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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents GNU is Not Unix Your Rights Online

Demonstration Against Software Patents in Europe 374

bram.be writes "On April 14, FFII is organising a walking demonstration in Brussels against the legalisation of software patents in Europe, as well as a legislation benchmarking conference. Like in August last year, these events will be accompanied by an online demonstration whereby webmasters are asked to close their websites in protest. The reason for the renewed protest is that after the European Parliament voted for a great directive, it is now the Council of Minister's turn, whose working party proposes as 'compromise' to simply discard all good amendments and on top of that to even make program publication an infringement. Already more then 1300 sites participate in the online demonstration. Among them are some big sites like KDE, the GNU Project and the Gimp. Also, on April 15 the European Greens/EFA group is organising a Euro-LUG party inside the European Parliament, 'with a view to enhance the networking among the free software community in Europe [...], to inform the EP about what free software is, how it works and which ideas lie behind.' Speakers will include Gwen Hinze (EFF), Jon Lech Johansen (DeCSS), Georg Greve (FSF Europe and Alan Cox. Prior registration is mandatory for this event."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Demonstration Against Software Patents in Europe

Comments Filter:
  • online demonstration (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tuxette ( 731067 ) * <tuxette@@@gmail...com> on Saturday April 10, 2004 @01:57PM (#8825535) Homepage Journal
    Will /. participate?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 10, 2004 @01:57PM (#8825538)
    "Like in August last year, these events will be accompanied by an online demonstration whereby webmasters are asked to close their websites in protest. "

    This online protest started April 5th... Why hasn't Slashdot joined this protest [ffii.org]? Too European? Too much revenue at stake?

    When it comes to reporting about how much they hate patents, Slashdot is tops. But when it comes to action, zero is taken. Arguing impartibility, with the high number of editorial opinions usually appended to story submissions, is weak.
    • Poll! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:19PM (#8825677)
      We're being flooded by polls lately. Why not put up a new poll, asking the Slashdot readers if they want slashdot.org to join the protest?

      Do you want slashdot.org to join the protest against software patents?

      [ ] Yes, the site has to be taken down completely and replaced by a protest page
      [ ] Yes, but don't take it down, just replace the main page by a protest page, and let users click through to the real main page
      [ ] No, don't take it down
      [ ] CowboyNeal likes software patents
      • Bad idea (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        So many people would vote for option (1) just because they want slashdot.org to go away that it would skew the results
    • What really is the point in taking your website offline. The only people affected are the believers. You do not reach a broader audience and quite frankly I doubt anyone who does not regularly visit the site cares even remotely that its down. I cant remember the last time I visited the 'big' KDE site and I know most of my friends are not even vaguely interested in whether its up or down. It reminds be of kids throwing tantrums and trying to hold their breath until they pass out, a futile gesture that only a
    • This online protest started April 5th... Why hasn't Slashdot joined this protest?

      Slashdot's value is to bring this to people's attention, but it is perverse to suggest that they should effectively shut-down Slashdot to strengthen the point. If you want to go down that path, then I suspect there is a stronger argument for Slashdot to be shut-down in protest over world hunger. Ultimately, every website on the www would be shut-down over one issue or another, which would be rediculous.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Actually, that's exactly the point. Ideally lots of geek sites going offline will inconvenience folks who need information and rely on them day-to-day. This being larger shops, companies in the IT area, and people who support the non-geeks. People take free software for granted, and as they say, you only realise what you had when it's gone.

        Imagine for a moment if every site running Apache suddenly stopped. Every mail server running a free sendmail or postfix. Every ISP with Linux on their modem server or O
        • Actually, that's exactly the point. Ideally lots of geek sites going offline will inconvenience folks who need information and rely on them day-to-day.
          Great idea - you are going to persuade people by pissing them off, just like the RIAA is going to increase sales by suing their users.

          Deliberately inconveniencing visitors to your website to make a political point is pure arrogance, and disrespects those that take the time to visit your website.

  • lol (Score:3, Funny)

    by Grant29 ( 701796 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @01:58PM (#8825544) Homepage
    Ths Gimp in a walking demonstration. The visuals are killing me...

    --
    Retail Retreat [retailretreat.com]
  • by mindless4210 ( 768563 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @01:58PM (#8825548) Homepage Journal
    I'm glad everyone's decided to take it to the streets, I think it will bring a lot more attention to the subject than with only online demonstrations.
  • by Kevin Burtch ( 13372 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:03PM (#8825585)

    Source code specifically, and software in general, are like food recipes.

    Allowing patents on such would be like allowing someone to patent "sift 2 cups of flour with 1 tsp baking soda and 1/4 teaspoon of salt into a bowl".

    When put in those terms the rediculousness of the idea becomes obvious. Unfortunately, you have to dumb things down for lawmakers to understand what they're dealing with... this should be simple enough for them to understand.
    • > you have to dumb things down for lawmakers to understand what they're dealing with

      I don't buy that for one second; ever read legalese?
    • Agree and disagree (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sanity ( 1431 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:38PM (#8825789) Homepage Journal
      I agree that we should put careful thought into how to present the argument, but I don't think your cooking analogy is the best way to do it. One could easily respond that if you were the first person to figure out the value of sifting "2 cups of flour with 1 tsp baking soda and 1/4 teaspoon of salt into a bowl", then they should have the rigt to profit from it. You can argue the point, but by that time your argument has been rendered impotent.

      Pointing out specific implications, such as that if software patents were in widespread use in the 80s, the Internet would almost certainly not have emerged. Pointing out specific examples of the dangers. Pointing out the fact that there are numerous studies which point out the damaging effects of software patents, but none which demonstrate their value. These are the arguments we should be making.

    • Allowing patents on such would be like allowing someone to patent "sift 2 cups of flour with 1 tsp baking soda and 1/4 teaspoon of salt into a bowl

      All you need to do is define a programming language which has a syntax identical to a cooking recipe, then implement important algorithms (eg. DeCSS) in that language, then the law will be ridiculed.

      Thus:

      sift 2 cups of flour with 1 tsp baking soda and 1/4 teaspoon of salt into a bowl

      is actually

      bowl = 2000.0f * flour + 1.0f * bakingsoda + 0.25f * salt
  • Sign the petition: (Score:5, Informative)

    by Koyaanisqatsi ( 581196 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:03PM (#8825587)
    Take a look at this demo of things to come w/ software patents:

    http://webshop.ffii.org/ [ffii.org]

    And if you're an European citizen, please sign the petition:

    http://petition.eurolinux.org/ [eurolinux.org]
  • US movement (Score:5, Informative)

    by Elektroschock ( 659467 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:10PM (#8825618)
    There is still the lack of a strong corresponding US movement. However US citizens can help us. Mirror http://demo.ffii.org or the other sites, report the event to the media. Write articles, participate in the next WIPO round. Put pressure on your legal department.

    And of course you can also organize events in your part of the world, demonstrations at the USPTO or DoJ.

    Nobody software professional ever requested that bad old old bureaucratic patent law, the patent lawyers like to sell us. It is not the big against the small ones, it's a patent attorney's conspiracy!

    There was no democratic decision ever about software patents in the States.
    • There is still the lack of a strong corresponding US movement.

      Because we've largely already lost. I try to be optimistic, but at this point, the only thing that is going to undo software patents is if they start causing serious economic damange that nobody can claim is just "the way IP works", or we start getting our clocks cleaned by a country with saner laws and people correctly diagnose the problem and fix it... as opposed to the knee-jerk reaction we'll actually get to tighten IP laws since the only n [jerf.org]
      • Re:US movement (Score:3, Insightful)

        The problem is: on the international level treatys are established, so patent law may bcome unreversible what I think is very dangerous. We need civil society support. And of course a strong pressure may improve the situation on the long run. The fTC report about the software patent system was very intresting. In the USA the lawyers talk about Europe's patents and the other way around. We know it is a conspiracy of the legal community, a hostile takeover. We can make a lot of media fuzz. Publicity is the d
  • Living in London, isn't there some way I can participate? Surely this is being organised as some sort of Europe-wide demonstration in several key cities? How else can I join a protest if I don't have the time, money or inclination to fly over to Belgium?
    • Join the web demo with your site:
      http://demo.ffii.org

      Subscribe or participate, or link to FFII UK
      http://www.ffii.org.uk
    • Re:Only in Brussels? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Halo1 ( 136547 )
      In May, actions in several European capitals are planned. The template page for London can be found here [ffii.org]. Click on the "Addenda" link at the top to get to a wiki with slightly more information, and which will be updated when the event gets further along.

      If you want to be kept up-to-date, register [ffii.org] as FFII supporter and in subscribe to the uk-parl mailing list under the "Subscribe to news forums" item of the main menu.

  • Office? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Swedentom ( 670978 )
    Please enlighten me... Would this make it possible for MS to get a patent on office suites?
    • It already is possible.

      See FFII: Microsoft and Patents [ffii.org]

      As far as I remember they patented parts of the Office XML specification....

      Join the web strike (find banners etc here)
      http://demo.ffii.org
    • The term "software patent" is very badly chosen, because you cannot patent a computer program (ony something that it does). If software patents are allowed, Microsoft could for example patent an algorithm that is required to read/decode .doc files.
      • Re:Office? (Score:3, Informative)

        Microsoft have already [com.com] filed patents for an algorithm that's required to use the next .doc format.

        Also the techniques for decoding/encoding a JPEG file, and for encoding an MP3 file or GIF file, and for rendering a .ttf font as the font author intended, those things are well known for being patented already. People have been threatened, sued, and lost or settled over all those things.

        File format patents are not new, and they're a serious problem already.

        -- Jamie

  • by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:15PM (#8825652)
    Although I sympathize with the protester's motives, I'm not sure how wise a website blackout is in the long-run. Were I an enterprise IT manager, I would not want my suppliers to be taking denial of service actions based on political issues that I don't necessarily care that much about. Blackouts will damage OSS' reputation with businesses.

    If KDE, GNU, and Gimp want enterprise adoption, they would do well to maintain 100% uptime -- appearing to be reliable business-like providers of quality software.
    • by Jameth ( 664111 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:21PM (#8825690)
      They are not taking their sites down, they are posting banners on their front-pages. The GIMP and GNU have an entire screen to go through. I prefer KDE's method, which just has a banner on it. That would be like if SlashDot put a banner where the add normally is which said patents were vile.
    • If KDE, GNU, and Gimp want enterprise adoption, they would do well to maintain 100% uptime -- appearing to be reliable business-like providers of quality software.

      Except that software patents would bring down all three projects. That's why they need to protest - not because they want to annoy people, but because their existence depends on it.

      • "Except that software patents would bring down all three projects."

        Just how do you justify this ? These are large and succesfull OSS products that are not encumbered by software patents, despite the fact that software patents already exist. I see that software patents have not stopped Linux, mysql, and various gnu and other products from success.
        • by Halo1 ( 136547 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @03:25PM (#8826021)
          These are large and succesfull OSS products that are not encumbered by software patents, despite the fact that software patents already exist.
          You mean that none of those projects uses tabbed palettes [ffii.org] or a dynamic progress marking icon [ffii.org] (such as a progress bar)?

          All these software patents are just time bombs waiting to go off. Everything you implement could be patented already, and if the owner of that patent doesn't like you, your project or your company, you're royally screwed.

        • Your sample is biased.

          You haven't seen the products that haven't been released because of software patents, have you?

          Neither have I, but I can tell you: I have worked on one such product. Patent concerns have and are impeding its creation and its release as free software. There are two more products that I'm actively planning, that will face similar problems. I am in the EU, by the way.

          KDE, Gnome and Gimp will survive even a heavy onslaught of litigation. But components of them may well disappear,

    • Have a look at

      http://demo.ffii.org

      and get informed what it actually is about. it was quite successful last time in order to attract a great media audience.

      They didn't go offline with their site. But they probably could get when patents are adopted, see
      http://webshop.ffii.org
    • Generally the sites stay up anyway (usually a link to the normal home page), and they serve to make people aware of something that may very well be important to them.

      What's the issue?
  • Bah I say, I would have LOVED to go and support this but didn't know it was happening.
    After just looking around the cheap flights sites, the cheapest I can now get is like 200 - and for a student thats just not viable. A month ago I could probably have got the flights for 50.

    I just wish I'd had a bit more notice, and half of my universities compsci dept would have turned up with me!
    • Re:Bah! (Score:3, Insightful)

      Actually the price for a flight is about UKP120* from London. Go from London City, it's cheaper than Heathrow to Brussels. Coaches from the biggest cities to London are on special offer at UKP1-5 right now.

      It's still a bit much. Coach all the way to Brussels is UKP52 from London.

      -- Jamie

      * - why does slashdot eat my pound signs? -- Jamie

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:32PM (#8825753)
    The last time this came up, a bunch of projects purposely screwed up their web sites as a protest. They made life miserable for the people who are changing the world by using free software.

    Earth to protesters: the people you want to reach are the politicians and other puppetmasters with money, not the lowly geek who needs to install some software or look something up. The people who really matter for this kind of stuff aren't going to look at your web sites, and don't care if you take them down for awhile.

    These actions annoy the wrong people, and may even hurt the cause by making key resources unavailable due to some badly-implemented plea for attention.

    Here's an analogy for those who still don't get it: would you barricade the doors of the public library to protest the crap that's on TV? No? Then why block geek web sites when you're trying to reach politicians?
    • Most sites just changed their homepage, but still had a link to the working site.
      So, they force people to see the message - after all, if software patents are adopted and enforces, many of these projects would have to close altogether, not just for a day -, but it's still possible to access the website.
  • disinformation ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sir_cello ( 634395 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:34PM (#8825771)
    Here are some points in favour of the EU legislation:

    1- software patents already exist, have been granted and so on (e.g. GIF in the US, for example, but others in the EU) - in the EU, it was confirmed by the Vicom case;
    2- the legislation is _merely_ codifying case law practice into statutory to law to reduce the level of confusion (so you don't have to refer to case law);
    3- despite the presence of software patents (e.g. gif), the progress of linux and open source has _not_ been hampered - in fact, in most cases, the presence of patents causes people to make workarounds, some of which are _better_ that the original patents (e.g. GIF -> PNG/JPG; VRRP -> CARP/PFSYNC);
    4- stopping this legislation will not stop software being patentable because it already is (see 1 above);
    5- not allowing patents for software means that you remove individual rights to the protection of the fruits of their labour - you _enforce_ an "open" social model on their inventions;

    The FFII information is pure FUD - "for the last few years the European Patent Office (EPO) has, contrary to the letter and spirit of the existing law, granted more than 30000 patents " because the terms of the EPC (european patent convention) have been clearly interpreted that it is only software _as such_ (e.g. a whole program) not (a) systems that incorporate software as an element, or (b) technical mechanisms within the software.

    If I invent a new compression algorithm that is patentable, sure I want to _have the choice_ to either (a) patent it and make money from the patent, (b) dedicate it to the public domain for all to use. If FFII had their choice, then my freedom for (a) would be removed, for some "specious" allegation that software patents are hindering innovation, when, in fact, the swathe of open source software and internet protocols/technology are evidence that software patents have not done anything to hinder innovation.

    I don't want rights to my inventive creations to be removed. I want the choice, and what I want the open source community is do is to educate me on how to use my choice, not to impose it upon me.
    • by Elektroschock ( 659467 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:52PM (#8825849)
      FUD?

      I think you said it right:

      1. There are international treaties that clearly state what shall be patentable and what not.

      2. the lawyer, i.e. case-law modified the law by decisions that perverted the meaning of the law.

      3. The EU Commission wants to codify this in order to decrease the legal incertainty created by the misinterpretation. That is legalising a landgrab. The EU Parl reconfirmec the original rules.

      'If I invent a new compression algorithm that is patentable, sure I want to _have the choice_ to either (a) patent it and make money from the patent, (b) dedicate it to the public domain for all to use.'

      This is not the way patent law works in reality, a patent cost 60 000 Eur minimum legal fees. You cannot patent algorithms, but a patent attorney can write it in order to circumvent the law.

      'If FFII had their choice, then my freedom for (a) would be removed, for some "specious" allegation that software patents are hindering innovation, when, in fact, the swathe of open source software and internet protocols/technology are evidence that software patents have not done anything to hinder innovation.'

      Patents are a govermental granted monopoly priviledge that is justified by the idea to promote innovation. When this 'encourage innovation'-condition is not met the whole interference into the free market is wrong.

      Patent law is an instrument of economic policy and shall not be applied in fields where it is not designed for.

      There are many many projects that had trouble because of patents.

      BTW: FFII is no FL/OSS organisation but a developers association. Many supporters write commercial software and everybody knows that this slow bureaucratic patent law does not work in the field of software.

      To 1)

      Yes, but currently there is a way in Europe to delete illegally granted patents.

      Patents don't play a role in European software development business. Most developers have never seen a patent. Most software patents are granted to non-software developing companys from outside Europe because of the weak patent office standards that circumvent the law.

      What of these patents that wetre already granted are worth to get a patent? Which of these cover real innovation?

      See http://webshiop.ffii.org

      • You have many mistakes:

        "2. the lawyer, i.e. case-law modified the law by decisions that perverted the meaning of the law." --- this is how the law works, it's a refining action between the legislature and the judiciary.

        "This is not the way patent law works in reality, a patent cost 60 000 Eur minimum legal fees. You cannot patent algorithms, but a patent attorney can write it in order to circumvent the law." -- you misunderstood mean: you can patent an algorithm as embodied in a software program, but you
        • From a case law perspective!

          But we talk about statutory law. Lawyers do not understand software. Only parliament has legislative powers and can express the will of the people. Lawyers may not reverse the meaning of the law they can oly adopt it. And when they reverse the meaning of it, they have to be stopped by a clarified law. Yes, the patent courts are influenced by the patent attorney industry that is intrested in widening the scope of patent law so that everything under the moon can become patentable
        • Elektroschock (659467):
          "This is not the way patent law works in reality, a patent cost 60 000 Eur minimum legal fees. You cannot patent algorithms, but a patent attorney can write it in order to circumvent the law."

          sir_cello (634395) in reply:
          "you misunderstood mean: you can patent an algorithm as embodied in a software program, but you cannot patent the algorithm itself - I certainly didn't mean the latter."

          Perhaps I misunderstand the terminology used here. However, sir_cello, are you certain that a pate
    • by John Miles ( 108215 ) * on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:52PM (#8825854) Homepage Journal
      If I invent a new compression algorithm that is patentable

      The problem is, there's no way you can possibly do that without building on other, similar "inventions" that came before yours. There's not much new under the sun in the data-compression business. What, besides archaic patent laws, gives you the moral right to conduct your own personal IP land rush? It's safe to say that your "inventions," no matter what they may be, are economically feasible only because the people who came before you did not patent their own work.

      What if Bresenham had patented his line-drawing algorithm? What if Catmull had patented texture mapping? What if Naylor had patented spatial-partitioning trees? What if Wozniak had filed patents on the hundreds of innovations in PC architecture that the Apple II embodied? Answer: instead of extolling patent protection on Slashdot, you'd be busy playing Zork on your TRS-80.

      Because the modern legal trend in the patent field is toward patenting ideas rather than implementations -- something that the US patent system, at least, was never originally intended to allow -- patents on any of those examples would have walled off entire segments of computing and graphics research for decades, just the way Unisys's patent on LZW compression discouraged people from using and improving upon the lineage of that particular algorithm. At the end of the day, did Unisys make much money from their "ownership" of the algorithm used in .GIF image compression? Nope... they just kept other people from benefiting from the presence of a perfectly-reasonable file format for 8-bit graphics. The patent royalties they earned were probably just about enough to pay for the staff of lawyers in charge of collecting them.
    • It's timely that this topic come up as the most recent entry on my blog, Share Alike [rurnt.com], is entitled "Arguments Against Software Patents".

      Let me respond to your points first.

      1. Just because software patents already exist doesn't make them a good idea. There are lots of laws on the books that need changing. That's progress.

      2. First, I think this is just inaccurate, but in any case, the same point as in #1 applies. Just because some judges have decided to allow such patents doesn't make them a good idea.
    • by Telex4 ( 265980 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @03:33PM (#8826064) Homepage
      To counter your own FUD...

      1) The European Parliament voted last September to exclude pure software in the legislation, so it couldn't be patented. The FFII isn't campaigning against legislation, it's campaigning with the Parliament to stop the Council and Commission from bodging the legislation and hoodwinking MEPs who don't understand the issues.

      2) Software has been patented in the EU for decades, but software patents have not contributed to the development of the software industry

      3) Patents are harmful. They have been one of the key tools employed by companies like Microsoft and Apple in buying up and demolishing competition.

      4) Patents are not needed if you want proprietary software. Copyright it, license it under a proprietary license, and you're protected. For someone to duplicate your work legally, they'd have to do all the code again, which is far from nontrivial.

      You don't really give any reasons why they are needed, why they're desirable. But you do mention various technologies ("the swathe of open source software and internet protocols/technology") that aren't patented, or haven't had patents used to control their use. Did they need patents to innovate? No, so why have them?

      Imagine, on the other hand, if the inventors of HTTP, TCP/IP and other technologies had patented them and restricted their use. Imagine if every implementation of TCP/IP had to pay royalties. Imagine if every web site owner had to agree to a list of terms and conditions of use, and pay a cut of any profits to Berners Lee.

      The reason we can't think of lots of examples of harmful patents off the top of our heads, and why we rely on the good research of the FFII, and a lot of studies by economists, is that those patents have kept us in the dark.

      Society needs technology protocols and standards to be in the public domain, whether you're a card-carrying member of the Free Software Foundation or a long-time Microsoft user. Patents aren't going to bring us this.

      Really, before launching in and accusing the FFII of FUD, you should at least read their material, read some of the many independent studies they mention, and get your facts about the history of patents in the EU correct.
  • by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:41PM (#8825803) Journal
    I can understand putting a link on your site, changing the colour scheme for a week or even putting big eye-catching banners on the front page, but closing it?? whats the point? sure if it was a well known website out of geek circles like hotmail or google (just picking well known websites here not meaningful ones) then maybe closing it and putting a reason on the front page for a day would make sense, lots of people who have no-idea about software patents would read it and learn something, but im pretty certain that anyone who visits any open-source project site or anything related will already know whats going on and will just be abit pissed off that they cant get to their site! If google changed the artwork for their logo (like they do for various holidays) for a day the number of new people learning about this cause would skyrocket!
  • Sometimes, I like to get a piece of paper and just fill it up with right parenthesis, because of all the unfinished parenthetical statements in the world, to balance the universe.
  • by blue.strider ( 737082 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:42PM (#8825810)
    As hard as it is to believe, patents are the only way a creative technical guy can hope to get some money from his inventions. other then working for BigMonopolisticCompany(TM).

    If not for patents, every smart idea you have will be ripped off by the BigMonopolisticCompany(TM) as soon as you mention it. Given their market position, they will force their customers to use their version. Given their financiar power, they can hire plenty of brilliant coders to implement your idea in no time. You'll be left with no customers, a window of opportunity of max one year and a huge hole in your personal finances.

    By the way, patents are the reason why Sun got 1.6bil$ from Microsoft. Without patents, Microsoft could have just trample Sun into the ground without bothering to spend a dime.

    As long as your only dream is to reimplement other people's ideas, then, of course, patents are bad. Be innovative and suddenly patents start to look good.

    • by labratuk ( 204918 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @03:31PM (#8826056)
      Completely false.

      That may have been how patents used to work, but it isn't anymore. The way patents work nowadays is a large company hires a 'research' department, locks them away in a basement and tells them basically: 'patent every single thing you can come up with'. The company does this to build up a patent portfolio which it then uses as munitions for legal wars. That is all. Software development is left to the big guys.

      What's more, there are so many patents over software and they will soon be so fiercely defended that it means little guys won't have a chance at all, regardless of whether they want to release it for free or make a buck. You see, the sheer volume of broad patents means it is impossible to know if your small program is violating anything unless you have a massive legal deapartment going through everything for you. Hence, software development is left to the big guys.

      And if software patents are supposed to protect the little guy's ideas, can you think of a single recent case where this has happened? A little guy has patented a software idea that has gone on to become very successful and not trampled by large corps? I can't either. If your argument were true we'd have loads of these small companies with patented ideas being very successful.

      To further make my point, we also have large companies trading patents. This is not good. The 'innovator' as you like to call them is no longer the person making money off the patent and it allows large companies to buy up large scary portfolios to push other people out of the market. Let's take Microsoft. Recently they bought up a load of OpenGL patents from SGI. This is not good. Microsoft are a company who are trying to push their own 'technology' (Direct3D) over OpenGL. We are near to a position here where OpenGL could have a stop called to it by Microsoft because it owns vital patents.

      At one point in the SCO / BayStar / Microsoft / Novell fiacso we (allegedly) had a situation where Microsoft were close to acquiring vital patents over Unix. Can you imagine what would happen if one company held patents over the two dominant operating system technologies? Even though this didn't happen this time, there's nothing to stop it happening in the future. All it would take is a buyout of Novell or Sun for example.

      By the way, patents are the reason why Sun got 1.6bil$ from Microsoft. Without patents, Microsoft could have just trample Sun into the ground without bothering to spend a dime.

      Why should I care? This is irrelevant. $1b Doesn't even make a dent in Microsoft's finances. It makes no difference. Neither of these two are by any stretch of the imagination a 'little guy'. You think I should be on the side of Sun here just because they're fighting Microsoft? If it were something over antitrust I mgiht be interested, but as it is, it's just two dinosaurs hurling patent portfolios* at each other. It's only lawyers who win here.

      * - Patents that have by now been totally seperated from their original 'innovation'.
  • I forget who pointed it out to me, but it's probably impossible to stop the march of software patents. The people who want them are too rich, well organized and above all persistent. They'll keep hammering away at the legisatures until they get what they want. Why? Because that's their job. They've got full time lobbyist to push their agenda. I mean, this demonstartion's all well and good, but after it's over the demonstrators are going to go to work the next day, and so are the Software Patent lobbyist. Ma
  • I'm just wondering really, is it how they want to implement them. If I was developing things, I would want to be sure that I had the rights to it, that some jerk couldn't just go about willy-nilly with it. Aside from some abuses, what's so bad about intellectual property rights?
  • by starseeker ( 141897 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:58PM (#8825878) Homepage
    Our protesting does absolutely nothing to sway them. We are a minute component of society with no financial clout and no connections. They most likely wouldn't miss us if we all up and vanished. We cannot cause enough trouble to cost people their offices, and our demise would please a lot of people who DO have money and connections. This is not an issue the public is worried about - they have other concerns than software.

    Not that I disapprove. It's still better than nothing. But we need other contingency plans, because as far as the governments are concerned the loss of open source would not be a major one, and they will not respond to us. If we want to be effective, I think we need to look in another direction.

    Specifically, if software patents are to be given power and we can't stop it, I think we should propose an compromise. If they are going to go through with this, they need to also create a mechanism by which people can document for the patent office intellectual property without any of the large fees associated with the patent filing process. This new filing path wouldn't grant the filer any unique rights to the IP - it would, however, constitute documentation of prior art which has been filed with the patent office and they are responsible for when considering new tech patents. This is the only answer I can think of which might hault the granting of absurd patents. Allow us to document all our ideas cheaply in such a way as to block patents being granted which involve obvious ideas. I would call it a Declaration of Prior Art. The filer doesn't need to be the one who had the original idea - just someone who can properly describe and document it. Then, if the patent office grants a stupid patent, we can point them to files in their own database that rule it out.

    So by all means protest the patents, but remember They Don't Care. What we need instead is a method to impact the workings of the patent office. So let's lobby for the addition of a Declaration of Prior Art section to software patents. We can argue that it would help the patent office do its job, and I don't think anyone would actually have the guts to publicly state they want to take advantage of the patent office's ignorance in this field. Let's try and lobby for a mechanism where we can help the patent office be unable to grant stupid patents. That might actually provide us with a defense when (not if, IMHO) they eventually get software patents through. There's just too much $$$ behind software patents - I have zero expectation the political system will stop them based on anything like ideals. So let's get practical, and look for ways we can do more than just protest.
    • Our protesting does absolutely nothing to sway them.

      Absolute nonsense. Over the past few years, we've been protesting and lobbying and last September the European Parliament put through a decent piece of legislation that did exactly what we asked for.

      Not it's the European Commission and the European Council who are causing trouble, after lobbying from industry (Nokia in particular), but so long as we keep the Parliament convinced, we're OK.

      So no, every EU citizen reading this should lobby their MEPs imm
    • No, the protests can make a big difference. I don't trust the European Comission, but the European parliament does in fact care, it decided against software patents, and it is important that it doesn't give in. Before the decision in the European Parliament I thought the main danger was that many members would not really look at it. Only the green parties and the radical left were clearly against software patents, and that would be a relatively small minority. Manifestations, letters to members of the parli
  • what is the point of this? I mean the sites that are being taken down are already anti-patent and the people who visit it are also already anti patent. How often does anyone here even visit the GNU website? we have a minority of the people in a minority group (those who use OSS ) protesting this. i see it as ebinf as effective as me shutting down my site in protest of law x... no one who aready does not does not care will care.
  • by iamwahoo2 ( 594922 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @03:06PM (#8825919)
    This protest is going to be inneffective. The proper way to protest software patents, and the reckless issuing of patents in general is to start applying for them left and write. Just like the GPL uses copyright against itself, we should all be applying for software patents left and right (and any other kind of patents) and follow that by sending cease and desist letters to large corportations. If enough of us created a hassle for the corporations, they would be begging for the patent law to change.
    • it would be expensive. If it were to be done at a scale to have any sort of significance whatsoever, then very, expensive. Which is one of the big problems with software patents in the first place: you have to pay fees which for an individual or small company are nearly insurmountable, and at the same time not even pocket change for large corporations. And then there's paying the lawyers to actually have it enforced.
  • What is next on the agenda, protesting ownership of property? Everything should be free, unless it is yours? What a giant waste of time, I have no problem with software patents, if they are issued sanely. The people patenting hyperlinks and such are the exception rather than the rule.
    • F.A. von Hayek was aware of the problemthat emerges with your criticism. intellectual property is a propaganda term that may let you think of your 'property'. A patent is a monopoly grant by a goverment, ie. an interference into the freedom of the market. The difference to copyright is that you can easily "reinvent" the patent without even knowing about it.

      Hayek Quote:
      I am thinking here of the extension of the
      concept of property to such rights and privileges as patents for
      inventions, copyright, trade-mar
  • DMCA in the USA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CaptainTux ( 658655 ) <papillion@gmail.com> on Saturday April 10, 2004 @03:11PM (#8825946) Homepage Journal
    What's happening in Europe is a travesty and I fully support our European brothers and sisters in their fight against software patents. Yes, I can see where patents are very useful tools when used responsibly. But most companies don't use them responsibly. They use them to stifle any competition and that is why I oppose patents.

    On another note, why is nobody doing something similar in the USA to oppose the DMCA? Yes, I realize it's already a law but laws are made to be repealed. The DMCA is just as dangerous to us as software patents are to Europe (yes, one in the same). Why aren't more people organizing against it in the USA?

    Join the protest against European software patents! [opensouce-strategies.com]

  • The EUCD (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pheph ( 234655 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @03:37PM (#8826094) Homepage
    Though fundamentally different from patents, the EUCD is another broad reaching directive that consistently hurts EU consumers' basic rights... I have (very) recently started a site at anti-eucd.org [anti-eucd.org] to rally support against it.
  • by motown ( 178312 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @05:11PM (#8826608)
    However frustrating this is to all of us (especially those among us that went through the trouble of travelling to Brussels and Strasbourg to make our voices heard and those of us who will be visiting Brussels the coming week): there is a big possibility that The European Commission is going to overrule a democratic process by the European Parliament and will vote in favor of unlimited patentability of ideas, including software.

    Although we must continue to resist this as much as legally possible, we must also look further forward and think about how to battle the evil of software patents if they become a reality in Europe as well.

    Granted, the current patent system currently works almost excusively in favor of large corporationas and empowers them to squash any newcomers, therefore allowing the large corporations to permanently consolidate their market share and influence.

    Let's look at allegories in our past: the exploitation of the working class individual by large corporations during the Industrial Revolution. One man was no match against the large corporations. After all, if someone did not agree to the working conditions, the working hours and the meager salary, they'd just throw him out. There were more than enough others available that were eager to take his place in spite of all this.

    The answer to this was found in Trade Unions. One man could not make a difference, but a large group of men could. With the founding of Trade Unions, the companies were forced to negotiate with the Trade Unions and offer better conditions and more reasonable pay.

    Now suppose we used the Labor Union example as a model to form a similar foundation. An Open Source Community Patent Trust. (Everyone here that can think of a better name, please step in. ;) )

    I've been impressed with many new true innovations coming from the Open Source development community lately. Everytime I saw a cool new idea being developed by someone or some group within the Open Source community, my enthusiasm about the coolness of the innovation would be further enhanced by an additional sense of relief: "The Open Source community developed this first and put it on the map. There's no way anyone can take this away from us, now that we have demonstrated prior art."

    The point is that we underestimate as well as fail to harness all these impressive innovations.

    Now if we founded a International Non-profit organisation that any developer could subscribe to (which would require a periodic subscription fee, just as labor unions do) and would use the subscription money to finance as much patents on Open Source software innovations as possible, then its patent portfolio (which it would manage and protect on behalf of the entire community) whould steadily grow and grow.

    A comittee (consisting of both developers and enlightened law experts such as the good people at Groklaw) would evaluate which of the donated ideas would we worth patenting, constantly keeping the current budget for expensive patent applications in mind.

    Now in order to prevent all major corporations from collectively turning on this foundation, it would be a very important guideline for it to work purely defensively on behalf of itself and its members. It simply couldn't afford picking unnecessary fights, especially not early on in its existence.

    As soon as a member of the foundation were bullied by a company accusing them of patent infringement, the foundation could then bring the entire worldwide community's collective patent portfolio to bear against this company. Alternatively, the foundation could spend some money from its defense fund to fund the victim's legal expenses. That way, the victim could more easily decide to go ahead with a lawsuit, instead of having to back off purely because of the threat of litigation. That alone could force many companies to think twice about starting an infringement case, since actually going ahead with the case could also res
    • Very nice post. I think it's true that Big Business runs the world right now, and a software union is needed. Free Software Union or somthing. I've often wondered why software devlopers have no union. (I'm still in school, years away from such things) Something more formally organized then the slashdot community, a true union of all coders who think that not every little snippet of code can be universally patented. Specific code can be, I concede, but the concept of something is open.

HOLY MACRO!

Working...