EU Moves Towards Single European Patent Standard 234
theodp writes "A European Parliament committee Tuesday moved toward setting the first pan-European standard for software patents, but outlawed the U.S. practice of patenting business methods, such as Amazon's one-click Internet shopping. 'The European law sets the right benchmark rather than the looser U.S. system,' said the director of public policy for Europe at the Business Software Alliance, which represents 20 software companies including Microsoft and Apple. Amazon representatives in Brussels declined to comment on the new European legislation."
software patents in the EU (Score:4, Insightful)
not all good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1.0 is never perfect (Score:4, Insightful)
Laws are not like software. Software gets better with time, Laws and regulations often go the other direction.
That giant sucking sound... (Score:5, Insightful)
A distinction without a difference (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:1.0 is never perfect (Score:3, Insightful)
yup! but you could also say that the second version of anything is never the best version. The third version is!! er, wait.. the fourth is!
Re:At least sanity still prevails in some places (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that the patent office has turned into a revenue source for the government I'd say it's worse.
BIG Mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
We had the most innovative time when there were no patents and lockins. Now the software market is dead, because the OS vendor locks the market down. Giving them more lock down tools in the form of patents is death for applications software.
No applications are developed, nothing new is in the market and it has nothing to do with patents, and everything to do with market lock.
Re:At least sanity still prevails in some places (Score:5, Insightful)
I entirely agree with this, but I'm not sure if this is the right question to be asking. The question is, is there a benefit to the public to award a time-limited monopoly (aka a patent) for those who bother to go out and discover these things, or isn't there one? If it benefits us, we should do it. If not, we shouldn't. Whether it was a process of invention or discovery is moot if we can somehow encourage addition invention or discovery. But I'm skeptical as to whether the benefits are real, or more substantial than the problems that also ensue...
Then why should machines be patentable? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm no fan of the lovely US patent system, but I don't know about algorightms being a "mathematical truth" any more than a functioning machine is a "physical truth." One is an implementation of logic, one of physics. Yet no one would fight a patent on a new machine that does something cool. Similarly, I would argue for algorithms, assuming they meet all the other patent standards.
Note that doesn't mean I'm going to grant a patent on something like the for-loop, but I think any specific, novel, nonobvious means of solving any problem should be patentable. So if you invent a new way of approaching an encryption problem, cool, patent. But saying one-click is a patent, that's an end, not a means. No patent.
Re:That giant sucking sound... (Score:2, Insightful)
The giant sucking sound is air rushing into the vacuum that is your skull. Your post is complete nonsense.
Re:Then why should machines be patentable? (Score:3, Insightful)
What I do like about their version of this law is that it has to be Novel, pushing those patented towards the more rigorous side of the spectrum.
Changing Patent law is only part of the solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Now I believe that the current patent system is badly broken and in need of a massive overhaul, but how much of the change should be made in the patent system, and how much in the courts?
Re:At least sanity still prevails in some places (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of problems with the patent system (largely concerning the vast quantity of patent applications and awarded patents overwhelming patent offices and inventors; the intent of the system is that every inventor read every patent applicable to the field, but this is impossible, and the patents aren't even available for a long time), but this isn't really one of them (except that people getting software patents tend to be sleazier than the average).
Re:At least sanity still prevails in some places (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats an interesting argument, imagine if Newton had been able to patent the use of the formulas he discovered ?. At the same time in today's competitive money focused world Newton may not have been able to claim credit for discovery without the patent system.
No - there is NOTHING sane about this! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a wide-open door through which even the most rediculously obvious software patents could (and therefore will) slip.
Please please please don't let yourselves think that this is anything other than the EU getting a patent system open to virtually all of the abuses demonstrated in the US.
I just sent the following to my MEP, find your MEP's email address and contact them NOW before it is too late (people in the UK can find their members here [keele.ac.uk])!:
Re:That giant sucking sound... (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember why businesses exist in the first place (subtle hint as you're probably american, it's NOT to make a profit)
Re:At least sanity still prevails in some places (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we haven't learned from your mistakes, I'm afraid. Before EU started gathering together the directive, some countries, including Finland where I live, had no software patents at all.
Amen. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That giant sucking sound... (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you give some sources for that? Sorry, never heard of these laws.
all employees can only work 35 hours weeks.
That's a French law, AFAIK all EU countries have different laws. Besides, I think 35 hours/week is a good idea. Creates jobs, employees more productive, employees have more free time, which means they have more occasion to spend money and make economy run.
Re:That giant sucking sound... (Score:1, Insightful)
The giant sucking sound is air rushing into the vacuum that is your skull. Your post is complete nonsense.
What about:
Higher taxes means higher tax incomes, which, ofcourse if spent well, means a better living and working environment, and, as a bonus, means a diminished corporate grip over society.
Re:That giant sucking sound... (Score:4, Insightful)
"You should be in business to improve the lives of those around you" - John Paul Getty.
I like that. I've studied him and he really did think like that - business for him was for improving the lives of family, friends, employees and business partners. He was damn good at it too.
Re:Medical products (Score:4, Insightful)
I see the drug companies as similar to the bread making companies. Both have a recepie, both make money out of baking and selling the outcome. One does this without the need for patents. In fact, asprin tablet makers still manage to make lots money and stay in business despite there no longer (or even ever) being patents on asprin. So, in the end I think that the "drugs companies" issue is a bogus arguement. I also notice that the drug manufacturers are amongst the biggest an most monopolistic of companies. We end up paying huge premiums as a result of this either to health insurance companies or in taxes to our health services.
If the FDA wanted to level the playing field they could do this by ensuring that any new *brand* of drug has to go through trials and test, just like the original.
Sorry to bore you all, come on give me another flamebait (idiot moderator!).
European-developer-HOWTO (Score:4, Insightful)
"Use of hyperlinks in a computer program for an automation application and programmed computer for such an application" [espacenet.com]
"Method and system including a server, client-terminal, computer and computer program, delivering sound data" [espacenet.com]
"A computer system and a program install method thereof" [espacenet.com]
2) When you've found the 100 or so patents your program-to-be infringes, get a deal with all the inventors. (If some of them are slippery, you can probably "invent around" their claim in a couple of months)
3) Pay IBM for not starting a lawsuit you can't afford
4) (Minor step) Write your program
5) Sell it (hoping you won't be victim of a submarine patent)
6) PROFIT!!! (for your lawyer)
Nahhh, on the other hand, just drop developing, and become lawyer yourself (or take advantage of our generous social system, if being a "productive member of the society" is not your cup of tea)
What *is* invented? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, every invention is just a 'discovery' in some sense. I mean, take for example child-proof caps for medicine. Someone 'discovered' there was a way to make a cap that wouldn't open unless pushed. Someone 'discovered' that making a tire in a certain shape would pull water off the ground and make driving safer. Someone 'discovered' that you could setup transistors in a certain way to make double data rate DRAM. All of these are discoveries as much as something like realizing that you could delete audio information that would be filtered out by the brain as a way to save space.
The important thing in my mind is to filter out the 'obvious' things from the truly innovative. It's 'obvious' to use base-64 encoding in DNS for international domain names. 1-click shopping is 'obvious', etc.
Re:I like it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That giant sucking sound... (Score:2, Insightful)
If software patents evaporated tomorrow, what motivation would software companies have to release stuff quickly? We'll only see incremental changes and big design changes will be kept under wraps for years until they're fully mature, long enough so that no competitor could justify the effort to reproduce the functionality to enter the market. This will ensure even bigger monopolies and less compatibility. In fact, incompatibility will be their only shield left.
What we have now, though imperfect, is at least better than this.