Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Linux Kernel Maintainer Joins Patent Celebrations

Posted by CowboyNeal on Sat Feb 05, 2005 09:39 AM
from the battle-still-not-over dept.
Patents Software Debian Linux
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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Linux Kernel Maintainer Joins Patent Celebrations 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

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

    by Saven Marek (739395) on Saturday February 05 2005, @09:43AM (#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, @09:48AM (#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, @09:51AM (#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

        • 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

      • 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

      • Re:Square -1 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Doc Ruby (173196) on Saturday February 05 2005, @09:58AM (#11582362) Homepage Journal
        Innovation and expression are inherently profitable. EU legislators need to learn how to get their bribes from a growing domestic software industry, rather than just one software monopoly company at a time. Increased competition might not allow a gargantuan dominator like Microsoft to grow in Europe, but it will allow the industry to grow larger, and support larger bribes as a whole. Then the EU legislators taking bribes from competing industries and consumer groups can compete with them, raising the bribe ante along with the increased overall productivity, and therefore profitability, of the EU economy.
        • I assume this is not satirical. Since everybody in your opinion are taking bribes, tell me how much do you take? Or are you an exception in this world of corruption?

      • Re:Square -1 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Doc Ruby (173196) on Saturday February 05 2005, @10:14AM (#11582440) Homepage Journal
        I'm a wealthy American due to the lack of IP monopolies in my old startup business' market in the 1990s. Nowadays it would be much harder and less likely; many of my more recent startup plans have involved Europe in many ways, all relating to their freer markets. You are afraid to compete on merit, preferring to hide behind a law that protects the best lawyered corporation.
      • There is an apparent correlation, which doesn't mean it is correct. The US has a way larger army. Why not use that as an explanation. It certainly forces countries to accept their way of maintaining their economy. For any theory you throw, I have another: The US is a country of immigrants, apparently people willing to take a risk to get a better future. Europe is where most of these come from. So, relatively less risk takers here.

        IP law is a very blunt knife when it comes to stimulating inventions. Essenti

        • Re:Square -1 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Doc Ruby (173196) on Saturday February 05 2005, @12:30PM (#11583419) Homepage Journal
          I'm not so sure that patent law, at least the part that grants monopolies on inventions, is essential to medicines (pharmacological inventions). Most patented medicines, especially the most (either theraputically or profitably) successful ones, were derived directly from a traditional medicine. Asprin from the willow is the best known, but in fact most effective medicines were directly derived by researching active ingredients in aboriginally bred biology. The patents protected big corporations with global marketing from the risk of competition, but it thereby excluded competitors from using the same base from which the patenters benefitted. Including aboriginals using their own medicines, now replaced by the more expensive patented versions.

          That system, perfected in the 1800s, is the model for most appropriation of public domain IP by monopolies. The latest example got a tiny bit of publicity when America revised Iraq's IP laws last year to criminalize Iraqi farmers using native seeds now available in GM form from American companies. But the entire IP protection racket is running amok. It is unjust, anticompetitive, and serves innovation only in the shortest terms, for the fewest people.
      • The IP monopoly protection racket over here as worked pretty well for us.

        Let me guess: Working in the legal business, are you?

        We're bigger, richer, and more powerful than Europe partly because Intellectual Property in all its forms is protected.

        You must be confusing 'protection' with 'abuse'.

        It's why Europe is so stagnant, and why America really the land of opportunity.

        Look again. In economic sense, Europe isn't doing so bad compared to the US. Maybe the Euro-Dollar exchange rates over the last mo

  • And what exactly is newsworthy in this article?

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

  • 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, @10:25AM (#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, @10:30AM (#11582538) Homepage Journal
    Next up on Slashdot: Linus has people over for tea.
  • ...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.
          • Sigh... Ooooh, how obvious was that?

            Anyway, not patentable: [Section 1.2.(c)] a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business, or a program for a computer; with the caveat: "but the foregoing provision shall prevent anything from being treated as an invention for the purposes of this Act only to the extent that a patent or application for a patent relates to that thing as such" and "In the main, the exclusions are directed to mental, intellectual, aesthetic or abs
      • It is weasel wording because there is no proper definition. Why do you think workshops are being held to define the term? Patent lawyers will easily get round most definition and, unless there is a lengthy and strictly maintained definition, pure software patents will become a fact of life in Europe.
  • 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, @11:29AM (#11582910)
    Let the Wookey win.

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

  • 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

    • Re:Alan Cox is a moron (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Alan Cox is most certainly not a moron. The UKIP is the one of two UK parties to be totally against the imposition of Software Patents. The other is the Green Party. The rest suck up to big business for most if not all of their funding. Even Labor is doing this these days now that the funds from the trade unions are drying up somewhat to past times. Patents will only benefit those who can afford to fight for the imposition of them.
      As a software developer by profession, I may have to carry insurance in the f

    • Re:Alan Cox is a moron (Score:4, Informative)

      by technolalia (806467) on Saturday February 05 2005, @11:24AM (#11582875)
      Nope. He advocated a vote for either UKIP or the Green Party as the only two UK parties that opposed EUsoftware patents.

      See his open letter [linuxtoday.com], where he says:
      "Please, if you were not going to vote, either vote for the UKIP or Green-EFA alliance members."

      That said, I personally feel that UKIP showed no real knowledge of the patent debate, opposing it only for being 'European', and thus leaving the door open to a UK patent legislation. The greens had a much better grasp of matters.

      I do share the posters concern about voting UKIP - they're a ridiculous bunch of racist scum.

      John

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.