Europe Starts Debate On Patents 97
Anonymous Coward writes "According to this
paper on Wired News, a tremendous
battle between pro- and anti-patents in starting this week in Europe.
Countries that seem to be ready to vote for software patents include
Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Switzerland, Greece, Italy, Lichtenstein, Monaco
and the Netherlands, and countries opposing them are currently: Denmark,
Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden and the U.K."
It can't get much worse... (Score:2)
Flash File System
Visualising a Process
Multitasking
Creating dynamic webpages by invoking a script
etc.
Why? Because (quoting the article) "patents can be granted for software that is an integral part of a new machine, if the software -- such as an operating system -- controls the functions of that machine."
Re:Bass-ackwards (Score:1)
Watch out for UK U-turns... (Score:3)
Cheers
jb
Comparing Software Patents and the Death Penalty (Score:1)
In theory, software patents are good because they help to promote innovation. Companies won't do research if they have to give away the fruits of their research for free.
In theory, the death penalty is good because some crimes are so heinous and some criminals are so evil that the best thing to do is to kill the criminal.
In practice, the situation is a mess.
The patent office is incompetent at determining what is a true innovation. Patents given to non-innovations is unfair and discourages real research (and ignores real research). Companies spend too much effort to build up a fluff patent portfolio to defend themselves from other companies with fluff patent portfolios.
The criminal justice system is competent, but nowhere near perfect. Too many innocent people have been given a death penalty verdict. Death penalty cases are much more costly than life-in-prison verdicts. Not that life-in-prison is much fun, but there is more time for correcting mistakes.
The point is that, while there might be a theoretical benefit, the total benefit in practice is a minus. Many of us I think do not mind patents so much for algorithms like RSA and GIF compression. It might be a hassle if you want to use them, but at least they were innovative and precise. However, this is not what the patent office is doing, and it does not appear that the patent office will change anytime soon.
No, seriously! (Score:1)
Could it be the smaller countries fear the competition of the larger and patents help them keep grounds (fair or unfair)? Also against the patents are Sweden and Denmark, which AFAIK are quite IT-developed (at least Finland is).
What are the reasons the small (perhaps not-so-much-IT-developed ?) countries want software patents?
(Note, I'm not trying to diminish the importance of anybody's home country! If I'm wrong about something, please post so, but don't flame!)
Patents limits my right to use my own ideas (Score:2)
However, patents means I cannot use my own ideas, if somebody else happens to have had the same idea before me, even though I had never heard of the other persons work. Limiting my right to benefit from *my own* ideas is a much more fundamental violation of my personal freedom than copyright.
This violating is the primary reason for the strong anti-patent views, but even if you don't care about personal freedom, the practical arguments go against software patents as
well.
The economic arguments for patents in general don't hold for software, because most progress in software technology is incremental. Thus, the claimed benefit from encouraging large investments on revolutionary new technology, is by far overshadowed by the dampering effect license and legal costs have on evolutionary progress.
Re:"Defensive" move (Re:Here we go again.) (Score:2)
Maybe they can finesse the situation - have patents which are ONLY applicable relative to US patents (so that US companies have to deal with them if they want to enter the European markets), but allow European-based companies to mix & match their own software ideas freely
Re:Bass-ackwards (Score:1)
Re:debate is good.... (Score:1)
Re:patent lawyers... (Score:1)
they'll flat out tell you that if your patent is weak, don't waste their time, or yours for that matter
No offense, but are you sure you were talking to lawyers? How is filing a doomed patent a waste of the lawyers time? They get paid regardless. Now, maybe they were thinking long term and wanted to build a relationship of trust with their client by steering them away from costly and poor decisions..
HAHAHAHA.. Oh, sorry.. heh..
Re:No, seriously! (Score:1)
UK, Germany and France against.... (Score:2)
Overflow (Score:1)
for (i=0; i = MAX_INT; i++) { foo }
in an innovative way (but why in hell does he write iMax? It should clearly be -1)...
Mind me if I say I don't want even inovative things like this become påatented...
Re:No, seriously! (Score:1)
Believe me on all of the above! As a network administrator for a Dutch province I am working right in the middle of this shit
Re:It already exists (Score:1)
Re:patent lawyers... (Score:1)
Re:Counter-counter-argument (Score:1)
Secondly, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. I made no mention of a perfect race and fail to see how that has anything to do with patents. Could you please clarify?
Thirdly, I'm dangerously close to whipping out Godwin's Law on you.
Consultation (Score:3)
Go to their homepage [patent.gov.uk] and follow the links.
We want our views heard, so keep replies polite, considered etc. etc. (you know the drill).
Re:Bass-ackwards (Score:2)
at least something like the formula for Asprin is patented so that I don't die..
I think you've got something wrong...
Example: In South Africa people die because the AIDS medicine (actually, medicine lifting some of the symptoms of AIDS, as you'll know there isn't a cure) is patented. Local companies tried to produce cheap AIDS medicine, but got sued for it by the company inventing it on the grounds of patenting. If they had continued production FN would have taken action against South America. So now South-Americans die because they don't have the money to pay for the way-too-expensive medicine.
On the other hand, perhaps those medicines wouldn't have been invented in the first place if the company didn't see a golden opportunity to patent it and make big money...*shrug*
Democratic Deficit (Score:1)
An then, I was not. Belgium, and other countries, are called 'democratic', but pressure groups with political connections can force laws to be voted wihout any prior consultation, information or consent of the countries' citizens.
In this case I guess I'll have to blame Lernout&Hauspie (an easy target now) for the Belgian vote, knowing that a former prime minister of Belgium is sitting on its board.
The only thing left for me it to hope that the smaller company I work for will not be slashdotted [slashdot.org] by patent infringement suits by the heavily lawyer-stuffed behemots.
It's not only about article 52 ! (Score:3)
Bernhard Lang writes:
is proposed by EPO, so that it can change the EPC (european patent convention, i.e. the very text under discussion) to put it in agreement with other international treaties. Agreement is of course what the EPO considers as agreement. For example, if EPC 52.2 modification does not pass, but EPC 33 does, EPO could decide that its interpretation of the TRIPS agreement requires to remove EPC 52.2 and allows patenting software, or what else. Given the past record of the EPO, their propensity to bend rules that have been fixed, you can guess what will happen if you give them the right to change the rules according to their own assessment of the situation.
By the way, it is not clear that all countries are aware of what is hidden in the proposed modification of 33. More national lobbying and information has beenshould be done on that issue.
Re:I'm thinkin' France, German, UK, et. al. will w (Score:3)
It already exists (Score:1)
I ilike the proposal for the new treaty to change this so that a new law must have a majority of both countries and population in order to pass.
The weird thing about the current situation is that a set of countries representing a minority of the population may pass a new law.
Not council, commission (Score:1)
Re:patent lawyers... (Score:1)
Re:The situation is "patently" astounding (Score:2)
Given that, why on earth do you need to give corporations property of ideas too?
Amazon has warehouses, fulfillment systems, tons of workers madly trying to keep up with demand. If you gave J. Random Hacker the right to do a one-click web ordering system does that make him therefore equal to Amazon as far as his capacity to handle business? I think not.
Hell, give J. Random Hacker rights to the source code to Office- a zillion dollar business, even if it is slumping- and see if he's able to do that sort of revenue on it. I promise you he can't. The support structures for distributing, producing, marketing Office are _humongous_, requiring lots of people working fulltime just to handle the volume. Only a corporation or _big_ company can handle that kind of volume on a product.
So again where is the justification for software patents and _intellectual_ property? I don't see it. If you think for one second that some hacker will be able to replace (for instance) "Office"... even if you GAVE HIM the EXACT source to office and rights to sell the product!.. you're out of your mind. Do you have any idea of the workload involved with supporting a product in that kind of volume?
The corporations _could_ give away all the 'ideas' for free- it would make little difference as what the corporation/big company has to offer is support structures, distribution, fulfillment structures that will support that kind of volume. If everybody got to legally release a clone of Office- we're talking the EXACT CODE of Office- then every shop would have 'Jim And Bob's Office' in ziplock baggies with photocopied instructions.
And beside it- the same MS box as always- in every shop, everywhere in the world, unlike Jim and Bob's version. Jim and Bob won't ever have that kind of distribution.
Your desire for software patents is ill-founded.
Re:The situation is "patently" astounding (Score:1)
I've never quite figured out people who are opposed to software patents. Sure, they can be abused (like Amazon's "one-click" patent), but is that any reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater?...
But we should not get into a situation where big government tries to assume too much power and attempts to strangle business. How much blood has been spilled by oppressive government in the last century? This is precisely what we do not need.
The problem here is that the bathwater is so amazingly fouled that you can't save the baby anyway. Throw them both out before more babies get poisoned.
See, you've got it backwards. Software patents as they exist today are "big government," and big government is supplying tools (blunt instruments, more like) that allow big business to oppress the little guy. It's the patent office and the courts which are providing the means for the abuse here! Those who want to get rid of software patents are arguing for less government regulation! The big companies are the only ones who can afford the lawyers to perform the patent searches and court battles to either fight their patents, fight stupid patents, or figure out which patents need to be licensed before they can ship something.
A lot of the big companies that "made" today's strong high tech economy came out of nowhere in the last couple of decades. The software patent system is just allowing them to entrench themselves so that tomorrows innovative new companies will be choked off at birth (poisoned in that fouled bathwater).
If both the patent office and the culprit corporations had proved that they could play reasonably with software patents, then fine. They have amply proved that they cannot. So, the system should go out. The corporations who abused it so should figure out their own way to protect their intellectual property. If we throw the patents out, hopefully they'll learn something about taking too much unfair advantage of whatever system they come up with.
Software and business model patents choke and stifle innovation. Too many of the patents out there have nothing to do with the billions of dollars of R&D investment that you mention. They mostly have to do with somebody being first to the pole with a relatively trivial idea (even if they weren't the first to come up with it or use it). All somebody has to do is create a medicore implementation of the idea, and then sue and license anybody else who tries to use it. Never mind somebody making a better mousetrap, if the whole concept of trapping mice has been patented.
-Rob
Solution (Score:2)
any foreigner can apply for a patent in the u/s
and it's rather cheap, too.
even better, the uspo has a so-called 'provisional patent' option.
this permits you to submit a draft patent of sorts, pay about $200 and you are automatically granted a provisional patent for one year.
that gives you a whole year time to come up with a decent patent application, company structure, etc. should anyone else, have the same idea afterwads, then you are already protected as if you has a full patent.
check out the uspto site for details or mail me and i might give you some tips. we bought a software that helps us drafting patents and we patent just about everything we can think of to pre-empt big-bad-corp to do it.
we have no intention to ever enforce a patent, but are looking forward to kick the likes of amazon.com all the way to court and back, if they ever infringe on a patent of ours - we even denied accepting royalties from a big corp when they tried to get away with stealing an idea from us - instead we hired their programmer and forced them to drop the new feature completely... after a year we let the provisonal patent die.
the law says that if a provisional patent application is filed and later abandonned that the technology is the considered being in the public domain and therefore noone can patent it ever again - our contribution to a free Internet: act, don't chat.
Re:patent lawyers... (Score:1)
Re:No, seriously! (Score:1)
Coming from one of those smaller countries, I'd particularly stress the "lean on" bit.
OT: if the US leans on them for such not-that-important (for the countries) matters, imagine what happens for more important ones...
Trian
Re:size of country matters (Score:1)
Re:Dutch patent office not that bad (Score:1)
Maybe try and make yourself known to some relevant circles (eg the hacker community equivalent).
Dunno, just some thoughts, but be careful. If, as you say, it's not something that takes an Einstein to think of, maybe you're not doing the best thing by patenting something like that.
Trian
Software Patents (Score:2)
Some small companies, like ours, use patents defensively to prevent larger companies from suing us for using our own ideas - that is, we'll patent whatever we can afford (that our engineers say is crucial to our technology, and that our GC feels will hold-up) and use these patents as part of a defense against others if they try to restrict our R&D. A portfolio also helps boost our valuation.
Now, interestingly, our lawyer and I happen to agree on two points of software patents:
1) The fact that patents bar you from using your own ideas is ridiculous - and indeed this very idiocy is why the patent system can self-perpetuate through defensive patents
2) Software patents, indeed any patent in an area where a lot of incremental design and rapid innovation is occuring, are pretty easy to get around because you can patent things that are "improvements" to other patents relatively easily (we're filing patents that will look a lot like those of our competitors, to defend ourselves against their patents by saying we were aware of their work and have improved upon it)
The theory is that patents are supposed to advance the pace of development, and thus the economy, by giving a limited monopoly to innovators in return for making their ideas known and thus spurring on improvements (which is part of the reason why you can patent improvements)
The system is supposed to encourage industry to fund R&D in return for a guarantee of some protection of the innovation gained by this investment.
It is an interesting theory, but one which seems to have outlived its utility (indeed, if it ever had any). Large corporate R&D groups at places like IBM, Xerox, M$, and Bell Labs have been publishing innovative papers for a while, as have university R&D groups. While I was at Bell Labs, Lucent still patented everything they could, but they did so defensively... they had begun to understand that you get back most of your R&D investment by quickly getting into the market and using first-mover / innovator advantage to capture a greater market share, no longer was protectionism sufficient to beat competitors (unfortunately for Lucent, they have some other problems...)
So, really, the argument that companies have spent millions or billions on R&D and deserve patents does hold some weight - but the benefit they get no longer seems to necessarily outweigh the negatives of the system...
And the system is so screwy, anyway, that most companies keep many innovations as trade secrets until they're in the market, anyway (except defensive portfolio builders and long-term strategists like IBM and Bell Labs), and then file a patent within the year (in the US) granted to do so once you start selling your innovation...
It seems like, at least in the software market, that market forces and trade secrets are more actively used to protect companies from competitors, and getting the ideas out in the open happens primarily through journals, conferences, and other voluntary efforts once the innovations are already integrated into products (or if the company decides for some other reason to publish)... and nobody but lawyers even seemst to bother to read most patents...
However, as long as the game is played, companies will have to play it to protect their rights to use their own ideas, and open source / free software folks and individuals will have to keep finding ways around these patents either through their own innovations, fighting specific stupid patents, the good graces of companies that aren't idiotic about what their patents mean, and, of course, fighting the system...
Re:Democratic Deficit (Score:1)
I've posted about this at be.comp.os.linux [comp.os.linux] and be.burgerrechten [be.burgerrechten] in the hope that someone knows what can be done about it.
Re:No, seriously! (Score:1)
And yet, our government seems to be far more effective than that of the U.S. About the above assumptions that France and U.K would be more important in the European Union.. This is simply not true, if one of the core countries decides to step out, it will fall apart. The Netherlands is a part of this. The point is, that they won't step out, because there is no reason to. UK and France wouldn't either. They wouldn't go head to head with the other countries openly. The only way there could be a REAL splitting of factions within the EU is if one of the countries would commit some serious atrocities. I don't see this happening. This is just going to be another endless debate that will eventually produce a vague law that only applies here and there blablabla.
Re:Bass-ackwards (Score:1)
This was the issue I was trying to point out in my last paragraph.
Since patents are necesarry if the medical comapanies are going to have a reason to research, in my opinion it really boils down to a good old capitalism/socialism debate.
I think money will find it's way to medicine research no matter what happens because it's so crucial to modern life. However, instead of being a long time investment like it is today, it would only be about pure donation. On the other hand, all the medicines would get a lot cheaper, so the whoever is buying medicines today would a lot more money for research. For instance, in many countries the state fund a great part of the medicine cost to get the prices down at an acceptable level. That money could go to funding research instead...
Personally I feel that health is more important than computer software and that it's more important to have "open source" medicine as well, BUT I can't see that happen anytime soon, the companies gets more and more powerful every second and abolishing medicine patents is only hypotethical.
What should have been done is to lift the patents in critical cases. The UN has an international permission to list patents in special cases when it is important enough, and I really feel that should have been done in South America and other countries where AIDS will not only cause personal disaster but undermine an already terrible economy.
Please help... (Score:1)
I'm ashamed (Score:1)
Re:Bass-ackwards (Score:1)
Re:Bass-ackwards (Score:1)
Here we go again. (Score:2)
I'm thinkin' France, German, UK, et. al. will win (Score:3)
Bigger armies. Although those Greeks are nothing to scoff at it in a fight.
If it comes down to it, both the French and Brits have nukes, though I doubt they'd use 'em unless they had to go on the defensive.
Vegas odds say 3:1 for the big guys.
Petition against Software Patents in Europe (Score:4)
- are concerned by the current plans to legalize software patents in Europe, considering their damaging effect on innovation and competition
- are concerned by the possible use of software patents to patent business methods, education methods, health methods, etc
- are concerned by the current track record of abuses from the European Patent Office, especially by their tendency to abuse their judicial power to extend the scope of patentability
Please, go and sign the Petition for a Software Patent Free Europe [eurolinux.org]Interesting links (Score:1)
EuroLinux [eurolinux.org]
____________________
The most interessting is ... (Score:1)
Software patents (Score:2)
Nuh-uh. (Score:2)
They wont make any money that way anyway. If patenting becomes the main way to protect software anybody with a relatively small innovation could claim a new patent, standing on the shoulders of whoever came before.
Re:Bass-ackwards (Score:1)
Having said that, I agree that the logic in the quote is a little sketchy. A well thought out patent system should encourage both domestic and foreign companies to come up with creative new ideas. This would probably help the industry, not hurt it.
Re:Why does greek military readiness mean anything (Score:1)
Guess everyone's taking this pretty seriously. I even got marked up as flamebait!
I think I'll just go buy the latest issue of ZDNet Technology for Dummies and sit in a corner somewhere...
Country split is interesting (Score:2)
This seems the opposite to the US where there seems to be a push for protecting IP, even at the expense of consumer benefits and rights.
Maybe its because the smaller economies are worried about losing innovations they make to larger ones. A fair response I suppose. If this is true, it still doesn't explain why the US is acting like a small economy...
Re:Petition against Software Patents in Europe (Score:3)
Also available in french [eu.int] and german [eu.int].
This is really something, where You can change something, don't just sign the petition and think it'll all get fine.
Re:Software patents (Score:1)
Re:Nuh-uh. (Score:2)
Re:The situation is "patently" astounding (Score:1)
Congratulations - you have changed my mind. I now feel that all Hollywood movie plots should be patented.
I'm living in Cyprus. What should I do? (Score:1)
What exactly can I do in this situation? Just increase the awareness of the issue? If yes, I can easily do that through a slashdot-like site I run about Cyprus. What else? Who exactly should I attempt to contact to influence the vote?
Re:Bass-ackwards (Score:1)
What is the counter-counter-argument to this? I'm not trolling, I truly would like to know.
Obviously, in the case of software patents, no one is investing tons of money trying to find a better sorting algorithm (or one-click shopping, or whatever), so why should they have a protected monopoly just for being the first to patent something?
Probably not a problem _yet_ (Score:1)
If the article is correct, and there are eight countries against the suggested changes in the European Patent Convention, then it is enough to prevent the change from coming through, since at least fourteen of the twenty members have to vote in favour of the change to pass it.
Jacob
Re:The situation is "patently" astounding (Score:1)
What if a "legal argument" in court was patentable? Anyone who first got the idea of referring to the defendants mental condition could patent it and charge anyone else using it in the court. For anything you say in the court, you would need to check first if it was already patented.
Yes, algorithms and patterns are our tools. If I come up with a solution to a problem, I do not want to check the patent database, if someone has already found it before.
Big Goverment? Hello, we are in the 21st century and goverments are run by Corporations. Try opensecrets [opensecrets.org] To get some perspective.
Re:I'm thinkin' France, German, UK, et. al. will w (Score:2)
Microsoft's legal department!
The Queering of Patent Law (Score:2)
Until just the last few years, there was a drawn out debate going on between the US and European countries about whether patent priority should be "first to invent" or "first to file". This is a false dichotomy. Until the virtually universal availability of Usenet, inventors had enough trouble just inventing the damn widget, let alone going through the expense of a patent filing -- a process during which they would frequently have to give up their rights in exchange for capital to cover the patent process -- thus gutting patents of one of their two original purposes which was capital formation by inventors. I find it fascinating that at almost exactly the point when inventors could self-publish on Usenet and have a reasonable expectation that this would make their disclosure available to others skilled in the art, a treaty was signed by the US giving up its traditional support of the inventor's priority under "first to invent" and capitulating to Europe's anti-inventor "first to file" policy.
view of a small inventor (Score:2)
I have developed a number of new algorithms and software methods, both while working as a consultant and while working for various corporate research labs.
In my experience, trying to patent software methods is pointless for the individual inventor. For two methods that are in fairly wide use now, I actually tried going through with it as an individual. The legal costs just for getting the patent are staggering and you do not have a prayer of enforcing your patent without devoting your life to it. Besides, most individual inventors do not want to become lawyers, and the process of trying to get patent protection is not only very expensive, it's also very time consuming.
In my corporate life, I hold several patents. My company likes them because they can trade with other companies. That's of great value to them, even though the patents themselves probably each cost them as much as a year's salary. Corporations make patent applications really easy: you write an informal note, corporate lawyers get to work on it fleshing it out in legal language that will hold up in court, and the patent gets submitted. Afterwards, there are lots of efforts involved in marketing the patents, trading the portfolio, and looking for infringements.
While companies like to point at their patent revenue stream and say "this is all the money we get from patents, and it funds further research", in practice, I have my doubts that purely financially, it results in a net gain once you add in all the administrative costs. I think the reason why big companies like software patents is because they allow them to limit competition from small companies, and that is very attractive even if it costs lots of money.
Based on nearly two decades of experience in the software industry, as far as I can tell, the net effect of software patents is to:
Dutch patent office not that bad (Score:2)
A friend of mine had suddenly seen a way of doing something which noone has thought of in the past 20 years, obvious though it might be. There is simply no software that does it.
To start a new company and produce the software ourselves, we will have to compete with market leaders, some of which are multinationals operating in Germany and Belgium as well as in Holland.
So the way to go seemed to get a software patent. This would ensure that we would get 3 to 5 years to make our product and set up the company.
However, the Dutch patent office told us that one can not get a software patent unless it is a new algorithm or something like that.
So basically I have two messages in this post:
1. The Dutch software patent office is probably better than the ones I have seen so much ado about
2. I am now well buggered to not get my patent, while other people in the world get a patent for one-click shopping. My "invention" was obvious, but at least nobody has done it in the past 20 years!
So please think of this what you may. My view on the matter is perhaps clouded because I want my patent, but ya'll might view this as the way to go. If all of Europe will deal with patents the way Holland does, you don't have that much to worry about.
My opinion? I don't really care. Every government I have seen has a way of abusing every rule they ever made. They will probably be taxing patents by the year 2002.
Interesting partition (Score:2)
Cyprus, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Switzerland.
These countries are well known for being the "bank countries" where large amounts of many, from all over the globe, rest in their safes. Switzerland is also known to be the "patent country", due to its well developed patent system and for the most well known patent officer in History of Science.
Austria, Belgium, Italy are known to be in the "average" wagon of software development. They possess excelent programmers but in general they are not enough to give a strong status to the country.
Netherlands goes on the "soft countries". While a small country, there the contingent is strong enough to give a weight worldwide.
Greece as far as I know is the poor brother of this group. But it is not completely alone. With exception of Switzerland, all other "bank countries" have poor contingents of software developers. Even poorer than Greece.
Against
Luxembourg -"Bank country" that does not follow its cousins. Maybe solidarity with its two big neighbors, France and Germany?
France, Germany, Denmark+Sweden - "soft countries". Specially Germany that it is becoming the "European Sillicon Valley". Specially to note the strong position of OSS & Free Software in these countries.
Spain, Portugal - Countries that go on the average wagon. However it should be noted that its ex-colonies possess a significant power in the software world and some are strong supporters of OSS & Free Software, for example: Mexico & Brazil. And this may influence the position of these countries in this game.
It is admirable that UK and Finland abstained. At least knowing the strong US influnce in UK and the fact that Finaland possesses a strong position in software development exactly on the side of Free Software.
What would be interesting to know the position of other european countries. It would be probable that Bulgaria & Czechia would be against, while I fear that Poland and the Balts would step on their sickening "follow blindly America" trend. Russia would be against. Its law forbids the patenting of software and sends everything to Copyright Law.
Re:The situation is "patently" astounding (Score:1)
What, both of them?
Cyprus, Monaco and Switzerland in EU ???? (Score:1)
Re:Cyprus, Monaco and Switzerland in EU ???? (Score:1)
Re:I'm living in Cyprus. What should I do? (Score:1)
The collected signatures were sent to the delegates of Switzerland at the European Patent Organisation. We tried to influence them to vote against software patents. That's what you can do.
Swiss People against Software Patents (Score:1)
The Linux User Group Switzerland [www.lugs.ch] started a petition [petition.lugs.ch] against software patents which was already sent to the Swiss delegation.
We collected about 1500 votes against software patents in less than two weeks! But still, if you want to help: sign the petition [petition.lugs.ch].
Re:I'm thinkin' France, German, UK, et. al. will w (Score:1)
last friday to vote against.
patent lawyers... (Score:5)
I get to see all sorts of patents roll across my desk (its part of the background research for what it is that I do - which is not computer related) - and I'll tell ya - shitty patents are everywhere... not just in software. I think the patent office needs a good beating - their stance seem to be "pass 'em all and make the companies / lawyers sort out the real details". Well, gee - thanks for doing NOTHING. Such a useful organization...
Hmm (Score:2)
Microsoft signing software before it gets released?
"Office 10 looks clean. What about Office 10-21? Look bug free to me. Sign here."
Re:Software patents (Score:3)
I wouldn't mind if that was patentable. In fact I'd *like* all bugs ('>' instead of '<') to be patented. That way I wouldn't have to debug, I could just release code and wait for the patent infringment claims to come rolling in. At least the laywers would be useful then...
Mike.
size of country matters (Score:1)
I guess the U.S. supports it because of the funky states vs federal gov't paranoia. Or it's just an anomaly.
bottlenecking (Score:1)
debate is good.... (Score:2)
"Defensive" move (Re:Here we go again.) (Score:1)
This is the line of reasoning behind the organizations supporting the effort to allow suftware patents in the EU. But these people often fail to see that this will only bring more problems to them than advantages in the mid and long(er) run.
free market (Score:1)
Re:The situation is "patently" astounding (Score:1)
Why is is theft when I invent a technique that happens to have already been invented before?
Why things like the Electoral system are used (Score:1)
Re:free market (Score:1)
Indeed. The idea is that, by granting a time-limited monopoly for a patent, companies and individuals will be encouraged to invent and innovate, since there is a strong possibility of a real return (the limited monopoly) if their invention or innovation is patentable. It is (or, at least, was intended as) a legal encouragement from the government to invest in research in a way that eventually ensures that the results become available to the public at large.
The real problem isn't the idea or concept of patents; it's that the US patent office, at least, seems to have decided that they'll approve virtually anything and let the lawyers sort it out in the end. There are several ways that the patent approval process could be improved to help eliminate the "one-click" type patents. An open time period for independent review by interested third parties, requiring patent applicants to actively search for prior art or conflicting patents, allowing only business method or software patents in conjunction with relevant traditional patents, etc.
In other words, there are any number of ways the patent office can shift part of their burden onto those parties that are actively interested in approval or denial of a patent application. With enough pressure, there's a decent chance that the patent offices for various governments could be encouraged to adopt one or more of these methods.
Re:The situation is "patently" astounding (Score:2)
A comparison: what if book authors could patent their 'intellectual property'? Certain plots could be patented (patent for 'butler as the murdererer' anyone?). Big publishing houses could start hoarding literature patents, and only authors under their wings would be able to write best-selling books. Newspapers would have to use lots of money to license catchy headlines (patent for headlines that use only words that begin with the same letter? patent on headlines that use double-meanings of words or phrases?)
Why is it that even though pro-patent people talk about intellectual property, they don't really compare software to culture, arts or other forms of non-physical production, but to physical engineering? (for which patents were designed in the first place)
Re:Bass-ackwards (Score:1)
Ouch! Sorry about that. FN is supposed to be UN!!!
Re:what is FN? (Score:1)
Bass-ackwards, indeed (Score:1)
If you won't take my word for it, look them up on ChemFinder [chemfinder.com].
Re:The situation is "patently" astounding (Score:1)
Re:No, seriously! (Score:2)
How does that explain Luxembourg being in the "against" group though.
What are the reasons the small (perhaps not-so-much-IT-developed ?) countries want software patents?
Maybe that they don't have software industries of their own to be damaged...
Re:The situation is "patently" astounding (Score:2)
This kind of thing is already going on, e.g. Paramount tradmarking everything they can to do with Star Trek. Imagine what they'd be doing if they could use patents too.
Don't get confused. (Score:1)
What is encouraging is that there is recent history of "obvious" patents being successfully challenged in the UK. And let's not forget Madge Networks' successful challenge to the worthless and spurious Soderblom patent on Token Ring Networks -- a patent which, allegedly, IBM had paid $2m to use.
Re:Country split is interesting (Score:2)
Nope.
Countries against software patents are the ones which try to develop technology. They fight software patents because they see them as a tool for US-based mega-corporations to strangle smaller Europe-based companies. Also, open-source is very present in these countries.
Countries which favor software patents are mostly technology consumer, not producers. They don't care about the issue, since their economies are based on other things ( fashion, food industry, tourism ). They might hope to exchange acceptance of software patents with other concession from US (e.g. less limitation on import of food ).
This is a generalization, of course, and some guesswork. But not far from true, IMO.
Re:Bass-ackwards (Score:1)
It's South Africa. The nation, not the continent. And FN is supposed to be UN
Re:I'm ashamed (Score:1)
Re:Country split is interesting (Score:2)
Maybe. But I'm stereotyping on myself ( did you read my e-mail, not to talk of my post? ).
In France, tech and media industry is larger than food, fashion and tourism combined. I don't even talk about UK and Germany.
Right. Thats why these countries opposes the software licence, IMO (again: did you _read_ my post?).
BTW, you should differentiate between business made *selling* technology made elsewere and business made *creating* technology.
The situation is "patently" astounding (Score:3)
This, I think, is one of the negative impacts that Linux and the whole "open source" software movement is having on the industry. Don't get me wrong
I think we can have our cake and eat it too. High-quality open source ventures such as Linux can co-exist in a world where reasonable software patents exist and are enforced. Enforcement is important because it guarantees a corporation's right to continue to innovate (stupid buzzword, I know) without fear of theft. But we should not get into a situation where big government tries to assume too much power and attempts to strangle business. How much blood has been spilled by oppressive government in the last century? This is precisely what we do not need.
Re:bottlenecking (Score:1)
Re:Why? (Score:1)
Perhaps you could protest Soviet Violins, together.
In memory of Gilda Radner.
--
Re:Bass-ackwards (Score:1)
Umm ... aaah .... no. if European technology companies cannot compete in a marketplace that has been closed by the application of a software patent then, err, the result for long term competitiveness would seem dire. Seems veryc lear to me. What am I missing?
Re:Bass-ackwards (Score:1)
Umm ... aaah .... no. if European technology companies cannot compete in a marketplace that has been closed by the application of a software patent then, err, the result for long term competitiveness would seem dire. Seems very clear to me. What am I missing?