This was the instant comment from slashdotter Halo1, who was in the Parliament all last night and this morning, on the spot as the vote happened:
Tino is sending a full list with results.
However, we got the full article 2
(2a and 2b from kauppi, PSE 69 + non-conflicting part from 55/97/108. We also
have the industrial definition!
Art 3 is deleted, not amended
Art 4 is the biggest loss: for 4.1 and 4.2, the commission proposal has been
voted. 4.3 is 110 somewhat amended ("compromise" Kauppi, but the compromise
does not change the meaning in any way).
Art 5 is 102/111 (and 18 killed).
Art 6a is 76(1), without 76(2), so we got interoperability.
We lost most recitals, except for deletion of recital 6 (so no modification
by NGL though) and also most other smaller amendments to the articles.
So all in all, we sort of crushed the backbone of the proposed directive. I
think we have a very strong start for the second reading.
I'm confused is this good or bad? Should they have voted for or against? 6a at least sounds like a good thing. Does that apply to existing patents or new patents only?
It's not as good as a blanket no to all software patents, but it is not as bad as it would have been without the tremendous effort that has been put in.
It is a compromise, but that in itself is a massive victory: the industry lobby has NEVER had to compromise with the consumers on these matters before. Look at laws like the DMCA and EUCD: compromises between the media and communication industries, where consumers where never even considered. The age of such laws ends here.
Can someone explain for me Article 6A, "Right to use of patented techniques without authorization or royalty, if needed solely to achieve software interoperatibility"?
Does this imply that, for example, Linux MP3 encoders are now legal in the EU, without royalty or authorization [or will be]?
This isn't the final law yet. As Halo1 posted, it is only the first reading, and will now get negotiated between the parliament, commission and member states, before coming back to the parliament for second reading.
Article 6a, which the parliament voted for today, reads:
a) Member States shall ensure that wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or network so as to allow communication and ex
Does this imply that, for example, Linux MP3 encoders are now legal in the EU, without royalty or authorization [or will be]?
My interpetation is: yes, but only if you can demonstrate a necessity to do it in order to enable some non-infringing activity. If another data format [xiph.org] will allow the same activity to occur, then you should use that data format instead. But if, say, you have a dumb hardware device that'll only play MP3s, then yes you could encode MP3s and be done with it.
"Right to use of patented techniques without authorization or royalty, if needed solely to achieve software interoperatibility"?
Wow. The closest US equivalent (a clause in the DMCA) only applies to legitimate copy control bypassing, and only applies to interhost network protocol interoperation.
This is *incredible*, and could have a sweeping impact on patents. It's a *huge* lever.
First of all, the MP3 patents are software patents and as such are not valid in Europe. The base MP3 patent is on quantising a sound signal and then iteratively executing a (the patent doesn't mention which) mathematical function over these quantised values until they can be represented using the desired number of bits. That's it, it's not any more specific.
Now, suppose we would get software patents, then this article would allow you to use an mp3 decoder to connect some audio aparatus to another one which only outputs sound in MP3 format. It will not allow encoders, unless they are only used for encoding sound which is then fed into something which can accept only mp3 encoded audio. So it also won't allow plain mp3 players (I don't think that the argument "I want to make my MP3's interoperable with my earbuds" would hold).
It really is a restriction to make sure that a company with a dominant market position cannot exclude everyone else by making all of the interfaces of its machine depend on patented technology and thus doing a vender lock-in (since compatitors cannot make any compatible devices).
Jonas
The main problem with interoperability exclusions as it relates to FOSS is that the developer will most likely need to prove their case in court. This is a huge expense in terms of money and time.
How long will the software patents be in effect? I don't know the answer to this question, but it is probably light years in "computer time."
This will give the lawyers a lot of time to drag it out. Because corporations don't get old and die like people do, it could really be a struggle for an individual o
On the other hand, this sounds quite interesting in another sense. Anything that can be done iteratively can usually be done more quickly directly.
Therefore, an improvement on the MP3 encoder would not be covered by the patent. That is, you find the mathematical formula that automatically takes into account all the iterations at once, using the same formula. Then you use that to write the.mp3 file.
For example, you could use the Parker-Sochaki solution to the Picard iteration to solve for the final out
The devil is in the details and considering what we were up against, all is not lost. It looks like we have salvaged the critical points.
Which were the ones we lost?/me is listening to "The Number Of The Beast" (1:19 / 4:53 26%) by Iron Maiden from "The Best Of The Beast" (1996) [MP3 @ 175 kbps / foobar2000 v0.7]
Mods: please reserve your points for the reply, do not squander it on my post. Thanks.
Article 6a = Right to use of patented techniques, without authorisation or royalty, if needed solely to achieve software interoperability. UPHELD.
So, does this mean that Jon Johansen of DeCSS fame is now formally off the legal hook in the EU? It seems to me that any arguments other than those of his reverse engineering of CSS are now completely out of the window, and even that is on dubious ground. I suppose this would also apply to the whole Adobe/Elcomsoft/Sklyarov thing too, but that's largely done
The laws is abit tricky on the whole EUCD thingy. You can legally break copy protection if it prevents you from viewing DVDs on Linux e.g.- I guess the same would be true for DRM. You can't break copy protection to make copies of DVDs and sell them however.
Basicly it is a question about having players available on all platforms I think. Im no legal expert but I think it means that if you can't listen to a cd , because of the copy protection, then you can break it. But Im not sure.
Man... the voting was about patents. Particulary about "should software be patentable?". Not about digital right management or copyright or copyright infringment.
But - there are DRM systems out there which stand on two legs: DMCA-like protection and patent protection. Meaning that if you circumvent it, you infringe on one or more patents (CPRM is such a case). At least that's the idea.
By circumventing a patented DRMS, you do not breach the patent, as you do not use the patent, but the opposite way. For breaching a patent you need to apply the exact same method wich is covered by the patent. So if XOR encoding would be patented, using XOR to decode could be a patent issue. But while RSA is patented(expired) you still can use(try)brute force decoding without patent infringement. However that would be a violation of DMCA. angel'o'sphere
For breaching a patent you need to apply the exact same method wich is covered by the patent. So if XOR encoding would be patented, using XOR to decode could be a patent issue. But while RSA is patented(expired) you still can use(try)brute force decoding without patent infringement.
For things like RSA you're right. But as you said, if you have to implement a patented method for circumventing a DRM system, that's it (this covers not only encryption). Have you looked at CPRM? It's not the only system doing
usual disclaimer : IANAL. first, thanks guys for helping us understand the meaning of all that (I, for one welcome our new legal speech overlords). I personally believe that this is not as much a big mess as I feared. Article 2 and 3 will hopefully filter out most of the junk already registered in USA. I see it also as a basis to deal with USA domination in software production : European firms might be able to counterweight more 'fairly' (or at least fairly more) with their USA competitors.
So if this goes through as written, it would mean that linux users could install the installshield thing legally through wine to install windows programs?
Well, explain the differences then! Or post a link.
The Reuters translation post [slashdot.org] said that the laws specifies that simply implementing something in software that previously existed outside of software isn't patentable, which sounds tremendously good to me. Anything else that's good?
Slashdot needs a "Move thread up one" moderation, so a comment that clarifies a story or disproves a commonly-held opinion on the story can be the first thing people read (and this option could be turned off in user settings, of course)
To get an idea of just how many politicians 'got it', and the whole tone of the debate, read the transcript at http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/plen0 309/deba/ [ffii.org], or watch the recorded Real Player stream from the EU Parliament in any of a dozen languages (until it gets slashdotted).
BTW: sorry about the formatting, but it's not too bad if you narrow the page.
The speeches by Framm, Boussa, Andersson, Cappato, Gebhardt, Boogert, Courtrand and McCormick show just how strongly the message got th
Thanks ! very interesting read, it clearly shows that things are not really black or white, many politicians are indeed very aware of the problems software patentability brings. This has chaged my view about this directive which in clarify things, and will (at least I hope) avoid many abuse which results from the lack of legislation which prevails now.
Yes, its strange how the same news can be interpreted differently. I just came here from (usually very open source friendly) www.heise.de, and there the headline was "Europaparlament gibt Softwarepatenten einen Korb" ("European parlament turns down software patents", hope thats about the correct translation)
This is a massive success, due to a level of lobbying unprecedented at this stage of a technical European measure.
That is my tentative conclusion as well. I have to research the details a lot more, but from my perspective, but this could possibly result in a Europe-only release of my Tux2 filesystem work.
Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions
Article 2: Definitions
a) "computer-implemented invention" means any invention in the sense of the
European Patent Convention the performance of which involves the use of a
computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus and having in its
implementations one or more non-technical features which are realised wholly
or partly by a computer program or computer programs, besides the technical
features that any invention must contrib
Member states shall ensure that data processing is not considered to be a
field of technology in the sense of patent law, and that innovations in the
field of data processing are not considered to be inventions in the sense of
patent law.
1. In order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be
susceptible of industrial application and new and involve an inventive step.
2. In order to involve an inventive step, a computer-implemented invention must
make a technical contribution.
3. The significant extent of the technical contribution shall be assessed by
consideration of the difference between the technical elements included in
the scope of the patent claim considered as a whole and the st
1. A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical
contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or
other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions involving computer
programs which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not
produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between
a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which
it is r
Member States shall ensure that a computer-implemented invention may be
claimed only as a product, that is as a programmed device, or as a technical
production process.
Member States shall ensure that patent claims granted in respect of computer-implemented inventions include only the technical contribution which justifies the patent claim. A patent claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed.
Article 5b
Member States shall ensure that the production, handling, processing,
distribution and publication of information, in whatever form, can never
constitute direct or indirect infringement of a pate
The rights conferred by patents granted for inventions within the scope of
this Directive shall not affect acts permitted under Articles 5 and 6 of
Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs by
copyright, in particular under the provisions thereof in respect of
decompilation and interoperability.
Article 6a
Member States shall ensure that, wherever the use of a patented technique
is needed for a significant purpose such as ensuring conversion of the
co
We're here to give you a computer, not a religion.
- attributed to Bob Pariseau, at the introduction of the Amiga
Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:5, Informative)
This is a massive success, due to a level of lobbying unprecedented at this stage of a technical European measure.
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:1)
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:5, Informative)
Article 2 = Fundamental definition of "technical": what is patentable and what is not. OUR DEFINITION ACCEPTED.
Article 3 = All software by definition patentable. KILLED.
Article 4 = Detailed conditions for deciding patentability. AMENDED. Will now be re-negotiated between the Parliament, Commission and Member States.
Article 5 = Program Claims. KILLED.
Article 6a = Right to use of patented techniques, without authorisation or royalty, if needed solely to achieve software interoperability. UPHELD.
This was achieved against massive counter-lobbying from the BSA and other industry giants.
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:2)
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:2, Insightful)
It is a compromise, but that in itself is a massive victory: the industry lobby has NEVER had to compromise with the consumers on these matters before. Look at laws like the DMCA and EUCD: compromises between the media and communication industries, where consumers where never even considered. The age of such laws ends here.
Even if we end up loosing this, a
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:1)
I hope I never have to remind you that you said that.
Can someone explain Article 6a? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this imply that, for example, Linux MP3 encoders are now legal in the EU, without royalty or authorization [or will be]?
Re:Can someone explain Article 6a? (Score:3, Informative)
Article 6a, which the parliament voted for today, reads:
Re:Can someone explain Article 6a? (Score:2)
My interpetation is: yes, but only if you can demonstrate a necessity to do it in order to enable some non-infringing activity. If another data format [xiph.org] will allow the same activity to occur, then you should use that data format instead. But if, say, you have a dumb hardware device that'll only play MP3s, then yes you could encode MP3s and be done with it.
But check that with
HOLY FUCKING SHIT (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. The closest US equivalent (a clause in the DMCA) only applies to legitimate copy control bypassing, and only applies to interhost network protocol interoperation.
This is *incredible*, and could have a sweeping impact on patents. It's a *huge* lever.
Re:Can someone explain Article 6a? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, suppose we would get software patents, then this article would allow you to use an mp3 decoder to connect some audio aparatus to another one which only outputs sound in MP3 format. It will not allow encoders, unless they are only used for encoding sound which is then fed into something which can accept only mp3 encoded audio. So it also won't allow plain mp3 players (I don't think that the argument "I want to make my MP3's interoperable with my earbuds" would hold).
It really is a restriction to make sure that a company with a dominant market position cannot exclude everyone else by making all of the interfaces of its machine depend on patented technology and thus doing a vender lock-in (since compatitors cannot make any compatible devices). Jonas
Re:Can someone explain Article 6a? (Score:1)
How long will the software patents be in effect? I don't know the answer to this question, but it is probably light years in "computer time."
This will give the lawyers a lot of time to drag it out. Because corporations don't get old and die like people do, it could really be a struggle for an individual o
Re:Can someone explain Article 6a? (Score:2)
Therefore, an improvement on the MP3 encoder would not be covered by the patent. That is, you find the mathematical formula that automatically takes into account all the iterations at once, using the same formula. Then you use that to write the
For example, you could use the Parker-Sochaki solution to the Picard iteration to solve for the final out
Thank you Halo1 and JPMH (Score:2)
Which were the ones we lost?
Mods: please reserve your points for the reply, do not squander it on my post. Thanks.
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:2)
So, does this mean that Jon Johansen of DeCSS fame is now formally off the legal hook in the EU? It seems to me that any arguments other than those of his reverse engineering of CSS are now completely out of the window, and even that is on dubious ground. I suppose this would also apply to the whole Adobe/Elcomsoft/Sklyarov thing too, but that's largely done
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:2, Informative)
And Norway (Jon's country) is not an EU member state.
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:2)
EES is a treaty to cooperate with the EU on some areas. EUCD is in one of these areas.
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:1)
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:2, Insightful)
Basicly it is a question about having players available on all platforms I think. Im no legal expert but I think it means that if you can't listen to a cd , because of the copy protection, then you can break it. But Im not sure.
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:2)
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:2)
angel'o'sphere
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:2)
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:2)
For breaching a patent you need to apply the exact same method wich is covered by the patent. So if XOR encoding would be patented, using XOR to decode could be a patent issue. But while RSA is patented(expired) you still can use(try)brute force decoding without patent infringement. However that would be a violation of DMCA.
angel'o'sphere
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:2)
For things like RSA you're right. But as you said, if you have to implement a patented method for circumventing a DRM system, that's it (this covers not only encryption). Have you looked at CPRM? It's not the only system doing
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:3, Insightful)
Next time a MS rep, hints that "they owe the patents" to a SAMBA maintainer, now they can not only smile as a response, but plain laugh aloud!
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:2)
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:1, Interesting)
first, thanks guys for helping us understand the meaning of all that (I, for one welcome our new legal speech overlords).
I personally believe that this is not as much a big mess as I feared. Article 2 and 3 will hopefully filter out most of the junk already registered in USA.
I see it also as a basis to deal with USA domination in software production : European firms might be able to counterweight more 'fairly' (or at least fairly more) with their USA competitors.
Yet, of course, I w
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:1)
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:1)
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:2)
Thats good work.
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:5, Interesting)
Judging by the average post so far on this story, most readers are seeing this as a very black and white situation.
Passing bad, not passing good.
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:2)
The Reuters translation post [slashdot.org] said that the laws specifies that simply implementing something in software that previously existed outside of software isn't patentable, which sounds tremendously good to me. Anything else that's good?
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:1)
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:1)
Slashdot needs a "Move thread up one" moderation, so a comment that clarifies a story or disproves a commonly-held opinion on the story can be the first thing people read (and this option could be turned off in user settings, of course)
Transcript of the debate. (Score:2)
BTW: sorry about the formatting, but it's not too bad if you narrow the page.
The speeches by Framm, Boussa, Andersson, Cappato, Gebhardt, Boogert, Courtrand and McCormick show just how strongly the message got th
Re:Transcript of the debate. (Score:2)
Please give some applause... (Score:2)
A big thank you!
Re:Please give some applause... (Score:2)
/me claps, loudly and for a long time.
Just in: Voting results (Score:2)
"Vote plenary" is the result (y=yes/n=no/x=not voted). "Vote" is the FFII voting recommendation. (from - - - to +++)
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:1)
The FFII recommended a YES vote (Score:2)
Note: the forces of darkness are already circling around the amended directive and calling for it to be killed.
Re:Massive victory for Open Source campaign (Score:2)
That is my tentative conclusion as well. I have to research the details a lot more, but from my perspective, but this could possibly result in a Europe-only release of my Tux2 filesystem work.
Consolidated text of new amended Article 2 (Score:2)
Consolidated text of new article 3a (Score:2)
Consolidated text of new Article 4 (Score:2)
Consolidated text of new Article 4a (Score:2)
Consolidated text of new Article 5 (Score:2)
Consolidated text of new articles 5a to 5d (Score:2)
Consolidated text of new Articles 6 and 6a (Score:2)