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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

From Legal Wordings to Economic Reality 78

Posted by michael from the reality-is-a-consensus-illusion dept.
Holger Blasum writes "The directive on software patents in Europe is (currently) scheduled in the European Parliament mid June, so the 7-8 May parliament hearing on Software Patents: from legal wordings to economic reality might be a good opportunity to make your views heard in Brussels. There is some support for accomodation, and hitchhikers or taxistop might ease getting there. If you cannot attend, find (and invite) your EU representative here (hint: this database does not include so many email addresses, so it would not be wise to go for this in the very last minute; if the options overwhelm you try the "Legal affairs committee", and/or the persons you are likely to vote for in the 2004 elections)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

From Legal Wordings to Economic Reality More

From Legal Wordings to Economic Reality

Comments Filter:

  • Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @04:34PM (#5876824)
    During this two-day interdisciplinary conference in Brussels, near and in the European Parliament, we will bring together programmers, engineers, entrepreneurs, law scholars, economists and politicians

    I think we'll soon see XOR masks patented in the EU ...

    • It makes you wonder what will happen when the patent basic life functions like breathing.

      Need to create a mySQL table [webcalc.net]?

    • Re:Uh oh (Score:2, Interesting)

      by CrazyDuke ( 529195 )
      ..."entrepreneurs, law scholars, economists and politicians"...

      Read as extreamely wealthy C?O's, their lawers, lobbyists, and the polititions they "donated money to." ...respectively of course.
    • IBM estimate [gnu.org] that the value of being able to work without fear of patent claims is worth ten times as much to them as the value of the patents themselves.

      The software industry in the U.S. was created without such burdens. Were software patentable 30 years ago, we would not have PCs built by competing suppliers, nor would we have a choice of PC operating systems other than that supplied by the hardware manufacturer.

      Software patents are uniquely dangerous, as it is not the result of years of expensive rese
  • Can someone explain what the effect of introducing patents will be? In normal English please, not Legalese. :)
    • Ehm, to clarify: I ment "what exactly could be patented?". Like, individual apps, or app ideas, or software frameworks, etc?
      • Dibs on the bubble sort!
      • Any realization that is novel can be patented. This means that ideas cannot be patented. But, any code can be patented. This can be a component, a DLL, a framework, a program, an application, or a system like a client-server system or multicomponent application. But, here is the kick in the head. The patent examiners have no experience with software patents. There is no body of knowledge for the examiner to draw from to know what is prior art or not. So they are issuing many software patents that are bogus
        • Any realization that is novel can be patented. This means that ideas cannot be patented

          Patents protect ideas. There is no requirement that an idea be reduced to practice before patenting. All you need do is describe your idea well enough to enable a person with ordinary skill in the art (e.g., a software engineer in the relevant subfield) to practice your idea.

          In the patent a claim is one of the assertions regarding how the artifact works. Patented artifacts are combinations that might be prior art. Wha

    • Re:Patents (Score:3, Informative)

      by ciaran_o_riordan ( 662132 )
      > to clarify: I ment "what exactly could be patented?"

      Whole applications won't be patentable, algorithms will.

      This sucks because M$ could patent the algorithim used to write a certain file format. Then we wouldn't be allowed to reverse engineer, say, MS Word Docs.

      This makes their monopoly much tougher. For a great read, try:
      http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-pate nts.ht ml
      or
      http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-mec -india.h tml

      Stallman gives a very clear explanation of the history, stupidity,
      • The article you cite makes some good points, but the author also says some pretty broad statements that I don't believe are true. For example:

        Every patent covers some idea. Software patents are patents that cover software ideas, ideas which you would use in developing software. That is what makes them a dangerous obstacle to all software development.

        Property rights are indeed an obstacle to use of the property, but consider where software development would be if there were no patents at all? Patents ar

        • Dear nerdlyone,
          I felt obliged to reply since you wrote such a long post. I started off by explaining each problem you had with Stallmans essay. I couldn't understand how you could have missinterpretted so much, it was as if you were doing it on purpose. I was so shocked at you ability to miss the point that I decided to look at your previous slashdot postings (to see if you were a M$ or IBM employee or similar).

          It turns out that bashing Stallman, promoting patents, and not understanding software p
          • I couldn't understand how you could have missinterpretted so much, it was as if you were doing it on purpose. I was so shocked at you ability to miss the point that I decided to look at your previous slashdot postings (to see if you were a M$ or IBM employee or similar).

            I see. If I disagree with you or Stallman, I must have a monetary interest in the outcome.

            It turns out that bashing Stallman, promoting patents, and not understanding software patents are three of your call signs. I notice that all of yo

  • SW patents favor Americans - don't let this pass!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 04, 2003 @05:02PM (#5877013)
    I'm an American, and since I know how much you Europeans despise us, I think the best wake-up call for you guys is to remind you that SW patents will completely and utterly favor us Americans.

    MSFT is American. IBM is American. Oracle is American. Americans have had years of experience developing patented SW technology. The only pieces of SW that I can think of that is European is SAP and MP3.

    If Europeans decided to adopt SW patents, the US would eat you guys alive! They would send all their lawyers to Europe and patent everything and your mother. Not because we are smarter, but because we have much more experience in thinking of how to patent things.

    How the hell could Europeans trust US technology, especially after things like Echelon being used to provide business intelligence against European bids?

    The only way to do it is to keep Europe SW Patent free and allow Linux to develop unfettered, including using American patented SW technology freely. Right now, the only way that Europe will ever get an edge over the US is through Linux. European govenments don't have to worry about any backdoors in Windows, they don't have to worry about paying extra fees, or being held hostage by the patent developed by US companies.

    The way it's going now, with all this patent tyranny that is going on the in the US, the only safe haven for Linux is in Europe, if and only if they keep patents out of Europe!

    Call your representative and stop this insidious process of patentizing Europe!!!

    • Re:SW patents favor Americans - don't let this pas (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "american companies"

      that term always cracks me up, just like "american cars"
      haha

    • That's funny. I'm an American and I don't feel the least bit "favored" by software patents. AFAIK, all of those corporations aren't really American anyway. I'm sick and tired of the US being criticized for the actions of multinationals who only remain in the US because that's where they got started, and who will readily reincoroprate on some tropical island if they think they can save on taxes.

    • I am afraid that you are preaching for the wrong folks. We all know that - the problem is that our politicians is stupid enough to not know that. They take their advice from the lobbyist that is paid by the american IT-firms..
    • MSFT is American. IBM is American. Oracle is American. Americans have had years of experience developing patented SW technology. The only pieces of SW that I can think of that is European is SAP and MP3.

      True.

      However, you forget all the embedded software that companies like Infineon, Philips and ST Microelectronics put in their ICs. A lot of this is patented as well and might even work against e.g. MZFT.

      Furthermore, a European Software Patent Directive is nice, but for most countries, patents are issued

  • Realy needed (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    People of EU you are realy needed there. Or feel the consequence.
    Patenst will kill of small bis.
    Patents will kill free sofware and yes Linux (GNU/Linux)
    patents will make you pay like hell for software
    patents give the big boys al the power.

    Please make suer EU will be counter weight against USA.

    Think about SCO vs IBM and free software. Well think of hunderd more cases against GNU/Linux.

    Its time to ACT NOW!

    SW Patents will lock programers after bars.
    SW Patents wiil kill innovation.
    SW Patenst will get you to

  • Patent showdown between Europe and America (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    MSFT is American. IBM is American. Oracle is American. Americans have had years of experience developing patented SW technology. The only pieces of SW that I can think of that is European is SAP and MP3. If Europeans decided to adopt SW patents, the US would eat you guys alive! They would send all their lawyers to Europe and patent everything and your mother. Not because we are smarter, but because we have much more experience in thinking of how to patent things.

    I'm an American, and since I know how much

  • As a student mechanical engineer... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mac Degger ( 576336 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @05:58PM (#5877330) Journal
    I'm damn tempted to get my voice heard. I have three innovative ideas which I feel will make me money.

    Now it costs quite a bit of money to implement even one of these ideas. That and about a year of my time. Thing is, that will mean I just don't really have the money to patent my invention!

    Not only that, but most innovation is done by younger people (yadayada exceptions, yadayada). These people create new companies, employment and wealth. But patenting (and it's related cost) impedes this process and favours established, already wealthy companies.

    And I'll go one further; patenting used to make sence, but for a number of reasons is making less and less sense. Not only do we see the so-called 'submarine' patents, but also a profilation of IP companies which do not even produce the IP (just buy it in...that's how MS-DOS happened, btw). Patenting in this way stiffles innovation, which is what it was supposed to engender to start with!

    Then consider the fact of paralel invention. It happens a lot...two people think and/or devellop the printing press, the telephone, the airplane etc etc etc, at roughly the same time, independent of each other. There are just certain ideas who's time has come.
    Couple that with the fact of population growth and you'll find that that sort of thing will happen (and is happening) more and more often.

    If you have an idea, I think you should (help) develop it. If you just sit on it, you should get squat.

    Hmmm...I'm gonna think this out a bit more and put it to paper...
    • Hmmm...I'm gonna think this out a bit more and put it to paper... too late, i already patented it
    • Now it costs quite a bit of money to implement even one of these ideas. That and about a year of my time. Thing is, that will mean I just don't really have the money to patent my invention!

      It is much much cheaper to create and patent an invention than it is to create, develop, manufacture, promote, and sell your invention. Patenting allows you to own your idea, then shop it around without the need to have an entire manufacturing facility. Without patents, you would require a non-disclosure agreement with

      • Now that really depends. For development of my idea(s), all I need is time. That and about 8000. I just don't have the extra money for the patenting process.

        As for shopping my idea around...selling my patent (or production rights) will mean I lose out on a huge percentage...we are talking anything from 50-80% here, most likely towards the high end.

        True, if I had a capital intensive product, that would be the way to go...but I don't.

        PS: even with a patent, you really want an NDA when talking to someone ab
        • PS: even with a patent, you really want an NDA when talking to someone about it, commercially

          Why? If you have a patent, the invention is published. Some other consideration?

          • Yup; there are more ways than one to skin a cat. If you solve a problem no-one's even thought of solving, the company you present to can figure out a way to solve it which circumvents your patent. Not only that, but they can figure out a number of ways to make your life difficult if they're so inclined.

            A patent can be set up so that what it solves isn't immediately obvious. And even though a patent is published, it's still buried in a million others, so the company won't immediately see what's out there.
    • And I'll go one further; patenting used to make sence, but for a number of reasons is making less and less sense. Not only do we see the so-called 'submarine' patents, but also a profilation of IP companies which do not even produce the IP (just buy it in...that's how MS-DOS happened, btw). Patenting in this way stiffles innovation, which is what it was supposed to engender to start with!

      I disagree with you on the "proliferation of IP companies" part. Making IP more of a commodity makes it more valuable.

      • Thing is: you have the head start. You are pumping out your product and can have it on the shelves...if someone does it better/cheaper than you, well, then one hasn't done ones job very well.

        And NDA's can help for disclosure when meeting companies.

        As for companies adding value to IP: they buy it cheeap, sell it expensive...the original patent holder sees nothing of that added value, and anyway, it's an enron-y way of adding value...nothing has been added to the idea except that a richer buyer has been fou
        • Thing is: you have the head start. You are pumping out your product and can have it on the shelves...if someone does it better/cheaper than you, well, then one hasn't done ones job very well.

          A head start is not much of an advantage when you consider R&D that the free rider avoids.

          As for companies adding value to IP: they buy it cheeap, sell it expensive...the original patent holder sees nothing of that added value, and anyway, it's an enron-y way of adding value...nothing has been added to the id

          • But that's the whole point: you never avoid the R&D. Bringing out your ptoduct doesn't mean you have to write white papers detailing the whole production process, publishing code or saying that widget a should be more than x milimeters from slot b.
            A freerider sees the finished product...only if it's a simple product would they be able to get theirs out in a small timeframe. And even then, that takes time; planning, material, production facilities and people don't just 'happen'.

            If we were talking mere I
  • I participated in the petition [ffii.org] against software patents. Last friday I received a mail offering a gratis stay for one night at a Brussels hotel. The offer was only valid for a few hours until 3 o'clock pm. I didn't register (I live in Berlin), but that seems very interesting. Here's the e-mail that I got:

    From: phm@ffii.org
    Date: 2 May 2003 09:51:44 -0000
    To:
    Subject: Software Patents Brussels 2003/05/7-8: Hotel Beds for Free

    Dear FFII/Eurolinux Supporter[1]!

    For the

    Software Patent Hearing/Conferen

  • i'm no economist but to my untrained eye, measuring "economic reality" is at its heart a relative (comparative) activity. kind of like a related rates problem w/ many many many factors. one thing i have found interesting is to look at the historical behavior of the exchange rate between the EUR and the USD [x-rates.com] and speculate as to reasons for the parity flip since mid-late 2002.

    i think if the EU follows the IP lunacy of the US, the graph between EUR and those currencies of countries that don't adopt such r

  • The EU has a far better track record of protecting its citizens than the US. Many of the practices of the MPAA and RIAA would not be allowed to happen because it is impossible to have the Euro MP's in the pockets of groups such as the aforementioned due to the transparency of funding as prevuiously mentioned by another poster. Also you have over a dozen different countries and therefore cultures deciding on any proposal.

  • Will there be an audio recording of the hearing anywhere (preferably in Ogg Vorbis or Ogg Speex format)? I'd love to play the hearing on my radio show "Digital Citizen" that focuses on issues of interest to the Free Software community. Perhaps a transcript I could read on the air?

    If you happen to live in or near Champaign, Illinois, and you don't mind staying up late, you can hear my show on WEFT [weftfm.org] 90.1 FM at 2a-5a on Wednesdays (or late night Tuesdays, if you prefer). I generally focus on technology iss

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close