Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

The Economist Contrasts American, European Patent Approaches 205

Posted by timothy from the all-too-easily dept.
fiannaFailMan writes "The Economist has summarised recent developents in software patents and contrasts the American and European approaches. 'The European Commission wants to avoid the American situation, in which case law drives authorities to issue computer-related patents all too easily, in particular for business methods and algorithms.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Economist Contrasts American, European Patent Approaches More

The Economist Contrasts American, European Patent Approaches

Comments Filter:

  • Pearl of wisdom? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 )
    Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    • Re:Pearl of wisdom? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Sunday September 07, 2003 @06:19AM (#6892102) Homepage
      • Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

      Sorry - I am not allowed to profit from that advice since Jeff Bezos has a patent on it.

    • "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

      Those that learn from history are doomed to watch it repeat.

      NewToNix

    • Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

      On multiple levels, yet. The purpose of patents is to get people to publish complete descriptions of their inventions so people will not have to repeatedly redevelop the same technology, but rather be able to build on prior technologies. Where this is failing due to bad implemetation, it needs to be corrected.

      The problem comes when things that are not real contributions are allowed patent status. "One Click" should not be patentable, etc.

      The

  • On the other side of the pond (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CGP314 ( 672613 ) <CGP@ColinGregor y P a lmer.net> on Sunday September 07, 2003 @05:18AM (#6891981) Homepage
    It's reasons like this that I moved to London.

    People is Europe know and care about issuses like patent law and copyrights. No one in the States (outside of slashdotters) has a clue.

    • Hum.. (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      But UK is the most USA-like country in the Europe :-)
      • No.. the UK is the most 'UK-Like' in Europe, it's actually America which has had it's culture derived from the UK, due to history... Which is also why the UK and US people/politicians etc etc get on with eachother alot better, no language barrier, alot of history together, and because the US has pretty much had it's everything derived from the UK, like Australia, Canada etc..

    • Re:People is Europe know and care about ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pirhana ( 577758 ) on Sunday September 07, 2003 @06:46AM (#6892137)
      Its because average american is not aware of any real life issues. He is simply herded by the mainstream media and the news "manufactured" by them. Thats not the case in Europe or other part of the world where real life issues are reflected in the media to a great extend. And I think its because of the decentralisation of media infrastructure in these countries. So small players and public entities contribute to the diversity of the news. In US media(mostly) owned by a bunch of business groups who treat it just like any other profit generating business. Goverement agencies like BBC and small magazines/newspapers like "La monde" are good examples.

  • The Economist (Score:5, Interesting)

    by n0nsensical ( 633430 ) on Sunday September 07, 2003 @05:21AM (#6891986)
    The Economist is great. They frequently have articles about patents, SCO, and all of our favorite /. topics, and I haven't seen any bad information like you get so often in lesser publications. This article on patents is just another great example. Bill Gates once said he reads The Economist from cover to cover weekly, hmm...

    • Re:The Economist (Score:5, Interesting)

      by n0nsensical ( 633430 ) on Sunday September 07, 2003 @05:48AM (#6892039)
      Also, four times a year they run a special called the Technology Quarterly that covers new things in the tech world, which coincidentally was also in this week's issue. [economist.com] The topics this time around included cheaper solar cells, superconducting power transmission lines, nanomaterials, and quantum encryption.

      The European Commission wants to avoid the American situation, in which case law drives authorities to issue computer-related patents all too easily, in particular for business methods and algorithms.

      I hope they're right. If Europe really wants to become more independent from US influence, avoiding a US-style patent regime would be a wise choice.

      • Re:The Economist (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Cody Hatch ( 136430 ) <cody@PARISchaos.net.nz minus city> on Sunday September 07, 2003 @06:08AM (#6892074) Homepage
        I hope they're right. If Europe really wants to become more independent from US influence, avoiding a US-style patent regime would be a wise choice.

        Even if they don't want to become "independent", avoiding US-style patents would be a good thing on its own merits.

        (Of course, if they did want to become independent of US influence, their best bet would probably be to increase productivity, encourage research and innovation, reverse the brain drain, and so on. Ironically, software pattents are supposed to help with most of that. In reality...well, I hope they manage to dodge them.)

      • Re:The Economist (Score:3, Informative)

        by waterbear ( 190559 )
        If Europe really wants to become more independent from US influence, avoiding a US-style patent regime would be a wise choice.

        Unfortunately, Europe is entirely capable of creating its own gaffes, as well as grafting them on top of US-originating ideas. Currently, in the EU/EPO system, it seems that in practice there is an unwillingness to come out and explain clearly where the boundary lies between 'technical' (patentable) and non-technical (literary? aesthetic?) (non-patentable). It will leave the doo

        • Re:The Economist (Score:4, Insightful)

          by bm_luethke ( 253362 ) <`luethkeb' `at' `comcast.net'> on Sunday September 07, 2003 @07:14AM (#6892177)
          Unfortunately, Europe is entirely capable of creating its own gaffes, as well as grafting them on top of US-originating ideas.

          [rant]Why is that nearly every good law the US has that is replaced by a crappy one is passed "because europe does it" and nearly every good law europe has that is replaced by a crappy one is because "the US does it"

          Everybody seems plagued by this. They seem to want to take all the crappy laws from each country, the most restrictive from each country, and create a homogenized structure based on that. Why can't they take the good stuff from everyone.

          Bah, politicians the world over suck.[/rant]

          Ok, I feel a little better.

      • Re:The Economist (Score:3, Insightful)

        by michiel.h ( 570138 )

        If Europe really wants to become more independent from US influence, avoiding a US-style patent regime would be a wise choice.

        The only two European countries strong and independent enough to resist the American influence are France and Germany. I pray for them and the EU.
        I don't know much about European politics, but I do know that my government, the Dutch government, will not go against the American will. Money and grand words come from the US, so why bother about the public opinion?
        The Dutch people

    • OK, but I wish they wouldn't call patents "protection" for inventors. Patents have locked out 1000x times more inventors than they have ever protected. In fact, in the small companies I've seen - it's more like they get patnets to "protect" themselves from big companies suing and harrassing, and to have leverage for cross licensing, than to ever "protect" their inventions from immitation.

      Moral of the story, when the system gives a "little guy" the power to lock out a "big guy" - it also gives the "big"

  • Headaches (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Serious Simon ( 701084 ) on Sunday September 07, 2003 @05:35AM (#6892015)
    Moreover, there is another headache. The harder it is to patent computer-related inventions in Europe, the wider will be the legal gap with America.

    If the gap were closed by fixing the US patent laws, that would result in less headaches than having Europe repeat the mistakes made in America.

    • Re:Headaches (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Baki ( 72515 )
      Who cares about a legal gap? Does america care about a legal gap with europe? Why should europe adapt, what would be the benefit?

      In the past an argument used to be that (large) corporations are important for our wealth, so we have to adapt our laws to suit them. I think recent developments show that corporations are less and less beneficial to the state of our economy (think outsourcing, bookkeeping scandals, tax fraud) so there should be less incentive to suit them, and more to push them away if that woul
    • They had better ensure that US Patents aren't automatically recognized, or industry in Europe is doomed.
    • "Moreover, there is another headache. The harder it is to patent computer-related inventions in Europe, the wider will be the legal gap with America."

      If the gap were closed by fixing the US patent laws, that would result in less headaches than having Europe repeat the mistakes made in America.

      Hear hear. With the U.S. legal system spinning out of control, a nice, big gap with it would seem to be a good thing.

  • Simple Rule (with Rider) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IBitOBear ( 410965 ) on Sunday September 07, 2003 @05:44AM (#6892032) Homepage Journal
    This is not that tough an issue...

    If it is, or it *can* *be*, implemented on a computer bought "off the shelf" and optionally modified only by parts bought "off the shelf" [e.g. "I added an eithernet card"] then it can not be patented.

    If it has been patented, and the state of "the comercial shelf" from which parts are normally bought [e.g. comp-USA etc] advances to the point where the above rule would make it un-patentable, the patent has reached its terminal lifespan and is no longer valid.

    In short, if you don't need a soldering iron [etc] it isn't patentable.

    (CPU Microcode is Copyrighted, not patented)

    That's it.

    [And yes, my name is on a patented thing just now (unless my employer lied about the inventor) so I do know the range and impact of what I am suggesting.]
    • Interesting idea, but with some loopholes.

      Say you need Thingy X to work the patent (where X is anything from some strange add-in card, modified motherboard or whatever). Big Company Y does not want to pay for the patent when using it. They commission small company Z to build Thingy X - not the five or ten that Y needs, but five or ten thousand. Pay off one or two store chains to carry the remaining Thingy X. Voila - it's off-the-shelf, patent is void, Big Company Y wins.

      Even easier loophole: THe patent co
      • Actually, since the pattent would, by definition, be inclusive of the add-in or modified "X", company Z would not be able to just go make it.

        If the thing X were largely more applicable to the world, the patent holder would be forced to weigh the value of holding the patent against the potential proffit of commoditizing X.

        So lets say I "invent" a cool new way to do communications. For as long as I can maintian, and am satisfied by, a profit structure where all my cusmoters must come to me for all the part

    • If it is, or it *can* *be*, implemented on a computer bought "off the shelf" and optionally modified only by parts bought "off the shelf" [e.g. "I added an eithernet card"] then it can not be patented.

      Actually, I have been pleasently surprised by the suggestion made by Arlene McCarthy:

      An invention must teach a new way to use "controllable forces of nature" (really) and have an "industrial application".

      Should this be the case, there would not be such a huge issue about software patents, as patents

      • And now, it is US big software companies who want software patents in Europe as well... I don't think they would accept anything less than what they already have in USA: They just want their patents to be practical in Europe as well.

        I think it works the other way as well. European software companies are afraid that if unable to patent their innovations, their market will be invaded by American companies who hold American patents to said innovations. This will cause a situation where American companies c

    • If it is, or it *can* *be*, implemented on a computer bought "off the shelf" and optionally modified only by parts bought "off the shelf" [e.g. "I added an eithernet card"] then it can not be patented.

      Something like that, yes. Note that the modification board you buy off the shelf including the software embedded in it may be patented.

      If it has been patented, and the state of "the comercial shelf" from which parts are normally bought [e.g. comp-USA etc] advances to the point where the above rule would ma

  • Economist opinion column (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07, 2003 @05:46AM (#6892035)
    The Economist had a reader suggesting the following, which is the real reason why the EPO (Attention, this is not an EU Agency!) needs to be legitimized by the EU Parlament and why it needs to adhere (uh, harmonize) to current US guidelines:

    "Empire, state building?

    SIR - You say that American military and nation-building intervention in other countries is likely to be short, because imperialism and democracy are at odds with each other ("Manifest destiny warmed up", August 16th). In the end democracy will win because the subjects will protest and so, eventually, will Americans. Your argument misses the economic face of empire.

    Over the past three decades, America's government , particularly the Clinton administration, has constructed an international monetary and financial framework which ensures that the normal working of market forces shores up American power. The framework yields disproportionate benefits to Americans and confers autonomy on its economic policymakers while curbing the autonomy of all others . It provides the material basis of American military supremacy.

    The key political feature of the system is that it is not an empire in the sense of an imperial centre and colonies. It is based on "sovereign" states. These states can be left to manage the costs of the system, including the protests of those whose lives are disrupted by it. This is how the modern-day empire can quietly escape the trade-off between imperialism and democracy, most of the time.

    Robert Hunter Wade
    London School of Economics
    London"

    http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm? story_id=2020866

    • Re:Economist opinion column (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pkaral ( 104322 ) on Sunday September 07, 2003 @06:27AM (#6892110)
      Mr. Wade's point is not very interesting. To rephrase his opinion: (1) America has a lot of influence in the world, (2) it uses it further its own interests, and (3) the power is projected [also] via monetary/financial institutions.

      Brief comments on these: (1) Great powers have existed in most of civilized history, and examples of one-country hegemonies are not unusual. (2) All countries try to further their own aims. (3) Power projected in this way is usually preferable to military power. Thus, the situation Wade discribes is neither unusual, nor necessarily bad or immoral.

      It is quite possible to argue that compared to all other hegemons, America has done less wrong and more good with its power. It is very easy to imagine worse hegemonies - imagine what e.g. a maoist Chinese, marxist Soviet or islamic Iranian hegemony would be like. I personally disapprove of major parts of American foreign policy, but I also try to be realistic about it and its alternatives.

      Btw, it is wrong to use the word "empire" in the sense Mr. Wade does. My Oxford Learner's Dictionary defines an empire as "Group of countries under a single supreme authority" (my emphasis). Taking the word 'supreme' out of the definition would make it include the UN, the WHO, the International Olympic Committee etc. etc. The US empire at present covers the American homeland, Iraq and nothing else.
      • America has done less wrong and more good with its power

        I agree. This is because America's theme is capitalism.. its like asking, do YOU like money? and who doesn't like money?! Well maybe the socialists, but who cares about them anyways?
      • Mr. Wade's point is not very interesting

        Basic courtesy, please, it's Professor Wade [lse.ac.uk]. And bear in mind that in a UK University, 'professor' does not mean 'tenured lecturer'.
      • You seem to have ignored the fact that the world has been taken over by multinational corporations. The U.S. no longer rules the world.
      • (1) Great powers have existed in most of civilized history, and examples of one-country hegemonies are not unusual. (2) All countries try to further their own aims. (3) Power projected in this way is usually preferable to military power. Thus, the situation Wade discribes is neither unusual, nor necessarily bad or immoral.

        Discrimination against people on the basis of their race, sex etc. has existed in most of civilized history, and examples of it are not unusual. All societies have at some point, or even
      • The US empire at present covers the American homeland, Iraq and nothing else.

        The US government has military troops stationed in well over 100 countries around the world. Why don't we ask the citizens of those countires what they think of the US empire?

      • Really?
        My dictionary defines empire thusly:
        Empire
        Of, relating to, or characteristic of a neoclassic style, as in clothing or the decorative arts, prevalent in France during the first part of the 19th century.

        In political terms, there's still a fair bit of debate [foreignaffairs.org] whether the United States constitutes an empire or hegemony. The distinction seems to be rather too subtle to be of much value. But for you conspiracy fans out there, the US could be said to control the World largely through manipulation of the
      • Mr. Wade's point is not very interesting. To rephrase his opinion: (1) America has a lot of influence in the world

        No. His point is that "The framework yields disproportionate benefits to Americans" (My emph.) I know, as a european I also get disproportionate benefits as compared to say, asians, but the current American quasi-hegemony is nevertheless problematic.

    • Re:Economist opinion column (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually tactics behind the EPO were well constructed. The EPO is formed by a group of countries who signed a common agreement. They built it up without noise, with the support of local patent offices. The EPO then started to grant patents at its own will, under the "public's radar". But it was still not associated by any means to the Eurpean Union, an organization being even competent in the regulation of fat percentage in milk.
      Creating a de facto situation, they approved software patents even despite the
    • You can also point slashdotters to wade's publications where one can find such classics as 'US hegemony and the World Bank: the fight over people & ideas' http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/destin/wader.html [lse.ac.uk] westerns who have no critical thinking skills and feel guilty about their wealth compared to non western nations will enjoy these the most.
    • If the states were truly sovereign, empire would be much less probable (or possible). Centralized power is a prerequisite of empire and the military forces which make it possible.

      Over the years, the US government has gradually morphed in the direction of centralized power, despite the intents of the founders. The power (or lack thereof) was supposed to remain with the individual states, not the federal government. It is this centralized power, along with it's overly large tax base, which gives birth to emp

  • The "Technical Contribution" Criterion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Reimer Behrends ( 464673 ) on Sunday September 07, 2003 @06:07AM (#6892073)

    I'm not sure if everybody realizes it, but if it is true, the most important part of the article is that supposedly Arlene McCarthy has finally agreed to include the "use of controllable forces of nature" as part of deciding whether an invention makes a technical contributions.

    Let's backstep a few decades. By the late 70s/early 80s, the German Federal Court had to decide on a number of patent applications. One involved an accounting program, one a system for anti-lock brakes (which was controlled by software). They found the former unpatentable, and the latter patentable. The distinguishing criterion was that the anti-lock brakes taught new ways to control forces of nature, whereas the accounting program was essentially an "instruction for the human mind", even if it was executed by a "machine that was used according to its intended use".

    With criteria for the patentability of these two extremes (a pure software solution, and a hardware solution with some tightly integrated software aspects) established, and technicality being the distinguishing criterion, and this state of affairs subsequently encoded in European patent law by saying that "programs as such" (as opposed to programs that were integrated with hardware solutions), the past few decades courts and patent offices started a battle over the gray area in between. The German Federal Court later allowed patentability increasingly to encroach on the software side, but the greatest abuse was done by the European Patent Office, which came up with more and more convoluted rationales to interpret the "as such" clause to allow for software patents, despite the clear legal precedent.

    Now things are in the hand of JURI, the European Parliament's committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. The initial committee proposal for the patent directive had a wishy-washy clause about something being a "technical contribution", that wouldn't have changed anything and harmonized nothing, and would have especially allowed the EPO to extend its creative twisting of the law even further. And with the planned enactment of the Community Patent, to be granted by the EPO, the door would have been wide open for EU-wide software patents. Note that the problem with the proposal was not so much that it allowed for software patents, but that it was poorly written law, with a million ways to interpret it. A number of clarifications -- including the "controllable forces of nature" criterion were proposed to JURI, but they were rejected.

    So, if JURI finally concedes the point and allows for a proper, clear, and unambiguous criterion for technicality, that should alleviate quite a few concerns.

    • Re:The "Technical Contribution" Criterion (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      EPC simplified says:

      EPC 52.2 Programs for computers shall not be regarded as inventions.

      EPC 52.3 The provision "programs for computers shall not be regarded as
      inventions" shall exclude patentability of programs for computers only
      to the extent to which a patent relates to programs for computers as such.

      Which is equivalent to the swedish law:

      "As an invention is never regarded what alone constitutes a computer program"
      ("Sasom uppfinning anses aldrig vad som utgor enbart ett datorprog

    • Re:The "Technical Contribution" Criterion (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The Economist doesn't mention the exact wordings. The proposed amendment says "In determining whether a computer-implemented invention makes a technical contribution, the following test shall be used: <stuff about forces of nature and industrial application>".

      At first sight, this indeed looks great, but there's a really insidious backdoor: it says that the test "shall be used" (so if a computer-implemented invention passes the test, it makes a technical contribution), but not that it must be passed

    • An AC wrote:

      This contradicts Amendment 14 of Article 2 in the directive which simplified says:

      a "computer-implemented invention" means an invention the performance of which involves the use of a computer and having features which are realised by means of a computer program

      Article 2 in its present form is a Trojan Horse, not a washing machine.

      Note that not all "computer-implemented inventions" are patentable. In particular, article 4 constrains the patentability of "computer-implemented inventions"

      • Re:The "Technical Contribution" Criterion (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mickwd ( 196449 ) on Sunday September 07, 2003 @07:51AM (#6892224)
        "...a computer-implemented invention must be susceptible of industrial application..."

        There are very few pieces of software which would not be useable, in some way, in some particular industry.

        What is "industry" ? Is there a "childcare industry" ? If so, would even educational software and games "be susceptible of industrial application" ?

        The phrase "industrial application" is almost meaningless.

        "In order to involve an inventive step, a computer-implemented invention must make a technical contribution."

        It could be argued that any computer program / piece of software is, by its very nature, technical.

        What is the "contribution" contributing towards ? It could be argued that every single instruction executed by a microprocessor (with the exception of the "NOP" (No-OPeration instruction)) is affecting the state of the computer system in some way, and is thus providing a "contribution". Even the "NOP" instruction is often used to provide a timing delay to allow a computer program to operate correctly with the hardware it is attempting to control. Thus, even a single microprocessor "NOP" instruction is making a "technical contribution".

        The phrase "technical contribution" is meaningless.

        In turn, the phrase "inventive step" becomes meaningless.

        The phrase "industrial application" is almost meaningless, meaning that the definition of what is patentable is almost meaningless.
    • the most important part of the article is that supposedly Arlene McCarthy has finally agreed to include the "use of controllable forces of nature" as part of deciding whether an invention makes a technical contributions....

      So, if JURI finally concedes the point and allows for a proper, clear, and unambiguous criterion for technicality, that should alleviate quite a few concerns.

      If you go to Arlene McCarthy's website [copernicus.co.uk] and view her Latest Press Release on The Proposal for a Directive on the Patentability of [copernicus.co.uk]

  • US Lobbying pro Patent (Score:4, Informative)

    by Elektroschock ( 659467 ) on Sunday September 07, 2003 @06:44AM (#6892135)
    Currently the US government, represented by its patent office, is still bullying other countries wherever it can, be it bilateral or multilateral negotiations, asking them to adopt the US rules of patentability of abstract ideas dressed up in the terminology of the universal computer.

    See
    http://swpat.ffii.org/players/us/ [ffii.org]
    a page that gives a small glimpse.

    At the recent OECD conference, the US government's representative said that such conferences are useless and the debates of the economists harmful, because the patent system as is is "basically good" and the US will not permit any policy except one that "extends and strengthens" this system. The same representatives have also been doing their best to kill discussions on proper limits of "IP" at WIPO and other UN organisations.

  • I still don't get the point of software/hardware patent. Whats the point for all that? This will just increase the monopoly of some big companies, that will probably charge more for their services!

  • Patents and propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)

    by D4C5CE ( 578304 ) on Sunday September 07, 2003 @07:09AM (#6892170)
    The European Commission wants to avoid the American situation

    ...or so they say. In fact, many European politicians do know that allowing software patents and business method patents inevitably leads to countless trivial patents [google.de].

    You wouldn't believe it, but here is what the Directive's proponents have admitted themselves [cw360.com]:
    "Arlene McCarthy, chair of the legal affairs committee, said earlier this month she was not prepared to consider any proposals for amendments that do not acknowledge the patentability of software."

    In other words, they do want to conjure up a legal framework [google.de] which scares even IT industry giants such as SAP [google.de], and not just small and medium enterprises, open-source advocates, academics and initiatives such as Attac that are of little importance to those prepared to discard or ignore any arguments made from what is just "the commie corner" in their view of the world.
    (P.S.: I am posting the google links rather than the direct URLs, for as of this writing, FFII.org itself seems to be unreachable, at this crucial moment in time...)

    The plenary vote on the new patents directive will be held within a few days, so please do contact some Members of the European Parliament [eu.int] (rather not just by eMail) right now and tell them that the introduction of software patents is a mistake their voters will never forget, no matter whether it is made knowingly nor out of ignorance.

    Moreover, there is no need to rush to precedential judgment now, only weeks before the World Summit on the Information Society [itu.int], which (according to proposals such as these [worldsummit2003.de]) may well turn on its head overreaching IP laws [worldsummit2003.de].

  • it will sort itself out (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07, 2003 @09:01AM (#6892331)

    This who IP/legal mess that the US has created will sort itself out in time.

    These laws in the US are essentially used to claim stake to larger and larger territories of what might be done, not what will be done. Many patents filed today are to simply protect an ever widening space of technology and business the center of which is their flagship product.

    Many of them never intend on utilizing the existing patents, but to prevent any competition from getting too close to them

    It's easier to think of this as patents being grazing territory that you are staking out for your own source of food. In many cases, patents extend over more territory than the residents will ever be able to feed upon in their lifetime.

    Given this, you have not created a space of potential invention which cannot be used to 100% of it's capacity, but at a reduced level. We now have certain territories of which we cannot enter.

    As a whole, the species of inventor cannot utilize all of the potential grazing space available to them and will therefore procede to evolve, grow and thrive at a reduced rate.

    The note of evolution is important because inventions are generally based on the previous inventions of others. Without electricity or the transistor we wouldn't have much to play with in computers

    Under this restricted access condition, the environments available which provide for a higher level of utilization of the territory will provide for a faster rate of growth and evolution.

    What this translates to in terms of Patent development is that the areas which have looser patents laws will provide for a higher utilization of the ideas people come up with. And with that higher utilization will come a faster rate of application and development of even newer ideas. The rate will continue to increase.

    Meanwhile, back at the grazing land where everyone has staked out larger territory than required, they will progress at a much slower rate of development and have a overall lower population of viable resources.

    This will eventually balance itself out because the US will start to dramatically fall behind the EU in their technological innovations and inventions and the pace will quicken as the US legal system starts to slow down developments in the US further.

    The US will become an area not to do business in because of the risk of legal assaults. While the US terroritories and interests (of their Intellectual Property) will be protected, there will be no one from the outside of the US interested in directly participating, contributing, or attempting to profit from this economical environment.

    Additionally, no one will be too inclined to accept business from any US held companies because they are backed by their home-based legal system and their own, unappetizing, rules of IP/Copyright/Patent litigation which means that doing business with a US company could land you into a US court room regardless of their being the buyer or seller of a product.

    As this process stagnates, the EU and others will continue to thrive on their own and become ever more attractive and viable. People will migrate from the US towards other nations of greater prominence.

    This will be to a lesser degree similar to the migration of Cold-War scientists towards the West. They were given the opportunity to think freely and to practice their trakes more openly than they were allowed to under their Communist governments.

    This won't be a whole-population migration, it will be a migration of those who have the intellectual drive to be inventive. They will want to go someplace where they can invent rather than litigate. We already have cases of people leaving the USA for better lands where they can develop products and businesses without being asaulted by the US legal system.

    The US will become an area to avoid. The US will be required to give concessions to outside nations/business to reduce their IP/Patent/Copyright restrictions in order that they might once again become vi

  • info on the EU software patent vote... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nickos ( 91443 ) on Sunday September 07, 2003 @11:03AM (#6892864)
    I just got this email from Dr Caroline Lucas, a Green MEP for the South East of England. It makes for interesting reading, and highlights the positions of the major parties. At the bottom of the email she includes a press release called "MEPs must back EU plans for patents for inventions" that was given to all of the Labour MEPs.

    Subject: software patenting - the vote has been postponed until the week of 22 September

    As a constituent who has emailed me recently on the issue of software patenting I am writing to inform you that the vote, due to have taken place on Tuesday, was postponed until September 24th. The reason for this is as follows:

    Back in July we Greens wanted to delay the vote as we knew that some of the big political groups in the Parliament were divided. Furthermore, we want to wait for the conclusions of the work of the Committee of Petitions as there is a petition, signed by 200,000 people against software patents, being presented to the Committee on 30 September.

    The PPE (of which the UK Conservatives are members) agreed with the Greens asking for a postponement of the vote, then changed their mind. The Socialists then asked for a delay realising that they were hopelessly divided.

    The current state of play within the Socialist group is that the Rapporteur, Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy, is only supported by the other Labour MEPs and half the Germans. The PPE group are mostly in support of Arlene McCarthy's proposal, except for the Catalonian and Scandanavian members (among the UK Conservatives, Malcolm Harbour MEP has been very supportive of Arlene McCarthy). Furthermore, the lead member of the PPE on this issue is Mme. Janelly Fourtou MEP, whose husband is the CEO of Vivendi Universal. The UK Liberal Democrats have been quite silent on this issue despite party policy being opposed to such patents.

    The reason why no vote is taking place is that the pro-patenting lobby is refusing to negotiate a sensible compromise, simply arguing that the law, as presently drafted would not grant unlimited patentability of software.

    This is simply not true.

    Given the strong lobby against the proposed legislation, Arlene McCarthy has launched a counter offensive and below I have copied a press release issued by the Labour Group of MEPs.

    I will of course contact you again to let you know if and when the vote proceeds. The Greens are co-organising a demonstration against software patents on the morning of the vote outside the Parliament building in Strasbourg.

    Yours sincerely,

    Caroline Lucas
    Green MEP for South East England

    This Press Release was sent out by the "UK Labour Delegation in the European Parliament" to all Labour MEPs on monday Sep 1st 18:11 for immediate publication.

    Subject: MEPs must back EU plans for patents for inventions
    For immediate release

    1st September 2003

    MEPs must back EU plans for patents for inventions

    Controversial new legislation on patents for computer-implemented inventions will be put to a critical vote in the European Parliament in Strasbourg at the end of this month (Parliamentary Session 22-25 September).

    Following a barrage of misinformation about the new EU wide patenting proposals, Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy - who wrote the Parliament's Report on the new proposals and is steering it through the Parliament - spoke out against the systematic campaign of misinformation being waged against new rules in the run up to the Strasbourg vote saying:

    A proposal for an EU wide law on patents for computer-implemented inventions is essential both to protect the interests of European Industry and prevent the drift towards US-style patenting of business methods. In a situation where both the European Patent Office (EPO) and the 15 national patent offices are handing out patents for computer-implemented inventions, an EU law can assist in clarifying the limits to patentability in the field of computer-implemented inventions. This would give industry more
    • Very interesting. I thought I was up to date, but missed:

      a) the latest postponement

      b) the interesting contrast between stated vs. actual position of UK Liberals (a relatively significant presence in EuroParl of course)

      c) the (surprisingly didactic) UK Labour press release

      So I really didn't know what was going on at all!

      For further debunking of the McCarthy line, I can certainly recommend the FFII page [ffii.org] (probably already referenced).

  • Patent Laws on Software (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hackus ( 159037 ) on Sunday September 07, 2003 @11:13AM (#6892915) Homepage
    Essentially what have we got with patent laws on software?

    A very very sick US software industry that is on life support, with very little innovation.

    And what about the largest markets for software right now such as China? What do they think about our software IP system?

    Obviously they do not think it is fair. China is taking steps to make sure they do not incorporate ANY western software technology into thier products, going as far as constructing thier own Microprocessors, Motherboards and version of Linux to avoid software IP controls.

    No country with a expanding market would agree to the US version of IP or its restrictions.

    In the end, what does that do for the US except lock us out of new markets by governments who recognize the American copyright and patent system for what it is: To prevent and exterminate competition, kill the idea of ownership of ANYTHING and create a legal system that allows any company with enough cash to set artificially high prices.

    Everything about computing in the US has become cheaper outside of Microsoft's control, except software. Why is that?

    Why MUST OS software cost more than half of the basic price of computer equipment, and continue to increase when every single solitary aspect of computing has followed a cheaper, faster route?

    I will tell you why: American Software Patents, American Copyright Laws and crooked politicians who have been bought off and have tossed our Anti-trust laws out the window.

    From that window they also tossed out future access to markets as companies and countries over seas see how sick the American information technology industry is and what it has become.

    If you have been a reader to slashdot, you already know that many MANY products released over seas are far better than anything you could possibly buy here.

    Why is that? Why is this increasingly becomming an issue that better PDA's, better Cell Phones, better software is increasingly NOT in the US and you cannot BUY it here either.

    All we get is a new version of Windows to make it easier to use...

    easier for Hackers, terrorists and foreigners to break into our corporate and government institutions, to use, I mean.

    Europe should ask itself does it really want this sort of legal lunacy, where even if you wanted to FIX software under our copyright law, to prevent such breakins it would be illegal to do so?

    Even if you bought it for Christ sake after signing a DMCA copyright EULA that says you cannot sue the company you bought the software from?

    The US IP law and Copyright law as written is out of control, and it be rewritten to prevent our allies and far east block nations from viewing us and our software products with such suspicion.

    In the end it locks us out of these markets and sends jobs over seas.

    Is it any wonder? Software in the US is incredibly expensive, but not directly because of what we pay our programmers, but because software IS expensive in a market that has not competition.

    American software companies can innovate, if they are forced to do so, when faced with cheap labor overseas.

    But innovation is impossible in a market that patents ideas, copyrights information for 100 years at a time and allows companies like SCO to not produce anything innovative with thier OS except a legal summary against IBM.

    Our very own laws are preventing us from competing effectively in all levels of maunfacturing software.

    I hope Europe doesn't make the same mistake we have so at least they can participate in the enourmous software market opportunities in the far east to sell thier products thier, unlike the US which is basically a write off at this point.

    -Hack
    • "A very very sick US software industry that is on life support, with very little innovation."

      Microsoft and Apple are "on life support"? The two most popular operating systems on the desktop (Windows and OS X) are "on life support"?

      Apple and Microsoft show "very little innovation"?

      40 billion dollars in the bank is quite far from "governmental life support".

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close