I've read the first part of the 37 page decision (sorry, in Dutch. duh...). Well, we don't have a decision on the use of Kazaa yet.
Furthermore, this decision only affects distribution from The Netherlands. The advocat general briefly touches US, UK and German law, but does not draw any conclusions from this.
So, also regarding the recent decisions in California, Kazaa will probably live as a programme.
However, the BUMA/STEMRA (dutch equivalents of the US RIAA) will probably start now with lawsuits to individual end-users who offer large amounts of files on-line. A lot of case law with respect to tort by offering infriningement illegal information on-line is already available, so the real ground battle can start. Bring in the grunts (copyright lawyers, that is).
What they are patenting here is really a business method, not a piece of software
I agree, partially. You are not correct about the patenting; Bezos applied for a patent and that application is published. No patent has been granted yet.
Patenting business mathods is legal in the USA, but not Europe, thank goodness!
They claims as currently pending will most probably not be granted by the European Patent Office for lack of technical features in the claim. And at first sight, I do not think there is enough information in the text to amend the claims such that they are allowable by the European Patent Office.
If Amazon has successfully secured this as a patent, does this mean that EBay could be sued for patent infringement even though it was the first major online auction player?
Yes, if...
I would not be surprised when Ebay would be prior art to this patent application.
As more and more US applications are being published since the US law has changed, I see even more rubbish than when they only published granted patents. And this is just one example of many, IMHO as a patent specialist.
Furthermore, the first claims is a peculiar one, especially this part: whereby the seller may create a marketplace listing for the product without supplying an identifier of the product
What you're selling?
Something
Sure, but what
I'm not going to say, I'm going to stick with my patent
In other words: seems like your won't infringe. Bezos waisted too much money on attorney fees, it seems to me at first sight.
But they do try to enforce pretty worthless patents. I know. And I know they won't stand a chance; I know at least one patent Microsoft will regret using it against my employer. It'll be void in a jiffy.
You know, patent attorneys can also do good things with worthless software patents. And besides, it'll be a good exercise for my European Qualifying Exam.
Again, there are tools on the web that do a 1-on-1 translation from c code into a jpg; there are also tools that do a 1-on-1 translation from c code into English proze.
Ok, I understand that part - I didn't understand it from your previous posting.
Because of that 1-on-1 relation you effectively create patents on pictures and proze by allowing patents on software.
No.
I have a tool that makes a translation from a DVD (protected by a lot of patents) to a picture. It's called a photo camera. But the picture is not protected, as it is not the same as (probably) claimed in the patent. The same goes for your example: the proze nor jpg are a computer programme product, as probably claimed in the patent. Nor are they capable of programming a computer - they have to be translated again.
The jpg, as well as the English (or Dutch, whatever) proze, are however, protected by copyright and the translation from code to either other data form may be an act of copyright infringement.
Also why do you ignore the fact that the software biz has flourished without patents
As a Dutch guy, you probably know Unilever. This company experienced an enourmous growth in it's early days as "Jurgens & Van den Berg". They made large profits on margarine and were able to do so, because there was no patent law in The Netherlands. But everywhere outside of The Netherlands, apart from Russia, countries had some kind of patent protection. Would there have been patents, there wouldn't have been Unilever as we know it. So yes, business can flourish very well without patents. I have not denied that.
However, the economic environment changes: if The Netherlands - and also other countries in the EU - were to skip patent protection now, quite some business would be lost because research and development cost would not be earned back again.
How long do you think Organon (for the non-Dutch: medicine manufacturer, part of Akzo Nobel, specialised in hormones amongst others) in Oss would survive without it's products being protected by patents? A very short time, making quite some people loose their job.
Therefore, when the economy and research grows to a mature level in a country, there will be a need for patent protection.
Ok, the question is now how mature software is, but that is a different discussion.
Sidestep, but not less relevant in this discussion: According to Dutch (and AFAIK most other European national law), you do not infringe a patent as long as you operate outside of any company or other economical activity. In the US, however, you do.
How many small businesses do you know that have a EUR 50-400k budget for legal expenses? My father-in-law runs a small business and owns several patents. I am positive that an expense like that would put him out of business, despite a possible eventual repayment of his attorney's fees.
You will always have to make the trade-off between attorney fees and possble licensing income. Same goes for patent applications. For all of Europe, you pay about EUR 50.000. But do you need protection in Greece, Turkey and Monaco? Or does protection in Germany, UK and France suffice?
Also, a lot of patent case don't end up in court, as most people just prefer to settle. Even big companies, when you have a solid patent.
This creates a significant economic barrier to entry, which effectively limits competition to the richest companies. Is this an ideal world? I say no.
If this statement was correct, no other company would be able to enter the CE market (mainly with respect to video recorders, set-top boxes and home servers), as a handfull of companies have a huge amounts of patents.
Nevertheless, a lot of companies pop up everywhere, mainly in the US where you can practically patent everything under the sun, and they bloom! Some even hold some patents that can scare the shit out of some big companies. I know from clients.
By allowing software patents you are allowing to patent text, pictures, whatever. This is very, very bad.
That's very bad, indeed. If it were true. There would never be possibilities to patent text or pictures. They're covered by copyright, providing a stricter protection that lasts far longer. Better or worse?
Anyway, they can't be protected by patents and probably will never be. That's not the way the systems works. You will always need to have an invention, which is actually a solution to a (technical) problem. It'll take at least a few decades to change that policy in Europe.
I get your point and your worries and share you opinion in the last sentence of your post. But even with software patents, it will never come that far.
So basically what you are saying is that a lot of software development can only be funded by Microsoft? Bzzt, wrong! Please explain how bind, apache, (gnu/)linux, etc. have been created. Also please explain the existance of winzip, kazaa, oracle, ad-aware,...
No. But I am saying that Microsoft (altough I did not mention any name in my first post) makes major bucks from software itself as it has a monopoly. That money is being used for development of other software. Other companies use different policies to make money, but do not have that huge development budgets. They could build them by patent licensing.
And you call yourself a lawyer?
You bit for the troll, so I will do so as well: I didn't call myself lawyer. I said that I will be a patent attorney, no lawyer (attorney-at-law)
All software in NL is covered by copyright. Period.
Yes, the code you write. But when someone copies your idea and writes his own code, you're lost as copyright won't help you. Period.
Huh??? What are you saying here, that software isn't copyrightable?
Yes, it is. But only the code you write, not the idea (invention) behind it. When you develop an idea for software, say a stereo enhancement plug-in for Winamp, the code is protected. When someone writes a different code doing the same thing using your plug-in to start from, copyright won't help you.
To protect the general idea of your invention, you need a patent.
What are you smoking?
I'll give you a hint: I'm from The Netherlands, if you hadn't noticed already;-)
Nice troll
Actually, I was serious, but thanks anyway. Do I get a cookie now?:-)
would you feel that you acted in an ethical manner if you were the one who wrote up the "one-click" patent?
Don't care. If my client were so stupid as to ignore my advice not to enforce it because he doesn't have a chance of success in court, it's his problem. And my gain, yes, that's right again.
Being a patent attorney, you will no doubt be able to share with us what it would cost for a small company to defend its patents against, oh say, IBM or a "large company in the North West of the US." .
Which country do you have in mind? Netherlands, Germany, France? EUR 50k (or even less) to EUR 400k, at most. When you win, you'll get quite an amount of attorney fees refunded. In Germany, at least, where I would start proceedings anyway as they have qualified judges who do patents only. And best of all: no jury in patent cases!!!
Well, when you start proceedings in the US, you're lost, indeed. But that's not a patent problem, that a problem of the US legal system as a whole.
competition
Yes, that a good one. I fully agree. And there's no competition now? Sure, there is. Even with patents. Reason is that companies in this field seldom prevent other from using technology, they only ask for a small fee. In chemistry, they make you shut down a multi billion Euro plant over a pesky patent.
But there's also something like innovation. Companies won't innovate when every guy on the corner of the street can copy the feature without copying it. Copyright does not provide enough protection: write the code yourself, departing from the idea only (not from the source code), is not covered by copyright protection.
Plus, EU software patents can only harm EU competiveness, EU companies could always register their software patents in the US while ignoring US software patents in the EU. Now US companies will rush to register their patents in the EU.
No. The use of a patented method (or computer programme, as you wish) is protected (or monopolised). So when you use the programme in Europe, whether registred in the US or Europe or China, you infringe anyway.
Besides that, when you have a patent on your software in the EU, you'll probably have one in the US as well.
With respect to patenting, probably not very much will change, departing from this press release. It looks much like the policy of the European Patent Office (!= EU, Switzerland and Monaco are Contracting States as well).
I wonder what will be done with this one: Another amendment specifies that the use of a patented technique is not regarded as a counterfeit [an infringing product] if it is necessary to ensure the communication between various systems or data-processing networks.
Does that mean that you can implement IEEE 1394 and USB without paying licensing fees, because you are not infringing? IAAL and I have not read it all, so I am not going to make a statement. But it doesn't look good for the larger companies.
FYI:
Infringement is not dealt with by the European Patent Office, it's being dealt with by national law (European Patent Convention, Art. 64(3)). And that is governed almost directly by this directive.
And Frits is the hero of the Brits who got fined because they took too large amount of beer and cigarettes from France to the UK because it's cheaper in France.
The Bolk stated that all fines had to be refunded, because such fines hampered the internal European market.
Want the big bucks, become a lawyer and sell your soul
Ok, so I did (just a few months and I am a patent attorney in The Netherlands). But what's wrong with writing a software patent? IMO It's not the one who writes the patent who's to blame, but the one who enforces the patent in a way that bars all competition and development.
A lot of software development costs large amounts of money and not every company is in the position to make far too much money on a crappy OS to support development of other software. They have to earn that money with the sales of their ideas. And how to protect those ideas? Correctly, by patents.
And all of you out there protesting against software patents should be very happy that software protection is not included in copyright protection, because that would make protection probably five time longer (at least).
Probably superfluous to say in view of the above: No, I don't feel guilty about my job. You will probably compare with a gun manufacturer. Fine, that's up to you. But the sole purpose of a gun is to harm, if not kill people. And one of the very legal (also ethical IMO) is to protect your idea from being copied (!= stolen) by a large company in the North West of the US.
In other words: it's probably the only way for small enterprises to protect themselves against the large companies. Imagine when graphical web browsing would have been patented by the NCSA or Netscape would have patented a lot of improvements. Who would know Microsoft Internet Explorer?
Exactly (well, not, I do, be it not in this particular case).
So when Stallman tries to explain to the horrible things software patents would do in his opinion, he refers to an example where copyright protection is already applicable for a long time, without those horrible effects he describes (no more music being written), he totally misses the point.
Or he succeeded to prove the opposite of what he tries to prove: he proves (inductively) that software patents will at all not stiffle innovation, as music is still being written.
The European Commission isn't directly elected, but then, it's the executive, not the legislatory part of the European government
Oh yes, it is. Even more than the parliament (like the other poster indicates).
Furthermore, there's the European Counsel (of ministers). Can be heads of state (France), but usually prime ministers or, in specialised cases, ministers of e.g. agriculture. This counsel has large powers, perhaps even more than the European Commission. Furhtermore, it is difficult to control. Those blokes can only be controlled by their own parliaments, but are usually that vague about what is being discussed that everything is continuously covered in clouds.
What is important to know, is that the Commission and Parliament are only competent is matters relating to the European Community, which is one of the three pilars of the European Union. The other three are police & security and foreign policy (or something like that, it's been a while since those lessons). Those two pilars the turf of ministers only, vaguely controlled by national parliaments.
Well, fortunately, this issue (software patents) is a European Community issue. Or unfortunately, as a lot of Members of Parliament know just about zip about software or patent, let alone about a combination of them. And we've seen that in the arguments the bring.
What amazes me is the enourmous amount of nonsense arguments.
Just stumbled across an article in an on-line paper (sorry, Dutch only) that puts forward two really ridiculous arguments:
Developpers would have to pay for using common words(?) and constructions in software for use in for example vacuum cleaners and laundry machines
WAKE UP! A patent cannot keep you from using a word. This sounds more like a trademark isssue and trademark protection has been there for already a long time.
Furthermore, there already are patents for constructions in vacuum cleaners and laundry machines, albeit not on the software that's being used. Everything on a vacuum cleaner and a laundry machine is patentable, just as long as it's new and it provides a solution to a technical problem (well, at least in the civilised world (Europe, China and Japan)) and that prevent other people from using such simple constructions as well. Example? One word: Dyson. And there are no software patents involved here.
Please bear in mind that something obvious or known is not patentable and that procedures to prevent this kind of patents are in Europe far better than in US and a lot cheaper as well.
When you use a simple 8051 microcontroller in you laundry machine now with a simple algorithm, extensive European software patent legislation cannot stop you using it.
But what struck me most is the following argument by nobody less than Richard Stallman. He should have known better. Quote: (translated from Dutch)
"Imagine the EU would have made it possible to patent combinations of tones; in that case, only seldom a music piece could be written".
Well, you can already protect combintation of tones. Or to be more precise: combintations of tones are protected by definition, just like combintations of computer code. It's called copyright and lasts usually about 100 years instead on the mere 20 years of patent protection. Furthermore, this kind of protection is already being used as a tool for spreading free software under the GPL, of which the same Mr. Stallman is a well-known supporter.
My first conclusion is that we are all talking emotions here, hampering clear sight and reasoning on what this is all about. I think this is all mainly about a big company located in in Redmond. We need to treat this one carefull, but anti-trust regulations handled by a wise government might be a better way.
Also keep in mind that the European Patent Office is not bound by decisions of the EU. It is independent. And has quite a good policy to keep the real business patents from being granted.
And software patents: I write applications for them every day. Well, in the broadest sense, as everything you build with transistors can be build with software. When you patent the method performed by the transistor - resistor - capacitor circuit, the software performing the same function is protected as well. Duh...
On last remark before you flame me to my toes:
Yes, I know the absence of patent protection is a good way to help a booming technology. Two major companies of The Netherlands were able to compete with companies from other countries in the early days of the 1900's because The Netherlands were lacking patent protection. So it might help here, but let's keep the discussion and arguments sane.
Sure. But is more likely they follow any decision in the US.
Australian government has stated many times before (openly) that they will follow US policy, for reasons of economical interest. One example is the grant of business method patents.
My experience is that IBM has a rather good supply of information to patent offices in an information disclosure bulletin.
Nevertheless, this kind of information can still be missed by patent offices in a search. I am at this moment checking the (in-)validity of several patents for which applications have been filed about ten years ago. Already at that time, not every patent office (Europe, US; Japan used to be and most of the time still is very slow) was able to gather the proper prior art for every application.
Landmark prior art publications are cited for one application in the field, 'preventing' grant, whereas they are not cited at all for another application in the filed on the same subject. This happens, for two applications handled in the same patent office at approximately the same time(USPTO in this case).
Why, you might ask... Well, for the USPTO: people don't stay long, the attorney/agent business is too lucrative. And for both USPTO and EPO: it's difficult to find what you are looking for in a very short period of time, in a very very large database.
Well, that brings up all kinds of validity issues, outside and inside the courts.
Although you might intend to troll, your remark is insightful in a certain sense.
The answer to your question is that none of the big CE companies wants to be associated with porn. But when an small company like interact can manage to bring this kind of a product to the market, why wouldn't a porn king be able to do so?
combined with fu fme (or whatever it's called), this idea isn't that bad.
Slashdot Mirror
No. You (We) pay 0.50 Euro per DVD+RW and 1 Euro per DVD-RW
Furthermore, this decision only affects distribution from The Netherlands. The advocat general briefly touches US, UK and German law, but does not draw any conclusions from this.
So, also regarding the recent decisions in California, Kazaa will probably live as a programme.
However, the BUMA/STEMRA (dutch equivalents of the US RIAA) will probably start now with lawsuits to individual end-users who offer large amounts of files on-line. A lot of case law with respect to tort by offering infriningement illegal information on-line is already available, so the real ground battle can start. Bring in the grunts (copyright lawyers, that is).
I agree, partially. You are not correct about the patenting; Bezos applied for a patent and that application is published. No patent has been granted yet.
Patenting business mathods is legal in the USA, but not Europe, thank goodness!
They claims as currently pending will most probably not be granted by the European Patent Office for lack of technical features in the claim. And at first sight, I do not think there is enough information in the text to amend the claims such that they are allowable by the European Patent Office.
Yes, if...
I would not be surprised when Ebay would be prior art to this patent application.
As more and more US applications are being published since the US law has changed, I see even more rubbish than when they only published granted patents. And this is just one example of many, IMHO as a patent specialist.
Furthermore, the first claims is a peculiar one, especially this part:
whereby the seller may create a marketplace listing for the product without supplying an identifier of the product
- What you're selling?
- Something
- Sure, but what
- I'm not going to say, I'm going to stick with my patent
In other words: seems like your won't infringe. Bezos waisted too much money on attorney fees, it seems to me at first sight.You know, patent attorneys can also do good things with worthless software patents. And besides, it'll be a good exercise for my European Qualifying Exam.
Told you /. is too americanocentric.
This page provides interesting info on who makes how much money on each US$1 download song. (secure site, but apparently you don't have to pay.
I should start a download site myself.
Ok, I understand that part - I didn't understand it from your previous posting.
Because of that 1-on-1 relation you effectively create patents on pictures and proze by allowing patents on software.
No.
I have a tool that makes a translation from a DVD (protected by a lot of patents) to a picture. It's called a photo camera. But the picture is not protected, as it is not the same as (probably) claimed in the patent. The same goes for your example: the proze nor jpg are a computer programme product, as probably claimed in the patent. Nor are they capable of programming a computer - they have to be translated again.
The jpg, as well as the English (or Dutch, whatever) proze, are however, protected by copyright and the translation from code to either other data form may be an act of copyright infringement.
Also why do you ignore the fact that the software biz has flourished without patents
As a Dutch guy, you probably know Unilever. This company experienced an enourmous growth in it's early days as "Jurgens & Van den Berg". They made large profits on margarine and were able to do so, because there was no patent law in The Netherlands. But everywhere outside of The Netherlands, apart from Russia, countries had some kind of patent protection. Would there have been patents, there wouldn't have been Unilever as we know it. So yes, business can flourish very well without patents. I have not denied that.
However, the economic environment changes: if The Netherlands - and also other countries in the EU - were to skip patent protection now, quite some business would be lost because research and development cost would not be earned back again.
How long do you think Organon (for the non-Dutch: medicine manufacturer, part of Akzo Nobel, specialised in hormones amongst others) in Oss would survive without it's products being protected by patents? A very short time, making quite some people loose their job.
Therefore, when the economy and research grows to a mature level in a country, there will be a need for patent protection.
Ok, the question is now how mature software is, but that is a different discussion.
Sidestep, but not less relevant in this discussion: According to Dutch (and AFAIK most other European national law), you do not infringe a patent as long as you operate outside of any company or other economical activity. In the US, however, you do.
You were right, I have misunderstood your posting.
You will always have to make the trade-off between attorney fees and possble licensing income. Same goes for patent applications. For all of Europe, you pay about EUR 50.000. But do you need protection in Greece, Turkey and Monaco? Or does protection in Germany, UK and France suffice?
Also, a lot of patent case don't end up in court, as most people just prefer to settle. Even big companies, when you have a solid patent.
This creates a significant economic barrier to entry, which effectively limits competition to the richest companies. Is this an ideal world? I say no.
If this statement was correct, no other company would be able to enter the CE market (mainly with respect to video recorders, set-top boxes and home servers), as a handfull of companies have a huge amounts of patents.
Nevertheless, a lot of companies pop up everywhere, mainly in the US where you can practically patent everything under the sun, and they bloom! Some even hold some patents that can scare the shit out of some big companies. I know from clients.
That's very bad, indeed. If it were true. There would never be possibilities to patent text or pictures. They're covered by copyright, providing a stricter protection that lasts far longer. Better or worse?
Anyway, they can't be protected by patents and probably will never be. That's not the way the systems works. You will always need to have an invention, which is actually a solution to a (technical) problem. It'll take at least a few decades to change that policy in Europe.
I get your point and your worries and share you opinion in the last sentence of your post. But even with software patents, it will never come that far.
No. But I am saying that Microsoft (altough I did not mention any name in my first post) makes major bucks from software itself as it has a monopoly. That money is being used for development of other software. Other companies use different policies to make money, but do not have that huge development budgets. They could build them by patent licensing.
And you call yourself a lawyer?
You bit for the troll, so I will do so as well: I didn't call myself lawyer. I said that I will be a patent attorney, no lawyer (attorney-at-law)
All software in NL is covered by copyright. Period.
Yes, the code you write. But when someone copies your idea and writes his own code, you're lost as copyright won't help you. Period.
Yes, it is. But only the code you write, not the idea (invention) behind it. When you develop an idea for software, say a stereo enhancement plug-in for Winamp, the code is protected. When someone writes a different code doing the same thing using your plug-in to start from, copyright won't help you.
To protect the general idea of your invention, you need a patent.
What are you smoking?
I'll give you a hint: I'm from The Netherlands, if you hadn't noticed already ;-)
Nice troll
Actually, I was serious, but thanks anyway. Do I get a cookie now? :-)
Don't care. If my client were so stupid as to ignore my advice not to enforce it because he doesn't have a chance of success in court, it's his problem. And my gain, yes, that's right again.
Being a patent attorney, you will no doubt be able to share with us what it would cost for a small company to defend its patents against, oh say, IBM or a "large company in the North West of the US." .
Which country do you have in mind? Netherlands, Germany, France? EUR 50k (or even less) to EUR 400k, at most. When you win, you'll get quite an amount of attorney fees refunded. In Germany, at least, where I would start proceedings anyway as they have qualified judges who do patents only. And best of all: no jury in patent cases!!!
Well, when you start proceedings in the US, you're lost, indeed. But that's not a patent problem, that a problem of the US legal system as a whole.
competition
Yes, that a good one. I fully agree. And there's no competition now? Sure, there is. Even with patents. Reason is that companies in this field seldom prevent other from using technology, they only ask for a small fee. In chemistry, they make you shut down a multi billion Euro plant over a pesky patent.
But there's also something like innovation. Companies won't innovate when every guy on the corner of the street can copy the feature without copying it. Copyright does not provide enough protection: write the code yourself, departing from the idea only (not from the source code), is not covered by copyright protection.
No. The use of a patented method (or computer programme, as you wish) is protected (or monopolised). So when you use the programme in Europe, whether registred in the US or Europe or China, you infringe anyway.
Besides that, when you have a patent on your software in the EU, you'll probably have one in the US as well.
With respect to patenting, probably not very much will change, departing from this press release. It looks much like the policy of the European Patent Office (!= EU, Switzerland and Monaco are Contracting States as well).
I wonder what will be done with this one:
Another amendment specifies that the use of a patented technique is not regarded as a counterfeit [an infringing product] if it is necessary to ensure the communication between various systems or data-processing networks.
Does that mean that you can implement IEEE 1394 and USB without paying licensing fees, because you are not infringing? IAAL and I have not read it all, so I am not going to make a statement. But it doesn't look good for the larger companies.
FYI:
Infringement is not dealt with by the European Patent Office, it's being dealt with by national law (European Patent Convention, Art. 64(3)). And that is governed almost directly by this directive.
The Bolk stated that all fines had to be refunded, because such fines hampered the internal European market.
Ok, so I did (just a few months and I am a patent attorney in The Netherlands). But what's wrong with writing a software patent? IMO It's not the one who writes the patent who's to blame, but the one who enforces the patent in a way that bars all competition and development.
A lot of software development costs large amounts of money and not every company is in the position to make far too much money on a crappy OS to support development of other software. They have to earn that money with the sales of their ideas. And how to protect those ideas? Correctly, by patents.
And all of you out there protesting against software patents should be very happy that software protection is not included in copyright protection, because that would make protection probably five time longer (at least).
Probably superfluous to say in view of the above:
No, I don't feel guilty about my job. You will probably compare with a gun manufacturer. Fine, that's up to you. But the sole purpose of a gun is to harm, if not kill people. And one of the very legal (also ethical IMO) is to protect your idea from being copied (!= stolen) by a large company in the North West of the US.
In other words: it's probably the only way for small enterprises to protect themselves against the large companies. Imagine when graphical web browsing would have been patented by the NCSA or Netscape would have patented a lot of improvements. Who would know Microsoft Internet Explorer?
'Nuff said.
Exactly (well, not, I do, be it not in this particular case).
So when Stallman tries to explain to the horrible things software patents would do in his opinion, he refers to an example where copyright protection is already applicable for a long time, without those horrible effects he describes (no more music being written), he totally misses the point.
Or he succeeded to prove the opposite of what he tries to prove: he proves (inductively) that software patents will at all not stiffle innovation, as music is still being written.
Oh yes, it is. Even more than the parliament (like the other poster indicates).
Furthermore, there's the European Counsel (of ministers). Can be heads of state (France), but usually prime ministers or, in specialised cases, ministers of e.g. agriculture. This counsel has large powers, perhaps even more than the European Commission. Furhtermore, it is difficult to control. Those blokes can only be controlled by their own parliaments, but are usually that vague about what is being discussed that everything is continuously covered in clouds.
What is important to know, is that the Commission and Parliament are only competent is matters relating to the European Community, which is one of the three pilars of the European Union. The other three are police & security and foreign policy (or something like that, it's been a while since those lessons). Those two pilars the turf of ministers only, vaguely controlled by national parliaments.
Well, fortunately, this issue (software patents) is a European Community issue. Or unfortunately, as a lot of Members of Parliament know just about zip about software or patent, let alone about a combination of them. And we've seen that in the arguments the bring.
Just stumbled across an article in an on-line paper (sorry, Dutch only) that puts forward two really ridiculous arguments:
- Developpers would have to pay for using common words(?) and constructions in software for use in for example vacuum cleaners and laundry machines
-
But what struck me most is the following argument by nobody less than Richard Stallman. He should have known better. Quote: (translated from Dutch)
"Imagine the EU would have made it possible to patent combinations of tones; in that case, only seldom a music piece could be written".
My first conclusion is that we are all talking emotions here, hampering clear sight and reasoning on what this is all about. I think this is all mainly about a big company located in in Redmond. We need to treat this one carefull, but anti-trust regulations handled by a wise government might be a better way.WAKE UP! A patent cannot keep you from using a word. This sounds more like a trademark isssue and trademark protection has been there for already a long time.
Furthermore, there already are patents for constructions in vacuum cleaners and laundry machines, albeit not on the software that's being used. Everything on a vacuum cleaner and a laundry machine is patentable, just as long as it's new and it provides a solution to a technical problem (well, at least in the civilised world (Europe, China and Japan)) and that prevent other people from using such simple constructions as well. Example? One word: Dyson. And there are no software patents involved here.
Please bear in mind that something obvious or known is not patentable and that procedures to prevent this kind of patents are in Europe far better than in US and a lot cheaper as well.
When you use a simple 8051 microcontroller in you laundry machine now with a simple algorithm, extensive European software patent legislation cannot stop you using it.
Well, you can already protect combintation of tones. Or to be more precise: combintations of tones are protected by definition, just like combintations of computer code. It's called copyright and lasts usually about 100 years instead on the mere 20 years of patent protection. Furthermore, this kind of protection is already being used as a tool for spreading free software under the GPL, of which the same Mr. Stallman is a well-known supporter.
Also keep in mind that the European Patent Office is not bound by decisions of the EU. It is independent. And has quite a good policy to keep the real business patents from being granted.
And software patents: I write applications for them every day. Well, in the broadest sense, as everything you build with transistors can be build with software. When you patent the method performed by the transistor - resistor - capacitor circuit, the software performing the same function is protected as well. Duh...
On last remark before you flame me to my toes:
Yes, I know the absence of patent protection is a good way to help a booming technology. Two major companies of The Netherlands were able to compete with companies from other countries in the early days of the 1900's because The Netherlands were lacking patent protection. So it might help here, but let's keep the discussion and arguments sane.
Australian government has stated many times before (openly) that they will follow US policy, for reasons of economical interest. One example is the grant of business method patents.
This device is operational for alreay seven years, whereas it has been designed for two operational years, with a possible extension to five.
Nevertheless, this kind of information can still be missed by patent offices in a search. I am at this moment checking the (in-)validity of several patents for which applications have been filed about ten years ago. Already at that time, not every patent office (Europe, US; Japan used to be and most of the time still is very slow) was able to gather the proper prior art for every application.
Landmark prior art publications are cited for one application in the field, 'preventing' grant, whereas they are not cited at all for another application in the filed on the same subject. This happens, for two applications handled in the same patent office at approximately the same time(USPTO in this case).
Why, you might ask... Well, for the USPTO: people don't stay long, the attorney/agent business is too lucrative. And for both USPTO and EPO: it's difficult to find what you are looking for in a very short period of time, in a very very large database.
Well, that brings up all kinds of validity issues, outside and inside the courts.
The answer to your question is that none of the big CE companies wants to be associated with porn. But when an small company like interact can manage to bring this kind of a product to the market, why wouldn't a porn king be able to do so?
combined with fu fme (or whatever it's called), this idea isn't that bad.