EU Rapporteur Publishes Software Patent 172
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."
im confused (Score:5, Interesting)
so which is it ? (Score:3, Interesting)
They sound like one in the same to me. A computer controls my web browser and it certainly is a technical invention to *some* degree. So this would enjoy patent protection and it wouldn't at the same time.
Or are they just trying to talk about heart-beat monitors and stuff like that ? They should be more clear otherwise it sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Michel Rocard (Score:5, Interesting)
Turning out to be.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Does it mean that much? (Score:5, Interesting)
The real question is wether he can use his significant influence in the EP (he is without doubt one of the political heavyweights there) to convince the many MEPs not very committed to the matter that it's worth picking a major fight with the Commission and the Council on. I wish he can, as much because I want software patents banished from Europe as because I want to see the EP extending its influence at the expense of the Commission and the Council.
Good luck, Michel, and thanks!
Re:I say (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't forget Poland^H^H^H^H^H France
ladida. Waiting for my 2minutes. Doo, doo, doo. Oh crap. Only been 46 seconds. Shet. Doo, doo, doo. 1 minute now. ding, dong, ding dong. I guess the President is going to surrender to Microsoft eh? Shit, how long does 2 minutes take to pass?
Re:Computer controlled technical invention? (Score:5, Interesting)
Computer programs, on the other hand, are the internal immaterial parts of logic that, assembled in some way (whether good or bad), make the former tools work together....
Well, you got the picture, don't you ?
IMO, this is not a bad distinction. Software patents is such a quagmire when it comes to law. At least, I could endure such a bill.
And, still IMO, MR in one of our most intelligent and honest politicians still alive, despite his irritating fatalism.
Hope it helps,
jdif
Does this mean... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Michel Rocard (Score:5, Interesting)
Usually, when he speaks, nobody understand him and that's why he didn't make it very high in politics.
But I agree that he definitely is one of the last honest politicians.
He has been against software patents since the very beginning partly because he is probably the only one who really understands what they are all about and partly because money can't buy him.
Read the report, you'll see what I mean.
By the way, he is a socialist.
Update your news slashdot (Score:2, Interesting)
Please help to make a transcript on IRC (irc.debian.org #ffii) and on the wiki page.
Re:im confused (Score:4, Interesting)
Note that he also mentions that only the technical aspects can be considered in evaluating the patent. He defines:
"Technical field" means an industrial field of application requiring the controllable forces of nature to obtain predictable results in the physical world.
So you could only get a patent for some physical teaching about using the arm in some novel and nonobvious manner. For example you could get a patent on vibrating the robotic arm in some novel way that produces an unexpected and useful molecular resonance in the metal alloy. An actual physical discovery that really has nothing to do with software.
What you could *not* get a patent on was some complex software analyzing vision inputs and algorithmically searching through the vast array of possible ordinary robotic arm movements to select the one to achieve some ordinary and obvious physical result. A 'novel' and 'nonobvious' calculation lies in the field of math, not in a feild of technology. Software is a feild of math, not a feild of technology. No matter how new and complex your math, no matter how new and complex your software, logic and calculations are not inventions. You cannot get a patent on simply controlling a robotic arm in physically ordinary motions.
I'd say he's got it nailed perfectly. You get patents on actual physical inventions and physical discoveries, you cannot get a patent on abstract logic or on the ordinary application of logic (even new complex logic) to ordinary physical objects and ordinary physical processes. This guy gets my vote.
To quote the US Supreme Court on the subject of software and software algorithms:
the novelty of the mathematical algorithm [referring to software and software algorithms] is not a determining factor at all. Whether the algorithm was in fact known or unknown at the time of the claimed invention, as one of the "basic tools of scientific and technological work," it is treated as though it were a familiar part of the prior art.
That is a point mid-level US courts violated when they decided to expand patentability to software and reverse well established US law. Sadly the Supreme Court has not reviewed a single patent case in an obscenely long time and they have never addressed the lower courts decision to reverse US law in apparent violation of standing Supreme Court rulings.
-