current patent laws in the US do not allow for patenting of software persay, but do permit the patenting of a software method if the claims speficy that there is hardware involved. This then gives the patent owner a 20 year (up to 20) 'hold' on the market. Since technology changes so much after 20 years the market for that product may be obsolete, especially in the software industry, and computer industry.
Patents on software is a VERY bad thing. A large company with a software patent prevents anyone else in useing that tech for 20 years without the permission of the patent holder. A good example of this is NES and there patented technology. They are now saying that emulators are against the law and violating there patents.
1) Patents should only hold for a few years, like 2 to 5 years not 20.
2) Patents should NOT be given on methods, algorythms, software, but ONLY on hardware. Physical hardware as patents were intended over 100 years ago. ( I think they have been out there that long).
We as a species will hopefully grow, and the need for patents and money will disappear as we evolve.
Only 'flamers' flame!
--
Oh!!! They're crazy men!!!!
Next step, stablish a patent on f***ing styles. I bet they do!
--
Comment signature patent pending
How's this idea:
Make patents like the royalties musicians
receive from airplay of their songs. Musicians
can't control who plays them or when, but if their
music is good they see a healthy return for years
to come. At the same time, since the royalty is
small and fixed, radio stations can afford it,
and lawyers are eliminated (mostly) from the
whole issue (radio stations pay a fixed amount
each year according to their size, and a large
national group handles who receives what portion
of that money according to airplay statistics).
Software could be similar, not allowing anyone
to block others from using a technology, and not
allowing anyone to overprice licensing fees (a
prime example of where this is needed even more
in the U.S. is in medicines: companies charge
such exhorbitant amounts for new medicines that
only a handful can use them, while opening up the
playing field would give inventors the same
earnings yet allow the consumer to benefit). The
only tricky part would be determining a
reasonable price to charge companies.
Will something sensible like this happen? Of
course not. Why? Because, if Europe is anything
like the U.S., the politicians are.... lawyers!
I've been reading a book lately on how to protect your intellectual property, and found a few cool things out about software and patents. 1. Ideas are not patentable. Only methods. 2. If you or someone else comes up with a "cool" idea at work, no one owns that idea. It's only when someone creates an implementation on work time does the company own it. 3. (If I read the text correctly) Code is covered under copyrighting, not patenting. So, ripping off someone's code is a lot like plagerism. Now, if hardware is involved, then it's patentable. 4. The US does not have a "first to file" law whereas other countries do. As I read it, if you can prove that you came up with your method before Microsoft or Intel (for example) then it's your idea. (I think some European countries do first to file) 5. Don't develop you cool ideas at work. I know we all work 80+ hours a week, but here's a good excuse to go home. If you develop your ideas at work, work owns your ideas. Now, that doesn't mean that you can't think about your ideas or write them down, just don't steal that pad of paper or use cycles on the local supercomputer. These little gems came out of a book called: Protecting Your Ideas : The Inventor's Guide to Patents Before signing any petition, I recommend that people buy a book on IP. It could prove interesting. -Stryemer ;-) P.S. Who's starting that fund to protect the small developers from the giants? I'll contribute!
-Stryemer
We are the music makers,
and we are the dreamers of the dream.
-Stryemer
We are the music makers,
and we are the dreamers of the dream.
I truly could care less about them. I realize they are very damaging to startup companies however and thus need abolished. I don't obey patents or copyrights mainly out of the simple fact that I have yet to find a company that holds patents to be a respectable business. I wish people could just learn to make software and other products instead of ridiculous lawsuits. This is especially true for the pharmacutical companies who murder people with their patents.
The US has been pushing the adoption of software patents overseas since, well, at least since Bush was in office on the assumption that the US would generate a disproportionate number of the patents. This would result in licensing fees flowing into US companies, further solidification of the US's domination of the international software market, etc., etc.
Does anyone know what the extent of these benefits to the US are estimated to be?
That thing is kick ass for a laugh, more then a few times its put out something fairly questionable =) I remember it said something about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs "fondling" each other =P
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
So, we need a way to distinguish the cheap, stupid patents from the good stuff. Here's my idea; it's pretty rough around the edges, but I think the concept is sound:
First of all, any citizen of the appropriate country can object to any patent on grounds of obviousness. There is no cost to object, but it must be done in writing, via plain old mail. An objection must include a brief rationalization, and the objector's qualifications.
Then, once there are some number of objections (say 100), the applicant must demonstrate non-obviousness. To do this, the patent office provides a list of 100 or so (willing) experts in the field, who claim no prior knowledge of the application.
The applicant chooses two teams of five from this list, and they are sequestered (at the applicant's expense), for a few weeks.
These experts are then told the nature of the problem the company is trying to solve, and given access to any published materials that existed before the patent's file date (e.g., books and journals OK, but no net connection).
Their challenge is to devise as many workable solutions to the problem as possible in their 2-3 week isolation period. If any of these is substantially identical to the solution proposed in the patent application, then it's rejected.
I really like this idea, because it would eliminate moronic things like the XOR cursor and that load-balancing CGI thing. Really good advancements in the state of the art, like RSA's crypto patents, would endure.
This is intended mostly for software patents, since it's hard to affordably finance a project team for something like developing a new engine or CPU. With simulation getting better and better, however, it may be possible to apply the concept to other fields.
The downside is that patent filing would be (potentially) more expensive. It's already prohibitively costly for most individuals, though, and the upside for corporations would be partial immunity from frivilous challenges to the patent (if granted). A proof of non-obviousness, audited and blessed by the patent office, is a powerful piece of evidence in a lawsuit challenging the self-evidence of your innovation.
cheers,
mike
I'm sick of those imbecile moderators who're so blissfully ignorant of the very principles of meaningful debate. The free world does NOT think of cencorship as an answer when dealing with a dissenting opinion, your have to beat your opponent in a fair and open discussion. WHY OH WHY do I even have to tell you this, Mr. Braindead Moderator? If you can't stand dissent then please get the hell out of this place and crawl back into your damp and smelly cave.
I dare you to care less - I double dare you!
I bet you can't, you're just trying to make out that you're hard by saying you could.