EU Rapporteur Publishes Software Patent

Sanity writes "Michel Rocard, economist and former French prime minister, has just published a report on the European Software Patents Directive. He is the European Parliament's draftsperson or "rapporteur" on the directive, and so it is likely that his views will be taken very seriously. The anti-software patent lobby group FFII like the report, saying that it "contains all the necessary ingredients for a directive that achieves what most member state governments say they want to achieve: to exclude computer programs from patentability while allowing computer-controlled technical inventions to be patented." The Directive will have its second reading on July 6th."

Thank you Michel !

[Jules Labrie]

A former prime-minister who can understand the Open-Source and IT, it only deserves respect !

Re:so which is it ?

[gowen]

They should be more clear otherwise it sounds like a recipe for disaster.

They are. In fact, much of it is legalese to make precisely the distinction you're making. Never assume the ambivalence and poor writing in a slashdot summary is an accurate representation of the original source.

Computer controlled technical invention?

[NickHydroxide]

Can someone please explain how he distinguishes computer controlled technical inventions from "computer programs"? I really see no particular distinction. The difference between the term 'computer-controlled' and 'computer-implemented' to me seems to merely be an issue of semantics.

Perhaps there's some particular scientific viewpoint he has in mind.

FTA:
"Rocard explains the difference between applied natural science and data processing."

I'm still unsure as to what it means.

Don't count your chickens!

[Anonymous Coward]

He is the European Parliament's draftsperson or "rapporteur" on the directive, and so it is likely that his views will be taken very seriously.

Since when did the European Commission take the European Parliament seriously? Can't see this making much difference myself, so I won't be getting my hopes up just yet.

A good start

[FidelCatsro]

Thank god atleast some political figures can't be bought off
(or atleast got bought off by someone i agree with for a change (Joke) ) .
as the Rapporteur his word will indeed hold a great deal of sway , lets just hope the money of the Software Patent lobby does'nt hold a greater ammount of sway .

This does not by any means confirm we have won this yet , I would ask people to write to their MEP (member of the European parliment) and urge that they Read this recomendation and also show your support
(if your anti all patents , then still support this as well , one brick at a time).

Democracy requires that we all do our part and make our voices heard .

Re:so which is it ?

[zeux]

Come on, don't tell me that you think that the report is actually the slashdot headline.

As usual, the slashdot headline IS misleading, the report, believe me, is much more clear on this topic.

Please, RTFR.

Re:Turning out to be..

[meringuoid]

And more important, when the US will repent?

After Patent Apocalypse sends the American software industry back to year zero.

It's only a matter of time before a major corporation with a massive patent portfolio starts failing, and looks like going out of business. Doesn't really matter who. But they'll have an option open: give up producing software and pursue patent litigation. Become SCO writ large.

What happens to the industry in the USA when that happens? What if it goes further - what if there's a full-scale patent war between the big players?

Answer: total havoc. Everything infringes on someone's patent. When the entire industry in the USA grinds to a halt, but all is well in Europe, that's when the US will repent.

Re:Pro-patent response from EICTA

[Sanity]

EICTA has published a pro-swpat counter-response to Rocard's paper, here, in advance of today's crucial meeting of the European Parliament's legal affairs committee (JURI).

Thanks for the link, this is interesting but predictable. From EICTA's paper:

While it is acknowledged that there may be room for further improving the definition of "technical contribution" as it stands in the Common Position, any definition or test based on "controllable forces of nature" or "physical forces" would exclude patents for intangible inventions, e.g. speech coding, communication protocols, radio signal handling, error correction, data compression etc., all of which are currently patentable and traditionally have been patentable for decades.

Firstly, all of these things are software patents, and these have not been patentable for decades, even in the US software patenting didn't really begin until about 1992.

Groups like the EICTA claim not to want software patents, but then they go on to provide such a narrow definition of "software patent" that it really doesn't apply to anything.

The broad conclusion from these workshops was that while definitions based on "physical forces" and "controllable forces of nature" may be more legally certain than the current definition, they are also (very) expansive, and would render almost all CII inventions unpatentable.

Correct, because "computer implemented inventions" are software patents! "Computer Implemented Inventions" is a term specifically invented by the pro-software patent lobby so that they could push for software patents without claiming that they are pushing for software patents. This is the level of honesty of the pro-software patent lobby in the EU.

Re:Turning out to be..

[heikkile]

When the entire industry in the USA grinds to a halt, but all is well in Europe, that's when the US will repent.

Could happen a bit earlier, already when there is a huge software market in the rest of the world, but most companies refuse to sell their stuff to the USA for fear of silly litigation. This might not be too far away.

Re:Computer controlled technical invention?

[terminal.dk]

Correct. One example is an oven which uses a computer to ensure that chicken skin is always crisp. Then this device is clearly patentable.

A TV displaying MPEG4 and one displaying AVI are probably not patentable.

Re:Michel Rocard

[daclink]

Usually, when he speaks, nobody understand him and that's why he didn't make it very high in politics.

He was president of France from 1988 to 1991, how much higher can you go!

May not be a distinction with a difference . . .

[werdna]

In the United States, before the State Street Bank case articulated the modern "tangible result" test, our jurisprudence excluded "pure" software as well, but it was a distinction without a difference. Under the test in Alapatt and other cases, so long as you articulated the program in technical terms, you had patentable subject matter. Thus, while you might not have been able to claim:

I claim a method for instructing a computer to perform the steps of A, B and C.

You could claim instead:

I claim a computer system including a general purpose computing component (and possibly other apparatus) and a stored program instructing the general purpose computing element to perform the steps of A, B and C.

or

I claim a medium for storing and retreiving information in electronic form, configured to permit retreival of instructions for a computer system (and possibly other apparatus) to perform the steps of of A, B and C.

While such legal niceties are interesting, they --and tests like them-- are mostly a distinction without a difference.

Re:AMERICANS ARE STUPID

[fearofcarpet]

They voted for bush, therefore they should be placed under a worldwide embargo.

No we didn't. Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court - embargo them... Ok the second time he almost one a majority, but apparently it takes a 2/3 majority to defeat a neocon.

What I find really amuzing is that none of the French people I work with (and there are many) had even heard of the software patent issue. Actually none of the Europeans I work with had heard of it... Yet, and this speaks to the sad state of the US media, they seemed to know all about Michael Jackson and what's-her-name, the brain dead woman from Florida... Maybe that's how 54 million Americans can be so stupid?

Re:Guess they forgot to buy him out :-)

[ThinWhiteDuke]

Look, I don't share most of Rocard's ideas (he's a socialist). But I think he's one of the most honest French politicians. I know that this does not say much, yet I really believe in his integrity. It probably cost him his career in the 80's when he was killed politically by President Mitterrand (also a socialist) who rightly saw Rocard as a competitor.

Since he lost all hope of ever becoming president, Rocard has been one of the very few reliable French politicians. This freed himself from demagoguery. He's been a lonely voice of wisdom on many controversial topics (pensions, health care etc...) Software patents are just the kind of causes he likes to get involved in : important long-term consequences, not much to gain politically, yet somebody's gotta do it.

Michel Rocard's involvement in software patents is a Good Thing (TM).

Re:Back on topic.

[kanweg]

I don't like the word "only", in if the only goal is to assure interoperability. "prime" would be much better.

Bert
Patent attorney against software patents