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.

Comments

patent law needs to be rethought

[josepha48]

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.

Re:patent law needs to be rethought

[ethereal]

IIRC, companies with patents are required to make their designs available for use by others upon payment of a licensing fee. So if you patent something, you can't just sit on it and prevent others from using it. After all, the design is public knowledge - you can look it up at the Patent Office. This way everybody gets to use the new technology you've created, but you still get remunerated for your R&D work. I'm not sure if there are any limits on the actual licensing fees you can charge, so this might be a stumbling block, but I think there is some sort of limit on those fees.

The US Patent Law is interesting...

[stryemer]

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.

My thoughts on patents

[nakaduct]

The patent thing comes up on /. every so often, and we see the same arguments:

1. Too many obvious things are patented.
2. Without patents, genuinely new and expensive innovations would be trade secrets, and no-one (save the innovator) would benefit.

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