European Council Approves Software Patents 482
A. S. Bradbury writes "ZDNet reports that the EU Council has voted to pass changes to European patent law that will allow the patentability of software. See the FFII for more coverage. Currently, the FFII states 'The Irish Presidency's proposal was passed, with support from Germany, France and most of the other countries whose ministers had publicly promised to oppose or at least abstain. The only no vote came from Spain (to be confirmed), Italy and a few others abstained.' As you may remember, Germany had previously promised to vote against software patents. The FFII news page seems to have been showing growing support in European countries for the FFII and other organisations fighting against software patents, but unfortunately that wasn't enough. So, what now? The European elections are approaching, which means MEPs might be more willing to listen to our views than normal. Slashdot has covered software patents in Europe before."
Think about righteous patents for once (Score:4, Insightful)
If the european patent office seems more sane than the us (a little like the japanese seem to do) and not issue patents for obviously stupid stuff, the problem might not be that big
Re:What do you think? (Score:5, Insightful)
Passed AGAINST the will of the parliament (Score:5, Insightful)
And in other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
...the Pope is found to be Polish, and bears are found to be rather partial to crapping in the woods.
C'mon, didn't we all see this coming? Did we really think that those unelected officials which govern in our name would make a decision that reflects our best interests?
Different laws... (Score:3, Insightful)
The law systems in Europe allow for less bullying by corporations. Therefore, I'm not overly concerned.
Re:What do you think? (Score:2, Insightful)
Please, read up a bit about software patents and it's effects before posting. The ONLY ones to benefits are the very largest companies and patent lawyers.
Yeah, great! (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part is that I believe that most of the propatent folks really believed that they are doing the software firms a favour and helping local developers up on their feet again. The Irony! The only thing that will probably happen is that the bigshots (i.e. Microsoft and the like) will further dominate the market instead of, growing, newcomers that could produce the next big thing and create jobs instead of outsorcing.
Let me be first first American to say: (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, I feel bad for you, really, but all we've been hearing for years on Slashdot is that Americans are idiots who keep electing bad leaders. The USA doesn't have a patent on bad lawmaking, so please keep that in mind, would you?
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Saving IP is one thing, but to limit someone to do the same thing with totally different code is another.
already stated but once again. Fuck.
Maybe your right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What do you think? (Score:3, Insightful)
Small companies will have their ideas stolen, and will have a choice: either fight, and end up going under due to financial burden, or try to compete, and hope that they have a significantly better mousetrap. Given the software patents that I have seen, that is not likely, and the monopolies will win (yet again).
As for Open Source - we have always been targets, and will continue to be so. However, we don't have the deep pockets and there is plenty of prior art on our side (hence only SCO being stupid enough to go after us, thus far, and then having to pick IBM as the surrogate 'deep pocket' for their purposes) - meaning attacks on Open Source will continue to come through FUD, as opposed to patent law in most cases.
IANAL - so don't base any business or personal decisions on my advice.
It Doesn't Work That Way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Patents may have been conceived as a means to protect "the little guy," but nowadays, they're nuclear weapons on a very small battlefield. Your bombshelter is not deep enough.
-Hope
Re:Apparently the Germans forced some changes thro (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite. Their amendments were gutted of the most important parts. Here an extract of the Italian speech, nicely summing up the situation:
Basically, the German amendment was meant to define what "technical contribution" means (i.e. sth technical, with the exception of anything that happens within the computer itself). Now, what's left are vague formulations such as "computer programs as such are not patentable", etc. which have been shown to be weasely and highly ambiguous.Re:Think about righteous patents for once (Score:5, Insightful)
It's much more of a problem that obvious things are patented -- for example, a LOT of webshop features [ffii.org] that you would think obvious have been the subject of patents that have been issued by the European Patent Office.
The point of the directive, as the EU parliament made it, was to outlaw all software patents. The point of the directive as the council made it (and the ones who actually wrote it are the patent office officials) is to allow all those patents in practice.
Re:What do you think? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, you can build whatever you want using whatever ideas that are available in your own home for personal use without any concern for patent issues. That is why I am not too concerned about this.
So, all of the geeks will have the cool tools, and all the poor lusers will have to pay 'Acme Software' for their fix.
Re:May I be (Score:3, Insightful)
"Well, I do dabble in politics on the side."
"Good. Here's a list of bills I'd like you to introduce. If they pass, you'll get a little something extra in your Christmas bonus packet this year. If they don't, well, you know the consequences..."
"Mandatory Overtime?"
"You got it, kid."
Re:Let me just be the first to say (Score:3, Insightful)
And now they want people to care enough to vote?! Not me.
"open source and anti-globalisation movement" (Score:5, Insightful)
Now WHO THE FUCK told them they could throw those two cats in the same bag?
Re:You seem to be saying there should be not paten (Score:5, Insightful)
Yours is prior art to theirs _if_ you can _prove_ it is in court. Which rather requires that patent lawyer you couldnt afford in the first place.
If you cant afford to patent something there's no way you'll be able to defend yourself when someone else steals your idea, patents it and claims they were first, then proceeds to sue you for patent infringement on something you invented in the first place.
That sure is going to have such beneficial effects on that 'innovation' thing...
Re:Euros == Liars and Pushovers (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do some people *need* to hate an entire culture of people? This decision within the EU doesn't prove that Europeans are liars and pushovers anymore than it would mean that if passed in any other country. What it *does* mean is that politicians are politicians regardless of what country they are in and will always cater to special interests, regardless of what those who elect them actually want.
Re:You seem to be saying there should be not paten (Score:5, Insightful)
There are arguments to be made that patents are never good, for anything. And I have yet to see an independent study that proves that patents are a net benefit.
But that wasn't really what he was arguing. What he was arguing was that 20 years is way too long for patents in the software industry, even if you concept software should be patentable. The software industry has lifecycles of 2 to 5 years (most products inching closer to 2 than to 5), meaning you go through 4 to 10 iterations of your product before your patent expires. That's too much. 2 or 3 product iterations is ok, but more than that is not in the public interest. And remember that patents, copyrights and trademarks are meant to serve the public interest, not the corporate bottom line.
Besides, just look at the examples of long lasting patents on useful stuff that expired. Take the patent of RSA. Once that expired we've seen a dramatic upsurge in encryption products. Before it expired, ssh was a niche product, now it's often the only way to log into a system. That single expiration brought dramatic benefits to the entire software industry. I'm not saying the original inventors shouldn't have benefited from their invention, but the RSA patent held back strong encryption, and the products based on it, for two decades.
Besides, I think there's something seriously wrong if the only way we can reward inventors is by handing them absolute monopolies for two decades. Solve the cause, not the symptoms.
Re:Different laws... (Score:4, Insightful)
As such, since a patent is (supposed to) protect an *application of an idea*, not the idea itself, patents are very applicable to engineering, and not at all to math/science. You can't patent an algorithm; however, you can patent applying that algorithm to a problem in a novel way.
I.E. - turbo coding? Not patentable. Using turbo codes as your coding method for voice over RF? Patentable, but only if the use of turbo codes enables significant advances over the current state of voice over RF. This is arguable.
That's why engineering is different from science.
Now, why is software engineering different from classical engineering? It isn't. However, a lot of bad software patents have been granted. If you're going to grant patents, you need to grant software patents as well; there is nothing fundamentally different about software allowing it to be treated differently than a circuit board. However:
The implication of patentable software is threefold:
1) Reverse-engineering of patented software to determine how it works must be legal under any circumstance.
2) There must be no copyright protection for source code.
3) The entire source code must be included in the patent application.
This places software on a level with hardware, which is where it belongs.
Vote Whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is SO frustrating and SUCH a shame for democracy.
Sometimes you can't eat as much as you want to vomit... (Manchmal kann man nicht soviel Essen wie man Kotzen möchte)
Re:You seem to be saying there should be not paten (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes I am saying that there should be NO patents. Patents have held up great break through's in the adoption of technology, over, and over, and over again!
Examples:
1) Car, Henry Ford to mass produce cars had to circumvent the car patent.
2) Laser, until the patent expired lasers were for the rich or unique. Now you can buy a laser at every corner.
3) GSM, while there are patents involved the reason why it worked is because everybody decided to forgoe the huge licensing fees.
4) And lets not forget software AND hardware, which to a large part worked wonderfully WITHOUT patents.
Patents are monopolies that only cause adoption rate of technologies to be 20 years delayed. I agree with copyrights, trademarks, and industrial design. The reason I agree with those is because they protect VERY specific designs and texts.
Patents these days are NOT for the small time inventor, but solely for the large corporations. Personally I would rather have a corporation rip off my product, as I can rip off their's as well.
Now about the R&D argument and that it would never happen. Well look at the examples where patents were avoided and the results is that the markets are BIGGER without patents!
Re:May I be (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm... option 1) Have your employer arrested. Consequences: Further more subtle harrasment at work, company profits tank, company may go bankrupt, sending you job hunting. Or... option 2) Take the thick wad of money on the table, introduce bills that make your employer more profitable, you get big bonuses and high job security.
The number of principled people who would take option 1 over option 2, and also be the type to 1) run in, and 2) be able to win an election is so vanishingly small as to be non-existant.
Re:Different laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
Software is already covered by copyright, which protects a certain implementation of something, so the intention of software patents implicitly is to extend beyond the implementation to the very concept of doing or accomplishing something.
Software, unlike pretty much any other field, becomes twice-covered by both patents and copyright.
Re:Passed AGAINST the will of the parliament (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover, this is not the only example of the EU bureaucrats pushing a decision in spite of the opposition of the Parliament or the will of (ha ha) us poor taxpaying sods.
This story [theregister.com] tells you how, with the help of US airline lobbyists, the EU Commissars trampled the European privacy laws and made a mockery of all these human right principles they are supposed to defend.
Here is the moral: If you pile up another layer of government and transnational bureaucrats on top of already corrupt governments, you'll not get Beauty, Truth and Good. You'll get the best laws money can buy. And they'll be bought indeed.
Re:Euros == Liars and Pushovers (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What do you think? (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright law already provides authors with protection from their works being stolen. The concept that ideas are ownable (which is what software patents boil down to) is silly and wrong.
Re:May I be (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope you don't mind if I take the liberty of correcting a slight editorial error...
Daniel
EU beauracracy promises patent filing not patents (Score:5, Insightful)
These are the people who have 80 page specifications for a bus steering wheel. Can you imagine the requirements for a successful patent that has to be passed in 25 countries at the same time?
Re:What do you think? (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole software-patent thing has nothing at all to do with protecting ideas. Right now, anyone can get a degree, download the java sdk and eclipse and write good software. By screwing everything up so that you need a legal department to write code, the big software companies hope to make it so that little guys are excluded.
The goal is to create what economists call 'barriers to entry' into the software development industry. Because barriers to entry make it expensive to enter the industry, firms can increase prices farther than they otherwise could because competition will only enter the market if their potential profits exceed the start-up cost. Creating a menace to FLOSS is icing on the cake.
I know, I know, IHBT IHL and I'll HAND. I just wanted to explain this to the people who modded the parent up or read it.
Re:What is the problem exactly? (Score:1, Insightful)
Argh! (Score:4, Insightful)
--rhad
On whom? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm calling upon ALL European Citizens to VOTE IN THE NEXT EUROPEAN ELECTIONS
For who? The vote is in the next week or two and I don't know anyone who's against this crap.
Give me a name and I'll vote.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you heard the people who complain that Red Hat no longer ships mp3 codecs for audio players, or video players (not just certain codecs but the players themselves)? Or a driver for read-only NTFS support? Software patents are the reason. Debian has the non-US repos for these things. Suse and Mandrake are European already, which is why they ship these things by default. Be prepared to either see these things taken out of Mandrake and Suse, or only included in retail versions with a price increase.
Another nail in the coffin of the West (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just going to force innovation away from the West and into the hands of emerging powers like China and India.
While the US and the EU commit ritual suicide via patent litigation and red-tape, the East will be making leaps and bounds in closing the innovation gap and capturing market share.
Outsourcing has already created the business channels and the beginnings of infrastructure to allow those nations to compete directly with the West. The only thing missing is innovation, and here it comes.
This just goes to show that democracy... (Score:2, Insightful)
It is rare that public outcry ever changes laws, especially when money is the primary motivating factor for congressmen.
Just recently the US Supreme Court *upheld* a law that is essentially a gag-order on the NRA during election time. Free Speech is prevented, and the NRA cannot speak out again any person running for office for 2 months prior to the election. The opposite is not true however - the candidate is provided full free speech against the NRA during that time.
Get out and vote! HA! What a crock of shit anymore. Better that you just give large cash donations if you want your opinion heard.
Re:This is Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I would rather prevent it in the first place.
Re:This just goes to show that democracy... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Democracy" does not mean that everyone gets their way all the time.
Also, you seem to be unaware that there is already (and has been) a law that forbids large organizations from "influencing" elections. This is exactly what the NRA was engaged in. It is no longer free speech when large groups of people are bullying others via elevated resources. If free speech is to work, it has to be fair to all. The NRA (as well as plenty of others, such as the Unions) cannot as an
Just as it it
- Keep your mind open, just not so open that your brains leak out.
Hope Springs Eternal (Score:5, Insightful)
In some respects, innocense is ignorance; do not be ashamed of innocense.
God, fucking stupid politicians, they don't know shit about software and should keep away.
Problem is, politicians are by nature corrupt. No, every politician is not corrupt; but many are, and the carreer attracts those that love power for the sake of power. It doesn't take but one or two of those to ruin the whole batch, as they introduce corrupt bills (such as this patent "reform") that are sponsored by those with deep pockets and deeper self-interest.
In this case, the politicians that don't know shit about software were encouraged to vote, and educated by, the ones with the most self-interest in this perversion of knowledge ownership. And all they saw were the most "important" players in the software industry backing the bill.
The problem isn't politicians, per se, its the corporate influence on politicians that fuck things up so badly. Once the government starts serving the corporations instead of the people, we are screwed. And that has started to happen.
Re:What do you think? (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right that if I am a megacorp with millions of dollars I have a good chance at being able to license any particular patent for proprietary software development. I happen not to be a megacorp, and I happen to develop free software. I don't realistically have a chance to pay patent royalties even for a proprietary product, much less the royalties that would make the patent holder license their patent for all free software.
Yes, I can develop improvements and patent them, but not use them. GREAT! So not only can I not use the idea that the other person has patented, but nobody else can use my idea, either! (Except if they have the pockets to give me a good deal.) What a wonderful world!
Re:Multilingual ogg/vorbis available! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What do you think? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Jesse Jackson put it best "Capitalism without capital is just an ism".
Re:This just goes to show that democracy... (Score:1, Insightful)
The EU forces all kinds of silly regulations on the member states, that are all just required to streamline commerce, to help large corporations, and to allow competition in classic utility and government services. All only for the benefit of multinationals, and against the common man.
Most people realize this very well, look at the turnout percentages of European Parliament elections...
Time to Patent parts of the EU Govt. (Score:2, Insightful)
I am actually being serious here. Patent parts of the Govt. and charge them. The easiest way to show the harm these patents can do is to inflict that harm on those who allowed it to happen.
Re:Let me be first first American to say: (Score:3, Insightful)
All kinds of insults were the first thing to go through my mind but then I realised I was letting myself be dragged down to your level. If I do that, you'd beat me with experience as is clear from your post. So lets not.
On the facts then: the only reason this got started in the first place was US pressure. (Not unlike the passenger data treaty for EU citizens traveling to the US.) That is political pressure. From those same US lawmakers we indeed do despise so much over here in Europe. For their complete incompetence.
The only good thing about your remark is that it keeps a lot of people of having to think up excuses. We'll just recycle all 'US' excuses about not electing better leadership before we got into this mess. That'll save time so that we may have a chance of turning the tide when we do get our (first real) chance of letting our voices known on this subject. So shut up, sit back and enjoy the show. I hope you'll follow our lead when it is your chance to get rid of the most hated man in the world (no, not Bin Laden, he's trailing at a distance even to 'Rummy' at the moment) as your political leader.
You better be looking sharp and don't blame the voting machines/process. You in the US did have an honest chance of keeping him out of office in the first place when you knew he was bad news. Our politicians were in office before the problem with this subject became even know. (Known to people who would be impacted...)
Be glad we are 'merely' blaming your politicians or there wouldn't be much of a future for US/European relationships. Perhaps you can remember that, the next time you attack European citizens for something they had no real influence on to begin with.
p.s.: Before you say _anything_ about our politicians, be sure to understand how 'our' politics work in this newfangled European area. Most europeans don't even know. Worse yet, most europeans are more likely to know how the US system works. Yet these politicians claim to rightfuly represent us. That's a big difference from the US, where you probably know all politicians from the county-level up, that are responsible for your neck of the woods.
Contact your EMPs! (Score:3, Insightful)
I would further like to encourage German readers to write an email or fax to the federal minister of Justice [bmj.bund.de] to complain about her decision and to support journalists in decoding the network of what seems (on first sight) filthy lobbyism and inconsistent behaviour. Written letters and faxes are expected to have more impact due to their tangible nature.
If you don't spend EUR 1 on a stamp now, you might have to spend EUR 10000 on lawyers later, or get fined for using an algorithm that somebody happens to have patented without you knowing.
[E-mail me if you can't find your rep contact details but would like to do something about it.]
Ideas should be free.
Soon are EU parliaments elections (Score:2, Insightful)
Soon are elections (mid june)
check out which politions oppose the software patents, write to your representatives of various parties and try to make your voice heard.
And for christs sake, go voting this time, the EU parliament usually has a low voting percentage, strengthen those who oppose this bill.
People like McCarty, Fortou and Boelkstein have to be voted out or at least weakened.
And for all citizens in the new nations in the EU, please do the same, you now have a good chance to get your economy up, but this bill would cause the same problems in your countries as it does over here in the good ole, west.
We need that new constitution (Score:2, Insightful)
Here is a relevant quote stright out of the latest EU portal newsletter (europa.eu.int/newsletter/index_en.htm):
One more thing to keep in mind during upcoming referendum(s) on that constitution.