Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Software Debian Linux

Linux Kernel Maintainer Joins Patent Celebrations 95

Posted by CowboyNeal from the battle-still-not-over dept.
wikinerd writes "Linux kernel maintainer Alan Cox was among those celebrating the EU decision to rethink the introduction of software patents in Europe, while Debian developer Wookey says that 'This is a very encouraging sign.' However, Alan Cox adds that 'the battle isn't over.' The EU software patent directive was criticised as anti-opensource and anti-smallbusiness, while the US patent office has granted various controversial patents like the one-click shopping."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Kernel Maintainer Joins Patent Celebrations More

Linux Kernel Maintainer Joins Patent Celebrations

Comments Filter:

  • Never truer than now (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Saven Marek ( 739395 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @10:43AM (#11582289)
    They say "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and it looks like that is how europe is having to work to defeat patents.

    You know well they will try again to introduce patents again and again but keep being vigilant and we will keep winning. thank you poland!!

    The best mac support on the web [tribbles.org]

  • Don't celebrate yet, it ain't over (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Clickable link [techworld.com] Unfortunately, the restart isn't a reality yet...

  • Hah (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @10:48AM (#11582315) Journal
    When politicians put things on hold to "rethink", it usally means "let's pretend we care about what the common man thinks while waiting for the corporate lobbyists to come up with more cash". I wouldn't hold my breath.
    • Well, either that or:

      "let's pretend we actually want to pass a decision one way or another, while we pretend that the beurocracy is this complex, at least until we're out of office so the next guys can get the blame (since at least one side will blame us)."

      People have a much much longer memory for *bad* decisions, and often specifically vote against such people. The best politicians have done enough good to be voted onto the list by the party, and not enough controversial stuff to be voted out by the publ
      • People have a much much longer memory for *bad* decisions, and often specifically vote against such people.

        I guess you missed the election results in the USA last november. basically proves your theory wrong. the best politicians are the ones that can dupe enough people into voting for them. Good and Bad have nothing to do with it, it's all about how gullible the population is.

    • So, you're suggesting a bloody revolution then? I get somewhat annoyed with the political nihilism that people love to express around here, it is in no way interesting or constructive. While I don't want to be a don't-complain-if-you-don't-have-a-solution-guy, this kind of complaint suggests that the whole system as we know it is hopeless. Without any idea what a system that would work would be like (or at least a vote for anarchy) the complaint is pointless.

      Compare; "I think all modes of transportation th

      • While I don't want to be a don't-complain-if-you-don't-have-a-solution-guy

        But you are being that, just so you know. Nothing wrong with that, by the way. :)

        this kind of complaint suggests that the whole system as we know it is hopeless.

        Many people indeed feel exactly that sentiment.

        Without any idea what a system that would work would be like (or at least a vote for anarchy) the complaint is pointless.

        Disagreed. A complaint without a proposed solution at least allows other people to (a) debate

      • There is a solution: increase the powers of European Parliament. The EP will make dumb decisions too (like recent attempt to call Auschwitz a "Polish concentration camp" and refusal to say openly it was run by Germans), but they will have more of a democratic mandate than current decision made by the Council.
        • I have always thought a solution (at least a better democratic one) would be to abolish the powers that the counsel of ministers and the EU commision has, and divide that power between the EU parliament and a directly elected EU president.

          Ofcourse, since all sovereign countries will need to agree with new EU laws/directives, it seems higly unlikely that the counsel of ministers will ever be totally dismissed. A bit more realistic and feasable though, would be to limit the power of that counsel somewhat, an
    • You are missing one important detail: the people who were about to make a decision and the people who restarted the process were not the same.
      The decision would have been done by the Council of the European Union while the JURI (who restarted the process) is part of the European Parliament (which is pretty much against SW patents).

  • Square -1 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @10:51AM (#11582332) Homepage Journal
    Instead of repeatedly sending SW patents back to the starting point as a way of procedurally rejecting them in an endless game of snakes and ladders (chutes and ladders to Americans :), they should pass a constructive law guaranteeing freedom of innovation and expression in its place. Otherwise that IP monopoly protection racket will return every time, stronger, more wily, and attached to more attractive special cases, until it finally passes (American-style "amendments"). Europe's new leadership in true freedom must explicitly fill the power vacuum, or the revenant IP monopoly laws will.
    • "they should pass a constructive law guaranteeing freedom of innovation"

      I'm a patent attorney, and we'll always try to stretch the law. Don't forget, if you read the European Patent law you'd think that patenting software is impossible. Yet it happens.

      Apart from that there is (already) freedom of innovation when it comes to software. The goal of patent law is to distribute knowledge, facilitating others to achieve the result themselves quicker than having to find things out for themselves. The problem wit
      • I'm a patent attorney, and we'll always try to stretch the law.

        Why, exactly? What's in it for you? Are you not content with the law as it is? Do you 'stretch' other laws as well, or just this one?

        Sorry for sounding agressive, but this statement didn't go down well with me... Some professions (sportsmen, engineers, ...) should stretch the boundaries of their field, and others (accountants, attorneys, civil servants, ...) should stay well within them.

        The goal of patent law is to distribute knowledge, f

        • Re:Square -1 (Score:3, Informative)

          by kanweg ( 771128 )
          Hi,

          1) As a patent attorney I work for the interest of my client, who wants to secure a patent.
          Laws are written with words, and can't deal with each and every particular situation. So, if the arguments for a patent application are rejected, you try it another way. If you secure that patent, the border may have shifted a bit. That's a starting ground for the next discussion.
          And it is apparently in human nature to like winning arguments.

          2) A law comes with an explanation why it is there. An yes, that is the
          • Thanks for the info. Sorry if I came over a bit strong; your statement about law-stretching ticked me off but I didn't mean to attack you personally.

            I chose the one-click patent because it is an easy example, but I know of a great many others that are just as silly; some examples are here [ffii.org]. I have also been asking for "good" software patents on slashdot for a while now, and so far have heard of one that might be good (some people disagree strongly): the RSA patent. Some compression-related patents might al

            • A patent is granted by the government in return for sharing your knowledge with society. To avoid a plethora of silly patents, there are strickt requirements. An invention must be New and involve an Inventive step. And you have to apply for it and pay the cost involved. The reward for sharing your knowledge isn't money (one could quible years over what an invention is worth), but a monopoly: The patent. So, a good patent law entices people to share, but does dolly out patents like madness, otherwise it woul
          • I haven't looked at too many software patents (and none that weren't), but from those I did look at, there is something that seems at odds with the supposed benefit of the patent system:

            They do not tell you how to reproduce the 'invention'.

            They weave and wave in strange tones about this and that, but are not concrete about much of anything. How is that helpful to anyone?

            Wasn't the idea that patents would allow the public to use the 'idea' after the monopoly ran out by referring to the patent and reimplem
          • 2) A law comes with an explanation why it is there. An yes, that is the point. Logic sense tells you the same: If it takes me 100k to develop a product and you can copy mine for 10k, you can sell your product way cheaper than I can. I may go broke, while you get a profit.

            Patent law is a necessary evil. But its basics are pretty nice. The general idea is: sharing. Sharing knowledge, and you can't keep the monopoly on the knowledge for ever. It will become the property of the society, so the whole society ca
      • My goodness, a patent lawyer who isn't in favour of extending patentability to software. Until now, I had assumed that patent lawyers all pretended that the purpose of the law was to grant favours ('legal certainty') to patent holders, and pretended not to see the difference between computer programs and physical objects.

        (I think it is unfortunate that the reputation of the patent system as a whole is being tarnished by the abuses in extending it to software. There are abuses in other fields too, but not
  • And what exactly is newsworthy in this article?

    Don't the events described take place almost every day?

  • Thanks to the Poles (Score:2, Informative)

    by SteveAstro ( 209000 )
    The ONLY folks brave enough to get this shouted down were the Poles. They fought the Germans, they fought the Russians, they fought the communists and now they have beaten off the bureaucrats. A victory for the little guys.

    Well done.

    Steve
    • " They fought the Germans, they fought the Russians, they fought the communists and now they have beaten off the bureaucrats." They just can't get along with anybody.
  • The European Parliament is taking account of the huge public concern about this directive

    I read this site daily and was not aware of this directive. To classify as a huge publice concerns would seem to be overstating somewhat.
    • I would suggest you get out from under your rock then, assuming you're European. If you're not, it doesn't matter whether you were aware or not, since you're not "the public".

      It certainly has generated public concern. Look at the number of FFII protest signatories, or "Thank Poland" signatories, or the people who protested outside the Parliament. Or any the protectinnovation.org testimony. Or any other of the public feedback on the directive.

      If you read slashdot daily, you must be missing a lot of stories
      • And I would suggest that you get off your high horse.

        There is no "huge public" concern here. I googled (google news) for "Thank Poland" and got precisely two stories. And one of them was slashdot. How are you suggesting that the "public" found out about this? Slshdot or ZDNET?

        What may be a huge concern to you is not a concern at all to the general public. You and I are a small (not huge) part of the public. Heck, it seems that only a few people on slashdot are actually interested in it, given the low
        • When you talk about the joe-doe-in-the-street, you are probably right; he probably doesn't know anythingt about it. It was totally new to my less-tech-savvy friends too.

          But then again, one could say that in general: seldom a political issue generates a truelly 'huge' public concern, not even when it's about jobs or taxes.

          The fact that it generated as much concern for such a topic, is really astounding nevertheless.

          And, I must say, if you read slashdot daily, and you still managed to miss the EU-patents i
      • No, it hasn't generated huge public concern.

        I've seen nothing about this on the BBC News, ITV News, or in any of our daily newspapers. In fact, the only reason I know about the whole software patent issues is because I read Slashdot. I imagine the situation is similar for a lot of my fellow Europeans.

    • To classify as a huge publice concerns would seem to be overstating somewhat.

      OVERstating? See this anti software patents online petition [eurolinux.org]. The counter currently stands at 381,846 people/organisations who thought it was important enough to sign their name in protest. There are some more (smaller) online petitions like this. I haven't yet seen ANY online petitions seeking support for software patents.

      Then when Poland helped shoot down the proposed directive, a special "Thank you, Poland!" site [thankpoland.info] was started.

      • Then to say that there was huge support in the online community would have been more appropriate, don't you think?
        • Then to say that there was huge support in the online community would have been more appropriate, don't you think?

          With the internet as common as it is today, 'online community' and 'the public' aren't so different, you know. BTW: When was the last time you saw an online petition on ANY subject gather 380,000+ votes?

          • I don't disagree, it is very impressive number of signatures.

            However, the general public is still the general public. The key word there is general, distinct from any one specific group. My grandmother doesn't know about this issue or petition petition, nor do my parents. Even if they did, they probably wouldn't care (even if they could understand it). I speculate that if you talked to a random person on the street, the chances are that they wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about.

            And that is
  • FTA: "Unfortunately, however, it seems the Commission will not treat this as a chance to drop the entire issue but will continue pursuing software patents for the sole benefit of a tiny number of large, mostly American, companies," said Cox.

  • Don't shout victory now (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kartoch ( 38254 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @11:25AM (#11582503) Homepage
    Europe's ministers are planning to push ahead with controversial patent legislation despite a vote on Wednesday by MEPs to restart the process. The decision will set the two decision-making bodies of the EU at loggerheads.

    The original news [techworld.com]

  • Somebody celebrating is news? (Score:4, Funny)

    by xXunderdogXx ( 315464 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @11:30AM (#11582538) Homepage Journal
    Next up on Slashdot: Linus has people over for tea.

  • Am I the only one... (Score:4, Funny)

    by This Is Ridiculous ( 234241 ) <{brentdax} {at} {cpan.org}> on Saturday February 05, 2005 @11:48AM (#11582655) Homepage
    ...envisioning happy software Ewoks partying to primitive-sounding music?

    Not that there's anything wrong with that...
  • "Technical effect" [theregister.co.uk], the weasel wording used to justify pure software patents (what software does not produce a 'technical effect').

    The Patent Office says: "Participants [to a series of workshops] will be shown a variety of definitions for 'technical contribution' and invited to work in groups to test these against a range of innovations. They will also be welcome to propose definitions of their own."

    What about publishing these definitions so that the general public can see them? Not in jolly old Blight
    • What about publishing these definitions so that the general public can see them? Not in jolly old Blighty...

      I would be the last to defend the UK Patent Office's handling of this directive. In this case, however, you are being too harsh. The workshops are open to the public - if you want to see the suggestions, register [patent.gov.uk].

      • You register to go to a workshop. And not everybody can get to these workshops as they are being deliberately limited. If you wanted really to be open about it, the UKPTO could publish its definitions on the Web (whichthe imply they have). At least the public would then be informed.
  • What I've heard from a lawyer friend here in DC is that the patent office [uspto.gov] is basically punting on software patents (ie. approving most of them) and letting the courts sort things out afterwards.

    This might be one of the reasons that the volume of patent related lawsuits is going through the roof. See the graph patent lawsuits per year [ieee.org] (from the article A radical cure for the ailing U.S. patent system [ieee.org])

    Ben in DC

  • Change of strategy.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Saturday February 05, 2005 @12:29PM (#11582910)
    Let the Wookey win.

    You'll have to read the article to figure out what that means ;-)

  • Why doesn't anyone point out here that any program on a computer essentially comes down to manipulating numbers, a.k.a. math?

    You do not patent mathematical proofs no matter how complex which are in essence the same as computer programs. (I.e. they represent the mathematical means to perform said action.) So why do people have the idea software can be patented when ultimately software is just a wrapper for math?

    Like math, software evolves based on prior experience and builds on previous "proof" or "algorit

  • Phew (Score:1)

    by MasTRE ( 588396 )
    Maybe now they can focus on finally releasing 2.6.11 ;)
  • Can someone clearly explain this.

    Basically I do not understand which side is to be taken. If software patent is something like 1-click shopping, or the look and feel of the interface, or some crappy new way of solving the same problem, then I am against it.

    But if it something like a completely radical new way of designing OS's, or things like RSA, then I will actually side with software patents being a good thing.

    Also I am worried about legally distinguishing the two cases above. Can it even be done?

    Tha
    • The spirit of the patent law is to allow the inventors of useful devices to earn some money and continue living, so that they can invent more things, and also to encourage them publish the details of their inventions. So, if an inventor has invested 20 years of his life and thousands of dollars to build an anti-gravity spacecraft, then he can patent it. To do that, he must publish all details about the device and its blueprint, but in return he gets protection from the court/law system in case someone build

      • The spirit of the patent law is to allow the inventors of useful devices to earn some money and continue living, so that they can invent more things, and also to encourage them publish the details of their inventions.

        I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Patents were introduced to keep inventions from oblivion; if someone would invent something and keep the secret of the invention to himself, it would die with the inventor. In order to preserve inventions for society, the inventor could get a (temporary) lega

    • The idea behind patents is to give a time limited monopoly to the bright inventor in exchange for revealing how his/her invention works.

      In practice in Software (and in Health Care BTW) you cannot make "one invention", but you have to combine whatever invention you made with hundred or thousends of inventions other people have done in the past 20 years (so that is a large chunk of IT history).

      So whatever you expect to gain from licencing your inventions has to be offset by what you have to pay to other

  • This time we only won one defensive battle. However, the process hasn't ended, it is restarting. This gives the pro patent-lobby a good chance to regroup and rethink their strategies. Anybody opposing software patents in the EU should do the same.

    All those letters to MEP's are still waiting to be sent, BUT ... this time we could try harder to get the public aware of the threats that software patents bring. Letters ought to be sent to all major newspapers so that the readers know that there is such an issue

  • Current legal threats and potential patent threats (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Jason Scultz [socallinuxexpo.org], staff attorney for the EFF [eff.org], will be giving a seminar next week titled "Current legal threats and potential patent threats to Linux" at the Southern California Linux Expo [socallinuxexpo.org]. He will discuss patent and copyright attacks against open source projects, as well as the DMCA.

    For a free exhibit hall pass use the promo code "free" when registering [socallinuxexpo.org] or use the code "NEWSP" for a discount on a full access pass.
  • There ought to be a Eurovision Software Contest.
  • I released my internal non-combustion engine onto the Internet in August of 2003. Helsinki knows about it. Detroit fears it. My engine is self-cooling. Doesn't need a cooling system, radiator, hoses, engine jacket... Less weight therefore means it doesn't have to generate an equal power as a gasoline engine. It doesn't exhaust anything, so it does not use a heat manifold, catalytic converter, tailpipe or muffler, all of which are also adding weight to a vehicle. Links are on several pages: http://www.newpat [newpath4.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close