EU Parliament Approves Software Patents

AnteTempore writes "The voting has just ended. Few good and several bad amendments were accepted. The directive proposal was accepted: 361 for, 135 against, 28 abstentions. The precise numbers and results for each amendment will be available on europarl.eu.int tomorrow." Reader swentel submits this report on the vote (French) with slightly different numbers (364 voting yes, 153 No, 33 abstaining) but just as bad. Watch this story for updates. Update: 09/24 15:44 GMT by T : Dr.Seltsam writes to say that the early reports are "not quite correct. The German publisher Heise states in this article, that the vote concerned strong changes on the directive." In particular, "pure software patents will not be allowed." Google's translation engine does a decent job with the German.

A quick translation...

[Anonymous Coward]

The European Parliament approves the patentability of the software STRASBOURG (Reuters) - the European Parliament approved Wednesday the draft Directive very disputed on the patentability of the software inventions, after having amended it to limit its field of application to the "true inventions" having a technical range. The text, presented in first reading, was approved by 364 votes, against 153 and 33 abstentions. It specifies the European Commission proposal, which establishes a distinction between the pure, famous software nonpatentable in European right, and the "inventions implemented by computer", which would become it, with the proviso of presenting a technical projection, likely to receive an industrial application. The text of origin was considered to be "fuzzy" and "ambiguous" by considerable members of Parliament who feared that it too largely does not open the way with the taking out of patents on the software, with the risk to constitute a brake with l"innovation in this key field of the economy. Eurodeputes added a paragraph specifying that a "invention implemented by computer (a software) is not regarded as contributing a technical share only because it implies the use of a computer". In light, so that a data-processing program is patentable, it is not enough that it is new, it is necessary still that it allows a technical innovation independently of its own execution. Another amendment specifies that the use of a patented technique is not regarded as a counterfeit if it is necessary to ensure the communication between various systems or data-processing networks. It acts for eurodeputes to prevent the monopoly which certain giants of the software could exert on the data-processing networks, Microsoft being named but probably not aimed. The European Parliament being a colegislator in this field which concerns the domestic market, the text must now be examined by the Council of Ministers, before returning in second reading to Strasbourg. The European police chief charged with the domestic market, Fritz Bolkestein, had warned eurodeputes, Tuesday at the time of the debate, on the "unacceptable" character of a certain number of amendments deposited.

Screw this!

[FrostedWheat]

I'm going to Mars, who's coming with me?

Massive victory for Open Source campaign

[JPMH]

The EU Parliament passed the amendments recommended by the FFII on almost all points.

This is a massive success, due to a level of lobbying unprecedented at this stage of a technical European measure.

A truly sad day for us Europeans

[jawtheshark]

Oh, well, seems we really want to get a mini-US. *sigh*. On the bright side, the french article mentions this:

Le parlement europeen etant colegislateur dans ce domaine qui releve du marche interieur, le texte doit maintenant etre examine par le Conseil des ministres, avant de revenir en seconde lecture a Strasbourg.

Freely translated: Because the European Parliament is a co-legislator in the domain that concerns the interior market, the text must now be examinated by the Counsel of Ministers, before it comes back for a second reading in Strasbourg.

I fear it is just a formality, but perhaps there is still some action to do... I donated money to FFII, in order to give at least a bit support.

Re:A quick translation...

[misterpies]

erm, in the last sentence that should be "European commissioner", not "European police chief". The EU is not yet at the stage where the police can dictate what parliamentarians can vote on...Also the French text clearly says that Microsoft was _not_ named but probably implicated, rather than the other way round...ach, that's what you get when you rely on Babelfish.

Re:Is there

[misterpies]

Yes, and it's called prior art. You can't patent something that has already been invented (even if you didn't know about its invention).

Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign

[JPMH]

This was the instant comment from slashdotter Halo1, who was in the Parliament all last night and this morning, on the spot as the vote happened:

Tino is sending a full list with results.

However, we got the full article 2 (2a and 2b from kauppi, PSE 69 + non-conflicting part from 55/97/108. We also have the industrial definition!

Art 3 is deleted, not amended

Art 4 is the biggest loss: for 4.1 and 4.2, the commission proposal has been voted. 4.3 is 110 somewhat amended ("compromise" Kauppi, but the compromise does not change the meaning in any way).

Art 5 is 102/111 (and 18 killed).

Art 6a is 76(1), without 76(2), so we got interoperability.

We lost most recitals, except for deletion of recital 6 (so no modification by NGL though) and also most other smaller amendments to the articles. So all in all, we sort of crushed the backbone of the proposed directive. I think we have a very strong start for the second reading.

Jonas

Re:So, now we have a DMCA equivalent

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a second: the DMCA is about copyrights, not patents. Completely different issue.

Re:Well Well...

[Mjlner]

Looks like lawmakers in Europe are just as stupid as US lawmakers after all.

Nah. Stupidity ain't the problem. Corruption is. EU lawmakers are simply just as easily bought as US lawmakers. Maybe even easier.

ObNitpick: EU != Europe.

Takedown of blackboxvoting.org

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of "to close websites and stiffle free speech", see this [theinquirer.net].

" DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS has brandished lawyers' threats to take down that pesky citizens activist website blackboxvoting.org. It seems they charged copyright infringement regarding materials on other websites that blackboxvoting.org merely linked to, despite such links having been ruled legal by appellate courts in other instances. "

It sounds not so bad

[Tiger]

The babelfished translation makes a few comments about distinctions that make this sound not so bad.

Distinguishing between a 'true invention' implemented on a computer and an existing invention that just happens to be implemented on a computer for the first time is a big one. It means that Joe Q Random can't patent his chopstick indexing program just because noone's ever indexed their chopsticks with a computer before.

(Provided, of course, someone's come up with a chopstick sorting system at all... Um. Excuse me, I'll be right back...)

Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign

[JPMH]

Explanation:

Article 2 = Fundamental definition of "technical": what is patentable and what is not. OUR DEFINITION ACCEPTED.

Article 3 = All software by definition patentable. KILLED.

Article 4 = Detailed conditions for deciding patentability. AMENDED. Will now be re-negotiated between the Parliament, Commission and Member States.

Article 5 = Program Claims. KILLED.

Article 6a = Right to use of patented techniques, without authorisation or royalty, if needed solely to achieve software interoperability. UPHELD.

This was achieved against massive counter-lobbying from the BSA and other industry giants.

Amendment Voting results - UNOFFICIAL

[elpapacito]

I was on a IRC channel followign the voting and that's what I've made of its log. Please don't hold your breath over it's unofficial.

Carried - Approved amendments:
12 - 24 - 28 - 36/42/117 - 107 - 69 - 55/97/108 - 38/44/118 -15S - 16 Part 1 and 2 - 100 Part 1
57/99/110 - 70 - 17 - 60 - 102/111 - 72 - 103/119 - 104/120 Part 1 - 76 Part 1 - 71 Part 1
81 - 93 - 94 - 89 -1 - 88 - 31 - 32/112 - 84 Parts 1,2,3 - 114/125 - 34/115 - 85 - 86 Part 1
86 Part 3 -75

Rejected amendments:
29/41/59 - 116/126 - 37/39/43 - 127 - 46 - 48 - 82 - 100 Part 2 - 87 - 76 Part 2 - 106 - 71 Part 2
30 - 123 - 124

Falled ? :
105 - 50 - 91/21/90

Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign

[hanssprudel]

The DeCSS case was never about patents. The EU anti-circumvention law, EUCD, still stands.

And Norway (Jon's country) is not an EU member state.

Re:Can someone explain Article 6a?

[JPMH]

This isn't the final law yet. As Halo1 posted, it is only the first reading, and will now get negotiated between the parliament, commission and member states, before coming back to the parliament for second reading.

Article 6a, which the parliament voted for today, reads:

a) 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.

This text would apply to all patents, whether granted already or not.

Re:Will IBM Defend OSS?

[Noryungi]

IBM has a patent portfolio large enough to fend off any patent lawsuits against Linux and other open source software. IBM is also one of the biggest supporters of Linux, so there is still hope that IBM won't leave us high and dry when the patent attacks on Linux begin.

Sorry, I disagree.

IBM is corporation . That means its primary goal is profit .

Linux is, for the moment, a source of profit for IBM, mainly for the hardware and the consulting arms of IBM.

If IBM managers think that Linux has ceased to be a source of profit, or even become a liablity for the company, they'll simply stop supporting Linux and switch to soemthing else.

Don't kid yourself: IBM is Linux's "friend" only because Linux has proved profitable and allows Big Blue not to depend too much on Microsoft.

And remember this, as well: IBM was a huge company when Bill Gates was still in his diapers. It has seen computing fads (mainframes, minicomputers, microcomputers, real-time, clusters, etc) come and go. And it is still in business. What makes you think this company is above the famous "embrace and extend"?

No, sorry, IBM support of Linux is self-serving at best and very temporary at worst.

Don't preempt

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

This is only one step in a complex "codecision" process.

The European Parliament get a say in this, but are not the final authority. Software patents are not yet EU law, and still have more stages of debate/voting to go through before they hit the lawbooks.

I think the final decision rests with the European Council of Ministers under the process in use (those Ministers not being directly elected, but being appointed by the national governments) but I'm sure someone will correct me on that if I've lost the plot.

Story is complete misinformation

[Halo1]

As JPHM already mentioned above, I've been here in the European Parliament in Strasbourg since Monday lobbying. I haven't slept last night at all because, together with other people (hi Xavi, Tino, James and Hartmut :), I was making the final voting recommendations of ffii.org. We distributed a paper version of this voting list this morning and also had an MEP mail it to all other MEPs so they all could look at it and use it if they wanted.

In general, pretty much all important amendments to the articles were incorporated. There is a lot of patch-up work to do and in its current form, the directive is a complete mess because of this, but the basic line has been completely turned around.

Yesterday, Commissioner Bolkestein was still complaining that we (the opponents) were trying to destroyt the directive and warned against voting against the directive, because it would not fix the current legal uncertainty (software patents are being granted but not enforceable before a court of law as they are illegal). Today, rumors are doing rounds that the Commission is considering retracting the directive, because it was so successfully amended by us.

Finally, I would like to say that our lobbyiong in general has absolutely nothing to do with open source or Free Software. We simply think software patents would be bad for all SME's, independent developers and innovation/society as a whole. Of course, there are a lot of free software in the independent developers category (and especially in the Free Software category, quite a few people concerned with society as well).

Being stamped"linux junkies that want everything to be free/gratis" corner is however the last thing we want (our opponents have tried that, and failed until now since they have no basis that supports their claims), and we having backing from several commercial closed source companies (such as Opera Software).

Good, this law is much better!

[theolein]

The amendments made make this law much improved compared to its original incarnation. It is way better than the US version. Software is not patentable in itself, nor are business methods.

Yeah!!!!

Re:Bleh.

[Halo1]

Actually, patents explicitly give you a temporary state-granted monopoly on the applications of your invention described in the patent claims. It has nothing to do with how patents are written, it's inherent to the way patents work.

So why give patents? The assumption is that what society gets in return for this monopoly (the working of this patented invention, and the fact that the innovator gets a reward for his work will encourage more innovation) weighs up against this negative effect.

The big problem with software patents is that these positive effects do not weigh up against the negative effects. See this MIT study [researchoninnovation.org] on the effect of software patents in the US and the open letter from a number of distinguished economists [researchineurope.org] to the European Parliament. It's simply a matter of striking the right balance between the positive and negative effects, and in software the negative effects far ouweugh the good ones.

The reason.

[zCyl]

Someone please explain to me why patents on software are bad. I'm not confusing it with copyright...that's something I'm for if the author desires. But seriously, I don't understand that bad thing about patenting a piece of software.

As I understand the issue, it's basically two-fold.

First, software patents are bad because the low threshhold for an idea to be considered novel results in things being patented which are immediately obvious to any expert in the field. And that's not the point of a patent. A patent, ideally, should provide protection for a truly new and original idea so that creative inventors can market their idea and make money licensing their idea during an initial period, while still making the inner workings of their invention publicly known. Then, after this period, everyone can benefit from knowing how this new device works. For example, you could patent the lightbulb when it first comes out, and make a few cents (in todays money) on every lightbulb sold for a controlled number of years, after which the idea becomes public domain.

Software patents typically seem to fail in that respect, and instead are used as a means of controlling and restricting access and interoperability. This does not carry the same benefit for society.

Secondly, software patents are unique in that the software world has such a short generation cycle, and conventional patent durations seem excessive in comparison. A patent on a new car engine design which lasts about 20 years might more appropriately correspond to a software patent which lasts around 5 years. But instead, software patents are often given "equal protection" of the same time length as conventional patents.

I'm sure others have their own reasons for questioning software patents.

it was a major win, damn it.

[villoks]

Slahdot-journalism at it lowest point ever. From FFII's PR:

FFII News -- For Immediate Release -- Please Redistribute

See

http://swpat.ffii.org/#news

Now we will have to see whether the European Commission is committed to
"harmonisation and clarification" or only to patent owner interests.

Yesterday's threats uttered by Bolkestein against the European Parliament
suggest the latter.

The detailed results are available on our site

http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/plen0923/

It will now be our job to help the European Parliament assert itself against
attempts by Bolkestein and patent lawyers wearing the hat of national
governments to crush the directive project.

The current text has some remaining contraditions in it, but basically the
thrust has been turned around. It has become our directive which we
must help the European Parliament to defend. This is also a question of
the European Parliament's role in an emerging democratic Europe. On the
whole this is very good news for the EU.

--
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance

WRONG: EU Parliament Approves Software Patents

[xris]

The story gives a completely wrong impression. Have a look at this story from the german magazine Heise [heise.de] (german, sorry) - the fact is, the majority voted for drastic changes of the directive and against the original draft - so actually this is very good for all of us opposing patentability of software.

Hey editors, please change the story so that not everybody claims we european get a US-like patent law system, this is (not yet) the case!

The voted amendements are AGAINST patentability

[Balaitous]

This time, contrarily to others, this is truly a victory for those who fight against patentability of software. Amendements 69,70,71,72, 55 first part and 57 have been voted. They exclude completely information processing methods from patentability, state a standard of accepting as technical only the use of foreces of nature to control physical effects beyong the representation of information, reject software claims, forbid to take in account non-technical features to decide on whether there is an innovative technical contribution, etc.

This is a historical turning point: for the first time a coalition has rejected the extension of restrictions to free and open knwoledge. The news release are all wrong because they can't imagine that the coalition was so wide, and misinterpret the no vote of the Green on the full report. On key amendments 1/3 of PPE, 2/3 of PSE and 1/2 of Liberals voted with the Green, the united left, and small parties to adopt this text.

The misinformation about this outcome is truly sad, but truth will emerge: the adopted amendements are those that the Commissioner Bolkestein yesterday described as "unacceptable".

Wrong Info, please update story *sigh*

[xris]

The story gives a completely wrong impression. Have a look at this FFII news: EU Parliament Votes for Real Limits on Patentability [ffii.org] - the fact is, the majority voted for drastic changes of the directive and against the original draft - so actually this is very good for all of us opposing patentability of software.

Hey editors, please change the story so that not everybody claims we european get a US-like patent law system, this is (not yet) the case!

Re:Don't preempt

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's the Council of Ministers that has the final say. The Council of Ministers is basically a name for various gatherings of cabinet ministers from member states -- agriculture issues are decided by the council of agriculture ministers from each state, and so on. I would guess that the patent directive is decided by the member state ministers responsible for trade issues. I don't see this arrangement as particularly undemocratic -- these are cabinet ministers who are elected indirectly, to the extent that the cabinet in a modern democracy is elected. That is, you elect the governing party and the head of the governing party then chooses the cabinet.

Re:Well Well...

[Insurgent2]

I don't think you are correct.
As a matter of fact, This SourceForge project [sourceforge.net] was shut down for exactly this reason.
The incredibly innovative software programming marvel that is covered by the patent?
SCREEN SCRAPING A FRIGGIN TEXT FILE!

Sorry for the yelling. This subject really pisses me off. :(