EU Amends Software Patent Directive (Suggestions) 160
jopet writes "The EU has amended its draft proposal for a directive on how to handle patents on "computer-implemented inventions'. Several harsh points have been dropped and clarifications on what is patentable at all have been added. Good to see that protests and petitions can make a difference." YHBT. These are the suggestions from June.
Well it's a start (Score:2, Insightful)
Lesser of two evils? (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, at least it shows that MEPs *do* listen to their constituents, so there is some hope...
Seems good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlimited patent protection for software could make it illegal under patent law to engage in reverse engineering practices employed by software developers to achieve interoperability as currently permitted under the exceptions in the Software Copyright Directive. Therefore future EU-legislation related to software patents must include an explicit exception to patent rights in order to ensure that developers of software can continue to engage in the same acts to achieve interoperability under patent law as they are allowed to today within the limits of copyright law."
and: "It is essential to monitor the impact of the patentability of computer-implemented inventions on small and medium-sized undertakings. "
and: This recital makes it clear that it is not enough to specify the use of a computer (i.e. of technical means) to make a computer-implemented invention patentable. The invention as a whole must make a technical contribution. Ordinary data processing is not enough.
and finally: It is essential to make it clear that this Directive is not revolutionary and will not change the status quo as regards the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. It will, however, make for legal certainty and set clear limits as to what is patentable in this area.
As someone who wrote to their MEP, I'm pretty pleased with the changes, looks like we made a difference!
Yes, you are getting your hopes up. (Score:3, Insightful)
But the most important thing is that, in order to curtail predatory business practices one must prosecute effectively, because failure to do so renders the entire legal framework a waste of paper. I love the EU with all my heart, but sometimes wasting paper is all they seem to be good at.
Good Thing (Score:5, Insightful)
However, there is still cause for alarm. For example, what is meant by:
There are quite some terms here that could be interpreted wide enough to still pose a threat. Moreover, this is just one proposal; it may change again in the future. Still, I sigh in relief.
Not perfect, but some good stuff here (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of the proposed amendments add new clauses that specifically limit software patenting. Probaly not enough limits to satisfy the "no software patents" crowd, but still... it sure would be nice if U.S. law took some of these principles a little more clearly to heart:
Actually, my favorite part might be one of the preamble amendments:
This part should be required reading at the USPTO... :-)
Faster than you think.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Given that the amendment is from June they're even faster than that!
Re:Is this enough to stop a repeat of LZW? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, I don't quite agree here: others amendment makes it clear that, in order for something to be "patentable", they must a) not be made only of the assembly of unpatentable items (art. 13a and 13b) and b) involve an "inventive" (and patentable) step (Art. 13c)
Therefor, it can be argued that, if LZW is not patentable, mearly applying it to data compression isn't either since it doesn't invlove anything that is patentable and it doesn't invlove and "new way" to solve the technical problem at hands.
Re:Yes, you are getting your hopes up. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Is this enough to stop a repeat of LZW? (Score:2, Insightful)
What you are suggesting is either a different algorithm (I presume that it would have a different "big O", therefore a different "recipe", therefore a different algorith) or a specific optimized implementation of the same algorithm. The latter may or may not be patentable, I have not studied the full text of the directive. However, look at the text:
This implies that while "algorithm to obtain two primes from their multiplied form" would not merit a patent, "Method to decrypt ciphered content" that uses the same algorithm would, effectively precluding its use in its main application area. My thesis is that allowing this kind of protection is but a short step from allowing patentability of the algorithm as a whole, since alternative applications for most alorithms are few and far between.Re:article 4a: exclusions from patentability (Score:3, Insightful)
These are weasel words that can easily be circumvented by an appropriate definition of "technical effects". For example, this rather pointedly leaves "the user" out of the list of physical interactions. So any "technical effect" on the user, such as saving mouse clicks by using cookies when shopping online, for example, can be patented.
Re:protests and petitions can make a difference? (Score:2, Insightful)
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:5, Insightful)
This article it totally crap (Score:5, Insightful)
It is very common that patent protagonists lied to the general public and their collegues. Patent lawyers are like crackers. Cracker circumvent security, patent lawyers circumvent restrictions of patent law. A patent lawyer that cannot file a patent on software patents with the current "JURI amended"-directive proposal would not be worth his money.
Here you find the amendments [ffii.org] that will be voted on and FFII's recommendation. FFII and the Eurolinux Alliance are very strong in Brussels and they grow stronger every day. Many parliamentarians listen to us and then the directive protagonists sell the directive as an fulfillment of our concerns, switching rhethorics, but not substance. About 200 people now focus on this issue as activists on our mailing lists. You can subscribe to patent@aful.org [aful.org] or take part in theOnline demonstration [wiki.ael.be] or become a member/supporter of FFII [ffii.org] or sign the Eurolinux Petition [noepatents.org]. You can support FFII by donations or even better by contributions. The European Parliament underestimated us. The patent lawyer slaves in Europarl came under strong pressure. We will be a mayor stakeholder in any future debate. The Green Party/EFA Groups impressed by our work even called for Open Source in the EU institutions [greens-efa.org]
I also would like to remind you that the US government lobbied against us [ffii.org], esp. against interoperability in the directive. The wrote a letter to EU parliamentarians. I think it is time to internationalize the debate and we need your help to get rid of EU, US, JP ecc. trivial software patents. Unfortunately OSI does not support anti-swpat action and very few US activists joined forces with us. An OSI representative (Russell Nelson) from the board of directors says they are "neutral" not really caring about Intellectual Property, and that's what is written in their FAQ.Re:Amendment 20, Article 6 a (new) (Score:1, Insightful)
The amendment you quote is deleted from the current draft, because was put in by mistake by Arlene Mcarthy and Co.
Their amendment no goes like this:
Article 6 a (new)
----
Article 6a
The rights conferred by patents granted for inventions within the scope of this Directive shall be without prejudice to acts permitted by way of exception under Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs by copyright, in particular the acts specified and described in the closed list set out in Articles 5(2) and (3) and 6 of Directive 91/250/EEC.
----
Article 6 does not sound as good as it before, now does it?
This directive is just as bad as all the previous.
MEP's: Please stop this EU Software Patent nonsense by rejecting the whole directive!
Write/Call your MEP before it is too late.
regards.
BobCat
Not good enough & What can we do about it (Score:3, Insightful)
Worst, it's indeed aimed to enable a party to patent the idea.
(search for " opyright" in the document - don't forget to type the extra space in the beginning)
I agree with various parties, including Linus, that copyright (protection for the expression / the actual code) alone is already enough for software developers.
Ideas should never be patentable.
I know that business method and algorithm are non-patentable by the amendment, but:
[#] EU currently forbid software to be patented, and it's doing OK with numerous software houses, big and small alike, flourishing.
[#] So there's lack of justifiable case for this legislation to exist at all.
A software-patent legislation means making a small opening, which may lead to currently unseen consequences in the future.
[#] This software-patent legislation should not exist at all.
We should aim for its cancellation, not its amendment.
But as revealed by a lobbyist (Ciaran?) some time ago in Slashdot, MEPs doesn't like the idea of rejecting a legislation proposal; since they view it as a waste of EU resources.
So this definitely is not going to be easy. But I think we have to aim that high, for our own future.
I've also written another comment that may be relevant here [slashdot.org].
Anyway, I'd like to write/fax (not email/other virtual means of communication) to my representative in EU parliament. But so far I've failed to find out how.
Can anyone enlighten me please ?
Thanks.
We're hardly out of the woods yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, that remains to be seen.
First of all, as far as I know a vote is necessary to determine if these amendments make it into the directive.
Even so, most of these amendments are just polishing language. They do not really change the character of the directive proposal, in that it allows software patents (in contradiction to what it says in the explanatory part that it intends to clarify the existing European Patent Convention, and not to replace it. The EPC explicitly prohibits software patents).
A big problem is the definition of the term "technical". It can easily be argued that the use of a certain algorithm e.g. to improve software performance is "technical" and can be patented even if the algorithm itself cannot be patented. Hopefully the following amendment will be included in the final directive:
The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a technical field. The processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes.
The following amendment:
Member States shall ensure that wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or network so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement.
looks promising, but it would still allow the abominable GIF patent as a conversion when it is not specifically used for data exchange between computer systems.
We can always hope the MEPs will vote for a directive that prohibits patenting of any software (and the process of running such software) that is intended for general purpose computers, such as operating systems, office suites, data base software etc, etc, in line with the existing EPC. However, I am not too confident that this will happen...
Re:There never was a Software Patent Free EU (Score:4, Insightful)
But IANAL. In any case, in my view of the world, this directive is a step forward from the current situation.
(Especially given that everything interop is nonpatentable and noninfringing.)
Re:Is this enough to stop a repeat of LZW? (Score:3, Insightful)
anyone who believes an algorithm is "inherently" non-technical has obviously never tried to solve an engineering problem.
take, as example, the viterbi algorithm, invented by dr. andrew viterbi one of the founders of qualcomm.
most digital receivers do not attempt to "undo" the effects of the radio channel, rather digital receivers attempt to model the radio channel to estimate what would have been received given an assumed binary sequence. by comparing what was actually received to what the receiver expected to receive, one can estimate the binary sequence which was sent. this is known as MLSE, or maximum likelihood sequence estimation.
a major problem with MLSE is that digital sequences can be very long, and the number of possible paths quickly becomes enormous and unmanageable. viterbi's algorithm is a clever way of "pruning" the number of paths so that the number of possible sequences is reduced to a manageable size. modern, low-cost, digital communications would not be possible without dr. viterbi's algorithm (which he, by the way, never patented.)
viterbi's algorithm is a mathematical equation which does not describe a natural phenomenen (like E=mc^2), but is an invention of mankind to solve a particularly vexing problem facing digital communications.
when programmed into a DSP, the viterbi algorithm has technical effect, but the invention itself is the algorithm.
one could copyright the code used to program the DSP, but this doesn't protect the algorithm, only a particular implementation of it. copyright does very little to prevent someone else from coding the algorithm in a different way or from implementing the invention in firmware. this is the weakness of copyright and why patents on algorithms are needed.
Has NO ONE read the amendments? (Score:5, Insightful)
These are the amendments from the pro-patent camp, the people pushing the directive.
The only good thing in there is the exclusion of Business Method patents. Everything else is just moving words around and generally strengthening the "software innovation = invention" stance. (inventions are patentable).
The vote is on the 24th of this month. No amendments have been adopted yet, that's what the vote is for.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Re:Is this enough to stop a repeat of LZW? (Score:2, Insightful)
As expected, since the algorithm applies to such a general class of data (data generated by a HMM process) I also found that the Viterbi algorithm is used in other fields such as molecular biology and speech recognition.
It is dangerous and foolish to assert that some mathematical scheme is not a representation of any natural phenomenon. Logic dictates that in order to make such an assertion one would need to know every mathematical description of all natural phenomena.
This is typical of the (often deliberate) short-sightedness used in the arguments of those who advocate patentability of mathematical algorithms.