Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

More on European Software Patents 150

Posted by michael from the decision-rendered dept.
pdajames writes "An article at ZDNet UK says that the EU bureaucrats aren't even considering the numerous anti-software patenting opinions out there. According to a well-connected lobbyist group, they have determined there will be patents, and the only question is what kind."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More on European Software Patents More

More on European Software Patents

Comments Filter:

  • Small victory for Anti-patent groups (Score:5, Informative)

    by greppling ( 601175 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @06:46AM (#6318786)
    Those lobbying in favour of software patents wanted to have the final vote next week. But it has now been decided [heise.de] (sorry, link in German) that it will be held in September, as planned originally.

    • Re:Small victory for Anti-patent groups (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Here is a better link from FFII [ffii.org] (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure).
    • Surely the copyright and trademark laws are strong enough not to need software patents (at least here in the UK anyway)?

      • That's the case, but politicians don't see it. Hence, we need to educate them. In the UK, there are some sites specifically about the situation: FFII have a UK page [ffii.org.uk], and then there is softwarepatents.co.uk [softwarepatents.co.uk]. I imagine at some point there will be some kind of co-ordinated campaign to educate people in time for the vote in the Autumn.

        • Usually computer experts don't go into politics. ;o) Politicians are on the main accountants or lawyers.... there might be some campaign - but that's be focused on educating our MEPs (Members of the European Parliament). Mind you in the UK - European directives don't become domestic law until it gets made an act of parliament - which can take a few years! You're right however - once it's been voted on - it's very difficult to reverse.

    • The issue is not whether a patent is for "software" or not. The same algorithm can be developed either in software or in hardware.

      A specific algorithm that represents a truly novel solution to a problem should be patentable, no matter how it is implemented.

      What needs to be stopped is the American practice of patenting the feature, rather than a specific solution.

      • Re:"Software" isn't the issue (Score:4, Interesting)

        by grmoc ( 57943 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @12:04PM (#6319895)
        No, what needs to be stopped is the American PAtent Office's (implicit) policy of 'if it hasn't been patented, it must be priginal/patentable.

        Simply because someone hasn't found it in a patent search does NOT mean that a competent person in the field couldn't invent it.

        'Obvious' appears to have become meaningless in the world of patents, and that is one of the large reasons that software patents are so insidious-- Much of what is patented is ludicrisly obvious.

        Furthermore, the term of a patent (especially for software, where there is little investment in developing a new algorithm) is too long.

        Even if you have someone working on something for a few years, the investment made for a software algorithm is orders of magnitude less than that for many other inventions.

        Remember, the -original- purpose of patents was to encourage people to invent! All that requires is an adequate return on your investement-- if the return is 'too good' (or too long), then it ends up harming innovation.

        • Eliminating 'obvious' patents would also be desirable, but it requires more domain knowledge to make that call. Differentiating between a problem and a solution should be a lot easier.

          I remain convinced that the only defense against 'obvious' patents is to allow a public comment period. It would allow challenges to the basis of a patent without having to expose yourself or hire a lawyer.

          Shorterning the period for all "high tech" inventions is probably a good idea. But I don't see the point in penaliz

          • Copyright doesn't protect hardware, unless you're talking about masks,and there are special provisions for those.

            So there is a difference in implementing in hardware and implementing in software-- software is already afforded protections under copyright (yes, they are different protections).

            It isn't about penalizing software implementations-- It is about only providing enough incentive to innovate-- If you excessively compensate for a patent, the patent (law) is much more likely to be abused.

            Excessive c

      • Re:"Software" isn't the issue (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Halo1 ( 136547 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @12:27PM (#6319980)
        The issue is not whether a patent is for "software" or not. The same algorithm can be developed either in software or in hardware.

        A specific algorithm that represents a truly novel solution to a problem should be patentable, no matter how it is implemented.

        The way you write an algorithm down in software is already protected by copyright law. A machine (hardware implementation) is not protected by copyright law and generally requires a lot of investment to create, which is why the patent system was created. Patents were never intended to protect ideas (an algorithm is also an idea), but to protect implementations (and investments done to create that implementation.

        However, software isn't an implementation, it's a notation in a language that ultimately can be understood by a computer (probably after some more translation by a compiler). If you allow patents on software, you allow patents on ideas. After all, why should an idea written in C be patentable in that case, and one in English or some mathematical notation not? It also renders copyright on software completely useless. What good does it do if you own the copyright on a program if it's also covered by 20 patents you don't own?

        It's the same as if there would be patents on plot-elements in books... It's not because you're writing the umpteenth book about a serial killer that you're ripping off all authors that wrote about a serial killer before. If you're downright plagiarising someone, then that other person can already defend himself using the copyright protection he got for free.

        The goal of patents is to promote innovation by protecting the investment of entrepreneurs. If you carry over this protection to plain ideas, you are actually discouraging other innovators. After all, innovators are bound to reuse ideas other people have had before when doing something new (using RMS' analogy one more time: just like Beethoven didn't invent music from scratch and yet was very original, there's no programmer who can reinvent informatics from scratch - no matter how good he is).

        Additionally, several studies [ffii.org] have shown that allowing software patents hampers advances in software development. The reason is that companies start investing part of their R&D budget in obtaining patents instead of innovating more. Of course, they want to recoup that. Since big software companies have more patents than small ones, they can usually force cross-licensing deals with those smaller ones or make them pay. So the end result is that:

        • Big companies still get access to all advances in software development, but spend less on innovation themselves (see this study [researchoninnovation.org])
        • Small companies can do less innovation, because they are forced to buy "patent protection" from large companies. They also have to invest money getting patents of themselves, so that they can negotiate lower licensing fees from big companies. That's all money which cannot be spend on innovating.
        The winners are patent bureaus, big companies and patent lawyers. The losers are smaller companies and society as a whole, since less money is spent on innovation.

        • And a physical device is just exploiting the laws of physics that everyone should be free to use.

          The goal is to ensure those that find things that were unlikely to have been found anyway are rewarded. Thereby encouraging both their development, and the distribution of that knowledge.

          The current system is broken. It needs fixing. Things that are obvious are patented, statements of the problem are patented.

          But if you eliminate all protection for complex algorithm development then you'll discourage t

          • And a physical device is just exploiting the laws of physics that everyone should be free to use.

            You cannot patent simply an effect of the laws of physics. You can patent a machine, which will obviously use the laws of physics, but another machine which uses the same effect will not be covered by the patent protecting that first machine. These are not patents on ideas, these are patents on machines or parts of machines.

            The goal is to ensure those that find things that were unlikely to have been found

        • Patents were never intended to protect ideas (an algorithm is also an idea), but to protect implementations (and investments done to create that implementation.

          I do not think that this is correct. Patents are for inventions. Inventions are for ideas. As a perfect example, a new drug is nothing more than an idea about how to apply a chemical to a problem. But they are patentable. Business methods are now also patentable. Furthermore, it is well known that you can patent hardware without ever having "imp

          • I do not think that this is correct. Patents are for inventions. Inventions are for ideas.

            You're right. I tried to convey the essence of the third paragraph of this introduction [ffii.org], but obviously I wasn't clear enough or did not provide enough context.

            I would be interested if you could find even one reference to back up this ideas that you patent "implementations" not "ideas".

            Maybe application would be correcter/more accurate to describe what I meant. I wanted to say that a taditional patent (in Euro

    • Article is WRONG. Journalist misunderstood speaker (Score:5, Informative)

      by JPMH ( 100614 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @01:52PM (#6320445)
      The ZDnet article is based on a misunderstanding.

      Open Forum Europe got stitched up.

      The patent directive is far from a done deal, as the success of last week's lobbying [ffii.org] in Brussels shows.

      The important point, that the journalist didn't realise, was that Mike Banahan was not talking about a consultation run by the European Commission or the European Parliament, but about a *consultation run by a firm of lobbyists* who had been hired by a consortium of big business associations. (Remember that OFE's response was paraded [ffii.org] not by the Commission, but by this consortium of associations).

      So the real story is

      Lobbyists for big business [*not* the European Commission or the European Parliament] are determined to introduce software patents in Europe despite widespread opposition from European companies and software developers, according to a UK open-source software lobbying group.

      The subsequent paragraphs take on a completely different dimension when you realise they are about the lobbying firm for the business associations, not the European institutions:

      Mike Banahan, chief technology officer with OpenForum Europe, a subsidiary of technology lobbyist InterForum, said the group received clear indications during a consultation on the proposal that some form of software patenting would be introduced, regardless of the fact that the consultation showed heated opposition to such patents.

      "We were briefed that a position that was in total opposition to patents would be discarded, that that was not a position they were prepared to take," Banahan said. "The position was, given that there will be software patents, what kind will there be? It was presented as a done deal."

      OpenForum had not intended to submit a position paper on software patents, as it focuses on end user adoption of open-source software, but the group's opinion was solicited by the organisers of the consultation, Banahan said. The paper was misinterpreted in the press as supporting software patents, he added.


      The quotes are echoed in this posting [gnu.org] to the FSF Europe-UK list:

      He stated (as off the record as he could get in a public forum) his statement on software patents was written from the point of view of - IF software patents were a done deal (and he was informed that they pretty much were, by the people asking him for a statement) then there should be exclusions for Free Software to safeguard the common interests.

      He also said (again as completely off-the-record as possible) that he had been told that any anti-patent statement would be discarded, as many others had already.

      The parliament vote is now expected in the first week of September. The Socialist group in particular is very divided. But internal party-group positions are expected to take shape this week, while the MEPs are all gathered together in Strasbourg, before they disperse for the long summer recess. It is therefore worth contacting MEPs now, sooner rather than later, to have maximum effect.

      Contact details for UK MEPs can be found by clicking on the map here [europarl.org.uk]

      (This information sent to ZDnet on Thursday night, but apparently not of interest).

      • The parent comment fairly accurately sums up what I believe to be the situation. Whether it was a lobbying group or the EU commission directly that solicited Open Forum's opinion I can't say at this point as I don't have access to all the documents this late on a Saturday night.

        All that I know about the process was that the question was something like "if we (the world at large) were to have patents, how would Open Forum wish to see the interests of Open Source protected". Open Forum has never claimed to

        • Mike,

          Thanks for setting the story straight.

          One thing that would help a lot though, would be if the position statement could be amended to read:

          It is this respect that we are supporting the positive revisions proposed in Arlene McCarthy's opinion now being considered by the European Parliament for the granting of patents, and positive amendments proposed by other political groups.

          Without the text in bold, the statement has unfortunately been used to suggest that you were (and are) calling for a

  • Hmmmm (Score:5, Informative)

    by HughJampton ( 659996 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @06:49AM (#6318793)
    The patents might not have so much effect in Europe, as patents take 7-10 years to be granted, and there is a 9 month period in which objections to the patent can be voiced before a patent is granted.

    • Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Informative)

      by MarcR80 ( 633120 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:22AM (#6318855)
      On the contrary, there will be a huge effect. There are already more than 30000 softwarepatents granted, that will become legal (yes, they've been granted illegally), when the EU decides in favour of patents. See here [ffii.org] for a few examples.

    • Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garyok ( 218493 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:34AM (#6318881)
      IANAL, but wouldn't this mean the patent is effective for 27-30 years instead of 20 years, as the 'invention' still has protection while it's pending? And if the IP firm working the system can come up with enough variations, alterations, and improvements they can keep the patent from being issued indefinitely. What a bonus!

      The simple fact is that IT moves too damn fast for software patents to be anything other than nuisances at best and corporate genocide at worst.

      I'm going to mail my MEPs about this and I hope that any other Eurolanders checking this thread out will too.
      • You have protection while it's pending, but regardless of the time it takes before the patent is granted, any rights will expire 20 years after the filing date. (This used to be different in the US, but nowadays it's the same there.)
      • Something really bothers me about software patents, but I'm not sure what.

        Is it that computer technology is a new generation every 2 years? Is it that I feel there is usually only one "right" way for software to do something, so patenting that way means that we simply will not have an alternative to some commercial software? (What do you guys think of patenting linked lists?) Is it because I feel software (except for some very specialized packages marketed to businesses) should not cost money?

        Am I wor

  • Great... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mgcsinc ( 681597 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @06:50AM (#6318797)
    European software developers have already had to spend a great deal of resources just getting to the level of their head-started American peers (I exclude certain rather effective German companies), now they need to be spending more money and time (if you think the US patent agencies are slow, wait till you have a taste of European bureaucracy) to establish timelines for the development of different technologies in order to keep these safe from other overzealous patentees? Also, with an industry as ubiquitous as software, how will European and American patent laws interact and interfere with each other?

  • Not surprised (Score:5, Informative)

    by Realistic_Dragon ( 655151 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @06:55AM (#6318804) Homepage
    I e-mailed my MEP and was most supprised to get a reply at all, unfortunatly it wasn't anything good.

    He said that after cairful consideration and consultation with industry they were a necessary step to allow the EU to remain competative :o( I wonder how much he got paid to say that?

    Engineers are supposed to be ethical as well as commercially minded, and consider the social consequences of their actions - something he seems to have forgotten when he became a politician.

    • Re:Not surprised (Score:4, Insightful)

      by roard ( 661272 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:04AM (#6318822) Homepage
      Then, rewrite him with extensive informations, if possible comments of small companies, etc. Sorry my own links are in French ;-) but I'm sure you could find many links against software patents, with models letters to send to your MEP, etc. Another good method is to check some (already granted, even if near illegally) EU patents, and send a mail to the potential affected companies you could know. One thing with EU patents is that the majority of people, developers and companies, absolutely don't know about them, and when asked about, they absolutely don't know the potential risks of software patents. So pattents lobbiers carefully presents patents as a good thing of course. The only thing to do then is to spread the information ! we only have 2 months !!
    • And refute his arguments, but also CC the other MEPs for your region with the reply, as I understand it, there are several MEPs for each region.

      There are a number of studies which show that software patents don't increase innovation, reduce prices or increase competitiveness. They do the opposite. The MEPs have to be made aware of this.

      This one:
      http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patent. p df

      Explain how software patents will decimate the industry by making even the most trivial action performed by a compu
    • Congress is admittedly often little more than den of thieves, murders and other assorted scoundrels. However.... there is only so far they can go to tell their constituents to fuck off like that. Here you could at least organize an awareness campaign and cost them votes to make their reelction harder.

  • Wannabe active on this matter? (Score:5, Informative)

    by tka ( 548076 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @06:55AM (#6318805)
    This probably the easiest way to be active on these kind of matters if you are joe/jill the average user.

    Join the Electronic Frontier organizations:

    Electronic Frontier Foundation - USA
    Electronic Frontier Finland
    Electronic Frontier Canada
    Electronic Frontiers Australia
    Electronic Frontier Ireland
    Electronic Frontier Sverige
    Electronisk Forpost Norge
    Electronic Frontier Ireland
    Electronic Frontiers Italy

    (use them as google search terms)

  • Another sad day... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by johny_qst ( 623876 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @06:55AM (#6318806) Journal
    In the new world order...
    I will continue to hope that progress will be made in the way that societies handle 'intellectual property'. I don't think that any amount of lobbying could possibly end the month of june with the EU not having software patents. Given the political power of corporations in the US and the EU there seems to be no place for free thinking when money might be changing hands due to the outcome of the policy. There will be an EU patent process for software. Open Source Software will continue to adapt and grow while the corporations attempt to twist the judiciary and governments of the various countries of the world to get what they want... more money.

  • Many EU commisioners are corrupt (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gilesjuk ( 604902 ) <giles.jones@nospaM.zen.co.uk> on Saturday June 28, 2003 @06:56AM (#6318807)
    They all resigned a few years back as they were in the pockets of big business. Looks like they still are. Undemocratic as ever.

    • Correction (Score:3, Interesting)

      by LeftOfCentre ( 539344 )
      Actually only one commisioner was shady but the parliament has the power only to sack the entire commision at once, not individual commisoners. Therefore they all voluntarily left before that happened.

  • Getting angrier and angrier (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sploxx ( 622853 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:09AM (#6318834)
    Are there any surveys that show that the majority of europeans support this SH**??
    We live in a democracy?! WHY HAVE THESE F*CKING COMPANY-LOBBIES MORE RIGHT THAN THE CONSUMER THEY SHOULD SERVE???
    Are our governments finally infiltrated by the corporate mafia?!

    Sorry for ranting. But I think its pretty clear.
    I'm feeling helpless. One notes the unfair situation here by the amount of argument the anti-software-patent-side has to do to let the politicians just LISTEN to their arguments. The pros say: Hey we need software patents because they are good for the economy. And the economy is good for you. Period.
    And the politicians follow. Uhhhh....
    Maybe I should grow up. Maybe I shouldn't bother. This is clearly the wrong forum to say that, I know...
    But where else?

    • Re:Getting angrier and angrier (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Sorry for ranting. But I think its pretty clear.
      I'm feeling helpless.

      You should because you are.

    • Re:Getting angrier and angrier (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:17AM (#6318847)
      No there aren't just the opposite seems to be.
      EuroLinux already has more than 150.000 signatures against software patents

      http://petition.eurolinux.org/signatures.html?LA NG =en

      And in an open discussion 90% of the people affected opted for no software patents. The European commission closed the discussion with the words, that there was a financial majority (of 10%). So you basically can see where the train comes from. The last hope to stop this really is the european parlament.

      Given the state of the european software industry consisting 95% of individuals and small companies, the negative economic impact of such a regulation really could be severe. The the European Commission is playing the three monkey games of not listening not hearing and not talking in this matter.

    • Re:Getting angrier and angrier (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Infiltrated by corporate mafia- You bet! someday you may elect a leader and have the result overturned by the courts. After that, your country can invade a Middle Eastern country in the name of bringing democracy to their people. Here in the US, the government IS the corporate mafia- Have a burger and wave a flag- it'll make you feel better.
    • Are our governments finally infiltrated by the corporate mafia?!

      I don't know about your country but in mine (UK) our government gas grown out of powerful landowners. I don't really know of *any* country where the focus of government is anything other than maximising GDP. The lie is that the desired consequence of this is that the standard of living is proportional to GDP.

      Want to test this hypothesis for yourself?
      Why not visit the richest country in the world and visit the slums of Los Angeles.

      It is inev

    • Are there any surveys that show that the majority of europeans support this SH**??

      I suspect that a survey of average europeans would show that the average european has only the vaguest understanding of either patents *or* software, much less whether or not they should be combined.

  • Okay, we can play their game too (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:13AM (#6318837)
    According to a well-connected lobbyist group, they have determined there will be patents, and the only question is what kind.

    Let's lobby for software patents that grant patent owners exclusive rights to exploit their invention for twenty hours.

  • Elite serving the Elite! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SerpentMage ( 13390 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:13AM (#6318838)
    It does not surprise that the European Parliament is taking this attitude! We keep harping on the
    Americans and how they let certain laws through. The reality is that politics is not about democracy, but about people keeping themselves in power.

    This is reaching almost epic proportions because the politicians think those demonstrating and calling themselves anarchists are in the minimum. I am thinking more and more, are they really in the minimum? Is the talk of anarchists not just another comment to discount opinion that does not fit into the overall scheme of things.

    To give you an example consider the following. Bill Gates can have dinner with Tony Blair. Gehard Schroeder can have dinner with Juergen Schremp. When was the last time either of them had dinner with Joe and Jane from the street? Of course I mean not during voting season. This is the problem. The elite are serving the elite!

    And it is getting worse everday! Open Source does not fit into the scheme of things, because Open Source is not about being elite! See there's our problem! When was the last time Tony Blair had dinner with Linus, RMS or Eric Raymond? When was the last time any politician met with any Open Source person?
    • I'm not sure that having party leaders nosh with arbitrary members of the public is really the best way to run a representative democracy. These guys can't be experts on every issue that passes their way; that's why they have advisers. Make contact, get yourself talking to these advisers, and make a strong case why your position is good for everyone and the alternative is bad.

      Accept that there are other points of view here, and accept that anything which harms industry, or appears on the surface to harm in

      • Re:Elite serving the Elite! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by SerpentMage ( 13390 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:24AM (#6319013)
        And there is the problem! Sorry, but party leaders should actually talk to the arbitary people. What you recommend is the problem that we have today. There are lobbies that advise the advisors who then think that is how reality works. These "advisors" do not go out to meet the people. They expect the people to listen to them. Which in turn is the problem YET AGAIN, because it is elitism.

        Also consider that the business world does not work this way. If you look at the REALLY good CEO's that consistently make money they do it because they listen to their customer. Tele2 (Profitable European AT&T) CEO and the IKEA CEO make it a point every year to take out time and work the "floors". In the case of the Tele2 CEO he will for a number of days work the customer support hotline. In the case of IKEA the CEO will sell you a new chair. Why? Because advisors cannot tell you everything. Advisors are people who advise you on the general lie of the situation.

        Now in the case of politicians, who are their customers? The population! So to best serve the population it is absolutely vital to listen to your population. Not have some advisor state, "Well 40% of the people think X is ok and 50% of the people think Y is ok."

        I live in Switzerland that has a real democracy where the people make the decisions. The politicians do the leg work and attempt to best advise the people. I am firmly convinced that this is the best way to manage a modern economy!
        • I live in Switzerland that has a real democracy where the people make the decisions. The politicians do the leg work and attempt to best advise the people. I am firmly convinced that this is the best way to manage a modern economy!

          this is not a democracy, this is mob rule. democracy is one person, one vote, to elect a *ruling party* who then govern the country. under a democratic system, they do not need to consult the populace for every decision they need to take.

          i do applaud switzerland's stance on s
          • <I>democracy is one person, one vote, to elect a *ruling party* who then govern the country. under a democratic system, they do not need to consult the populace for every decision they need to take.</I>

            Wrong. What you are describing is a republic. In a democracy there wouldn't be a parliament, but citizens would vote on matters.
          • this is not a democracy, this is mob rule. democracy is one person, one vote, to elect a *ruling party* who then govern the country. under a democratic system, they do not need to consult the populace for every decision they need to take.

            No, democracy *is* mob rule. More accurately, it is the mob ruling the mob. Which is as it should be. What you describe is not democracy, it is a republic, or at best a democratic republic.

            Internet polls show how neurotic the masses in a republic can get. In a republ
          • the problem with making major decisions by referendum is that the populace is largely ignorant, irresponsible and easily swayed. it's putting an enormous amount of power in the hands of the media.

            You just described the U.S. to a tee. Of course there are no official referenda - that comes through mob rule at the behest of corporate media.

          • First many have commented on the differences between a republic and a democratic system.

            BUT on the issue that the population is largerly "ignorant", I HEAR SO OFTEN.

            "No sir I am not ignorant, but my neighbor is. And my neighbor should not be put into the position of thinking about an issue". THAT is absolute BS! People when they know that their decision counts will make their decision count. The problem why there is the "ignorance" now is because people know that their vote does NOT matter. And peopl
          • this is not a democracy, this is mob rule. democracy is one person, one vote, to elect a *ruling party* who then govern the country. under a democratic system, they do not need to consult the populace for every decision they need to take.

            Going back to the roots of democracy (the Greek), the power was direct. One person, one vote on each issue. This worked in a city state, but of course it was only those with time and interest that would attent, but that was the principle.

            The idea of a representative demo

          • this is not a democracy, this is mob rule.

            Democracy = old greek `o demos cracia = the people rule = mob rule.

            They mean literally the same thing.

        • And there is the problem! Sorry, but party leaders should actually talk to the arbitary people.

          And failing that, arbitrary people should talk to the party leaders/MEPS. Too many people think of politics as a "far from my bed show" (literal translation from Dutch expression, I'm not sure if it makes any sense in English :). They think that voting once every so many years is doing their political duty. For the rest, they often simply complain to each other about how bad the politicians are doing. Trying t

          • Ok I agree with mostly what you are saying. But maybe if politics were run like a business, just maybe we would not be in the mess that we are now!

            To me running a country is the job of doing the most with the least of my money! Social programs? Yes, but not like how Europe and Canada abuse them. Universal medicare? Yes, but not like in Germany where people can go to the "kur". The basics will suffice. In a business those decisions would simply not be made...

  • article outdated - vote is not next week (Score:4, Informative)

    by bazongis ( 654674 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:24AM (#6318857)

    The article is from the 26th of June and states that the proposal is due for parliamentary vote on June 30th (earlier than originally planned).

    However, the vote has been postponed and is not going to take place on June 30th, at least according to more recent reports by the usually well-informed German heise.de news service.

    heise.de news article (in German) [heise.de]

    This seems to contradict the article at least in spirit and gives the Open Source/Free Software community more time to gain momentum and turn the vote into the right direction.

  • We need to stop patents in Asia too. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    With the Increasing power of Asian nations in software, we need to make sure that they can't patent them there either.

  • Sad facts (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:25AM (#6318859)
    EuroLinux already has more than 150.000 signatures against software patents

    http://petition.eurolinux.org/signatures.html?LA NG =en

    And in an open discussion 90% of the people affected opted for no software patents. The European commission closed the discussion with the words, that there was a financial majority (of 10%). So you basically can see where the train comes from. The last hope to stop this really is the european parlament.

    Canßt find the link to this now, this discussion was around two years ago, and I want to leave anybody to the interpretation himself.

    All I can say is with one of the former commissions there was a huge bribe scandal, the main problem is that there is no real control mechanism for the commission and sometimes some really black sheep are in there.

    Also something to consider

    Given the state of the european software industry consisting 95% of individuals and small companies, the negative economic impact of such a regulation really could be severe. The the European Commission is playing the three monkey games of not listening not hearing and not talking in this matter. In the end the result will have to be paid by every european citizen with a lot more people being unemployed by the tech sector.

  • Wrong story (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Halo1 ( 136547 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:33AM (#6318878)
    As someone alse already posted, this attempt at fast-tracking the proposal through parliament as failed miserably [ffii.org]. The real news is that even McCarthy's own (socialist) faction is becoming more and more opposed to software patents. I'm in direct email contact with several assistants of the Flemish MEPS from the Greens and socialist faction (since those were the ones that responded to my initial mail [ugent.be] (in Dutch) and they all are completely against software patents. In fact, almost all Flemish parties are against [student.kun.nl].

    One of those assistants told me he's never seen such an enormous amount of public attention for a proposal in the two years that he has worked at the European parliament. He thinks there's actually a very good chance of preventing this proposal from getting approved. Really, it's easy to say "all politicians are alike" and "corporations own the politicians anyway" etc, but that's simply not true (note: I'm not a member of any political party nor politically active, except in cases like this). Yes Virginia, there still are a lot of people with a conscience in politics who want to do the best for society at large, they just need access to the right information. In cases like this, people like us can make the difference.

    If a non-programmer or non-ip-lawyer reads a proposal like McCarthy's, I can perfectly imagine that it's not that difficult for that person to be convinced that she's indeed trying to protect the software development community at large. The background text of her proposal is really full of misleading and sometimes outright wrong statements to justify her goals.

    For example, she cites one study which shows that software patents are beneficial to small and medium-sized companies. In the same footnote, she states that they also looked at several other studies, however, at least one of those [researchoninnovation.org] concludes exactly the opposite. Nevertheless, the way it is put forth in her text, it seems as if all those studies show exactly the same results. There really are a lot of things like that...

  • Why should software patents be that bad ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Krapangor ( 533950 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:39AM (#6318889) Homepage
    I don't really understand this extensive opposition to software patents.
    If a company does some real research in computer science then it invests millions of dollars and severals years of time into the development of new technologies. However without a strong system to prevent IP theft, any jerk company can come and steal those technologies. Even worse, the original inventor will go out of business because the thiefs don't have the development expenses, so that they can offer the products much more cheaply. And patents are there to prevent such stuff.
    And copyright isn't strong enough for protection in such a case. The thiefs can get the technology by reverse engineering. But they are not copying the code, just the technology. So IP laws won't help and you cannot detect the reverse engineering unless some whistle blowers come out. Which is rather unlikely.

    Many people fear that stuff like Amazon's one-click patent and other trivial patents will come out. But I don't think this is a real problem. Such trivial patents are cause by a fucked legal system. This is a well-known USian problem. But not a European one. Europe centers on the French system where the creation of new laws is dominated by legislation. Europe doesn't center around the UK/USian one where courts directly or indirectly create laws by interpreting the constitution. Remember that the patentability of business methods in the US came primarily from a court ruling. Europe simply doesn't have this problem.

    So, I don't see why we shouldn't have software patents here.

    • Your right that there are good points about software patents

      however they also stop inovation because patents mean that the only people who can advance in a technology is the people who have the patent and then if they decide not to advance it then we just lose out.

      using a rather extreme example
      imagine if you found a way to solve world hunger but found out you couldnt because one of the mechanics of the process was patented

      also no software patents does not necesarily mean losing all advantages
      i mean there
    • The argument against software patents is made on three grounds:

      1. the products of the software industry are so large and complex (because of the lack of physical constraints) that the scale of 'invention' is hundreds times greater than in the physical world.

      2. patents are expensive (10k Euro in Europe) and rarely can small businesses or individuals afford to aquire them.

      3. even when people overcome point 2, they find that the large patent portfolios of large companies render their patents useless.

      Conclusion: large companies purchase patents in order to protect not their inventions, but their competitive advantage. Since innovation comes from smaller teams, patents thus work against innovation.

      Software patents exaggerate what is a manageable problem with physical patents, and turn it into a serious problem for smaller designers. Basically patents allow large businesses to collaborate with burocracy to create barriers against the entrance of smaller groups.

      This is bad, corrupt, and economically stupid.

      End of argument.

    • Re:Why should software patents be that bad ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fishfinger ( 685260 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:02AM (#6318950)
      As I see it the problem with software patents is that it will mainly affect open source projects which are easy targets for patents (obviously you can search through the source code) and in most cases don't generate profit. Closed source projects in most cases done purely for profit will probably slip through the net if they infringe a patent because the source code if far from accessable. Surely, it is the second instance which you would want to protect your work from?!?! The other problem I see is that many of these patents seem to have such broad definitions masses of innovation will be stiffled because a patent will encompass wide areas of work!

    • Re:Why should software patents be that bad ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:12AM (#6318979)

      The French patent office is supposed to be the strictest in the EU. Yet they let completely obvious patents slip through. I've met a person who once spent a few days crafting some totally ridiculous patents, just to show how very lax the French patent office already is. (One of the patents was for business information systems software, where the "innovation" is that the CEO can get the average of the prices of his company's wares). This person said that you can get basically anything patented like this:

      • Take an existing patent text.
      • Re-word maybe 10% of it.
      • Insert a few spurious claims of your own. Doesn't have to be innovative at all.
      • Provide at least one drawing. Eye candy helps your cause.
      • Run your creation past a patent lawyer so that the cover page will have the name and title of this lawyer on it.
      • Done. Apply for the patent. You've got about 90% chance of having it granted to you.

      I repeat, this is for the French patent office, supposedly the strictest of all. If you think about it, patent offices have an interest in granting patents, not rejecting them. Why? After a rejection, the applicant will come back and haunt them for explanations, apellations, etc. After a grant, any contests to the patent is done in court, which makes it Somebody Else's Problem from the POV of the patent office.

      So don't say it's solely the Americans that screwed up and we'll do better. The basic economic pressures working on the patent office are exactly the same.

    • > But not a European one.

      Yeah, riiiight.

      http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/samples/index.en.h tm l

    • Re:Why should software patents be that bad ? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:22AM (#6319004)

      Europe doesn't center around the UK/USian one where courts directly or indirectly create laws by interpreting the constitution

      Not really sure what you mean here. From here [ukcle.ac.uk]

      "In relation to sources of law, clearly the French constitution is the principal source in France, contrasting sharply with the UK position.

      Secondly, all legal systems define laws to some extent through precedent - if the original law is ambiguously worded, then its exact meaning is defined generally through its first usage in court.

      The US system has shown itself incapabable of judging what the state of the art in software is. The European legal systems aren't all that good either - take the Berlusconi and Chirac immunity cases for example. So why should anything be better in Europe?

      Say, for example, that Microsoft made some clever algorithm that improved their .DOC file format and patented it. This effectively gives them a complete, legally mandated monopoly on word processing for the lifetime of the patent (which is huge compared to the lifetime of software). Nobody can produce an interoperating program without violating the patent or paying a huge licensing fee. How does this help anyone other than Microsoft?

      • Say, for example, that Microsoft made some clever algorithm that improved their .DOC file format and patented it. This effectively gives them a complete, legally mandated monopoly on word processing for the lifetime of the patent (which is huge compared to the lifetime of software). Nobody can produce an interoperating program without violating the patent or paying a huge licensing fee. How does this help anyone other than Microsoft?

        This is already happening, even in Europe. Read the FFII's horror storie [ffii.org]
    • Because when you sell your software, you don't generally sell the source code. The software is copyright protected (for way too long, but that's another issue).

      When you sell a new machine you invent, your competitor can take it apart and see how it works, and reproduce it. This is where patents are useful.

      Any "software invention" is essentially a mathematical algorithm. You don't invent maths, you discover it. You don't patent maths because it's like patenting the english language - it serves the best int
    • Patenting software would effectively eliminate someone from building a similar application - much like the business method patents.

      "This is a well-known USian problem. But not a European one. Europe centers on the French system where the creation of new laws is dominated by legislation. Europe doesn't center around the UK/USian one where courts directly or indirectly create laws by interpreting the constitution. Remember that the patentability of business methods in the US came primarily from a court ruli
    • If a company does some real research in computer science then it invests millions of dollars and severals years of time into the development of new technologies. However without a strong system to prevent IP theft, any jerk company can come and steal those technologies.

      Software is relatively cheap. I would raise an eyebrow at any company which said it has invested millions of dollars in researching a new software "technology". It's not like you have to buy lasers, or break apart pieces of DNA to aid that

    • Software Patents are bad because they are oxymoronic [jerf.org]; to summarize that link, the patent system was set up to protect certain kinds of things, and software is not that kind of thing. As a result, software patents fail miserably because patent protection is not appropriate. In order to make it appropriate, it has been twisted to the point of absurdity.
    • It is so obvious that patents have stopped such great operating systems like Linux and BSD, and various OSS software like OpenOffice, KDE, GNOME, GIMP, and various other GNU software and other OSS from grabbing market share. Also, without those patents Linus and all those other OSS programmers are out of jobs. What do they do without patents?

      It is apparent you haven't really thought about this subject beyond money terms the corporations look at. No matter what side your on, you can not deny the fact th
    • Lets say someone has a programming problem in a newsgroup. I read it, and out of the the blue i find the solution, i post it as an answer. The hwole world can see his question, the same to my answer. Six months later both him and mee are being sued for patent intrusion, he for implementing it in his program, and i for publishing it for the world. So, if you allow software patents, you can bee sued for something you wrote out of your own head! When talking copyright this isn't possible, if it came from my h
    • I work in a research lab in the UK. One time we considered patenting one of our techniques. We took legal advice and were warned that once we did file the patent, there was the chance that other major company or university would file any number of counter-patents. If we advanced the technology in any way, we would risk making a patent violation. Essentially one or more companies would file a handful of patents each based on slightly modified versions of the original patent. Eg. If a patent was filed on a

  • Microsoft's new patent (Score:5, Funny)

    by TitanBL ( 637189 ) <brandon.titan-internet@com> on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:41AM (#6318894)
    REDMOND, WA--In what CEO Bill Gates called "an unfortunate but necessary step to protect our intellectual property from theft and exploitation by competitors," the Microsoft Corporation patented the numbers one and zero Monday.

    With the patent, Microsoft's rivals are prohibited from manufacturing or selling products containing zeroes and ones--the mathematical building blocks of all computer languages and programs--unless a royalty fee of 10 cents per digit used is paid to the software giant.

    "Microsoft has been using the binary system of ones and zeroes ever since its inception in 1975," Gates told reporters. "For years, in the interest of the overall health of the computer industry, we permitted the free and unfettered use of our proprietary numeric systems. However, changing marketplace conditions and the increasingly predatory practices of certain competitors now leave us with no choice but to seek compensation for the use of our numerals."

    A number of major Silicon Valley players, including Apple Computer, Netscape and Sun Microsystems, said they will challenge the Microsoft patent as monopolistic and anti-competitive, claiming that the 10-cent-per-digit licensing fee would bankrupt them instantly.

    "While, technically, Java is a complex system of algorithms used to create a platform-independent programming environment, it is, at its core, just a string of trillions of ones and zeroes," said Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy, whose company created the Java programming environment used in many Internet applications. "The licensing fees we'd have to pay Microsoft every day would be approximately 327,000 times the total net worth of this company."

    "If this patent holds up in federal court, Apple will have no choice but to convert to analog," said Apple interim CEO Steve Jobs, "and I have serious doubts whether this company would be able to remain competitive selling pedal-operated computers running software off vinyl LPs."

    As a result of the Microsoft patent, many other companies have begun radically revising their product lines: Database manufacturer Oracle has embarked on a crash program to develop "an abacus for the next millennium." Novell, whose communications and networking systems are also subject to Microsoft licensing fees, is working with top animal trainers on a chimpanzee-based message-transmission system. Hewlett-Packard is developing a revolutionary new steam-powered printer.

    Despite the swarm of protest, Gates is standing his ground, maintaining that ones and zeroes are the undisputed property of Microsoft.

    "We will vigorously enforce our patents of these numbers, as they are legally ours," Gates said. "Among Microsoft's vast historical archives are Sanskrit cuneiform tablets from 1800 B.C. clearly showing ones and a symbol known as 'sunya,' or nothing. We also own: papyrus scrolls written by Pythagoras himself in which he explains the idea of singular notation, or 'one'; early tracts by Mohammed ibn Musa al Kwarizimi explaining the concept of al-sifr, or 'the cipher'; original mathematical manuscripts by Heisenberg, Einstein and Planck; and a signed first-edition copy of Jean-Paul Sartre's Being And Nothingness. Should the need arise, Microsoft will have no difficulty proving to the Justice Department or anyone else that we own the rights to these numbers."

    Added Gates: "My salary also has lots of zeroes. I'm the richest man in the world."

    According to experts, the full ramifications of Microsoft's patenting of one and zero have yet to be realized.

    "Because all integers and natural numbers derive from one and zero, Microsoft may, by extension, lay claim to ownership of all mathematics and logic systems, including Euclidean geometry, pulleys and levers, gravity, and the basic Newtonian principles of motion, as well as the concepts of existence and nonexistence," Yale University theoretical mathematics professor J. Edmund Lattimore said. "In other words, pretty much everything."

    Lattimore said that the only mat

  • 1-4 September. There's still time. (Score:4, Informative)

    by davew ( 820 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:49AM (#6318910) Journal
    I saw this yesterday; I emailed two of the MEPs in my constituency whose parties I was aware were in support of software patents (I would have liked to write, but with a 30 June deadline the letter wouldn't have time to get there). I also emailed Pat Cox, President of the European Parliament and another Irish MEP. Within six minutes, I had a response from his assistant.

    The gist of it is this: the European Parliament report will be taken during the session 1-4 September. The European Liberal Group (european meta-party of which Mr. Cox is a member) hasn't taken a definitive position on the report yet, but as it has been going through the committee system they have taken a very restrictive position regarding what can be patented.

    I won't copy-paste the euro-speak here. :) I don't fully understand it, but have replied asking for clarification. So far, I'm pleased that he has (a) taken a position and (b) taken one that regards the issue with some care. I also thanked his assistant for correcting me about the vote on 30 June.

    This means there's plenty of time. Write to your MEP [eu.int] explaining, politely, how you think software patents would harm our industry in your country and in Europe as a whole, and perhaps explaining the problems inappropriate use software patents have caused elsewhere. The idea of patents is to encourage innovation - explain why software patents don't do this.

    No response from the other two yet; I'll be writing to them and following up by phone.

    Dave
    • Hey, I did this already. I mailed all my local MEPs and what happened? Only one of them (the Tory) bothered to respond - a junior assistant wrote back and basically just restated Tory party policy - which is that they believe software patents are necessary and will be completely benign.

      Don't expect anybody to listen to the likes of you. They don't want to, and they apparently think they don't even have to.

    • We have three weeks (Score:3, Informative)

      by JPMH ( 100614 )
      The vote isn't until 1 September.

      But in effect there are only three weeks to go, because for most of that time the MEPs are away on holiday.

      To be more precise:

      • Next week [30/06 - 04/07] we can lobby in Strasbourg (Session).
      • The week after [07/07 - 11/07] we can lobby in Brussels (Committee meetings).
      • ... after that there is no official business scheduled all summer ...
      • Finally [25-29/08] there is one week in Brussels before the September session which starts on 1st September.

      The next two weeks are

  • Pror Art (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Maybe what the Open Source community needs to do is provide a mechanism or resources for challenging ludicrous patents. We've seen sporadic requests on /. calling for examples of prior art when some of the more egregious patents are issued. Perhaps this could be a regular part of the main /. page (just a one line description and link to details). While it would be nice to catch these frauds before they are issued it's more likely that we'd only hear about them after issuance. With the number and caliber o

  • The next step: civil disobidience (Score:4, Interesting)

    by quigonn ( 80360 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:01AM (#6318948) Homepage
    Should software patent laws pass, I request everyone to fight against those laws, even with civil disobidience. EU is becoming a dictatorship, with the bureaucrats making more and more laws, and the EU members are then _forced_ to make them national laws, else they're sued (yes, the countries!). And the citizens don't even have any chance to proclaim their opinions, i.e. there are no EU-wide elections. This is clearly dictatorship, with laws made by only a few, and hardly any rights to intervene. This should be fought with every force possible, even with civil disobidience!

    EU: should the software patent laws pass, then this means war!

    signed, an angry EU citizen

    • Re:The next step: civil disobidience (Score:4, Informative)

      by dago ( 25724 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:30AM (#6319032)

      ", i.e. there are no EU-wide elections."

      I don't know who modded you as interesting, but this statement is utterly false. The first elections date back from 1979, the whole parliament is renewed every 5 years and they are the one making laws (directives is more precise).

      Now a question : when was the last time you voted ?

      For your information, you can also visit this site europa.eu.int [eu.int] (especially EU at a glance [eu.int] and EU Parliament [eu.int])

      • The problem isn't a lack of elections. It's that the Parliament has little power compared to the unelected European Commission. Everyone should still vote, of course: They have some power, which could be relevant in this particular case, and a lack of turnout in elections is often used to justify a lack of democracy.

        In truth, national governments can and do ignore European rules when they want to. However, the EU provides them an excuse to do things that are unpopular and outright wrong: "It's not our faul
    • EU is becoming a dictatorship, with the bureaucrats making more and more laws You will find that while the European Commission, whose members are choosen by the States and not elected, propose many of the EU laws, they have to be approved by the European Parliament to become law. They also have to be approved by the European Council, made up of the ministers of the relevent domain (ie financial ministers, agricultural ministers, trade ministers depending on the law proposal) from the 15 states. It's a comp

    • The EU is not undemocratic (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kinniken ( 624803 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:37AM (#6319055) Homepage
      sorry - repost. Forgot some tags in my other post making it unreadable. Should have used that "preview" button ;-)

      EU is becoming a dictatorship, with the bureaucrats making more and more laws

      You will find that while the European Commission, whose members are choosen by the States and not elected, propose many of the EU laws, they have to be approved by the European Parliament to become law. They also have to be approved by the European Council, made up of the ministers of the relevent domain (ie financial ministers, agricultural ministers, trade ministers depending on the law proposal) from the 15 states.
      It's a complex system, but not undemocratic: all the actors involved are either directly elected (MEPs), members of elected national governements (The ministers) or choosen by national governements (members of the EU commission). Hardly a dictatorship.

      And the citizens don't even have any chance to proclaim their opinions, i.e. there are no EU-wide elections

      Excuse me, but I thought EU citizens voted every four years for their MEPs, who go on voting on EU law poposals? Does that not count as an EU-wide election?

      Of course, that does not prevent industry lobbyists from pushing hard for the passage of laws in their interest, but sadly this is a practice all too frequent in the world. Without the EU, it would simply take place at a national level in much the same way.

    • 3e8 (Score:1)

      by midgley ( 629008 )
      There are 300 million of us at the moment and that is increasing with new member countries. It would be cumbersome and the benefits are not immediately obvious to me to have a single election across the whole area. We vote for UK members in UK constituencies, French members in French consituencies and the like, in a way similar to our American cousins voting for members of their federal gov from their area, not from the other 49 states, except for their president & vice. I am not conivinced we want o

  • How a SANE software patents law would look like (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Per Wigren ( 5315 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:44AM (#6319074) Homepage
    * A softwarepatent would last for 3 years after first public release (including betas) of something implementing it. They will have a maximum of 2 years to release an implementation or the patent will be voided. That is plenty of IT-time to get R&D costs back, and build a strong marketshare.
    * They would have to be specific about its field of usage. Someone with a patent for an algorithm used in video encoding should not be able to sue someone using the same algorithm in for example a networking protocol.
    * Patents should not be transferable.
    * If (A) is granted a patent and sues (B) for infrigement and prior art is found within two years, (A) will have to give ALL money back to (B), including legal costs and lost revenue, and with interest. That would stop big companies applying for 100s of patents per week, for every silly little thing they come up with, without thinking.
    * Only the inventor him/herself should be able to be granted the patent. This would include the company they were hired by to invent it. A person should be able to say "Yes, I came up with that!".

  • Software Patents NOT considered harmful? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kompiluj ( 677438 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @09:22AM (#6319194)
    I can see the problem of Software Patents in the EU from another point of view: if there will be no Software Patents the EU will suffer extreme pression from Bush administration (a.k.a. USA) to introduce such. USA will obiously claim that EU is posing a threat to Intellectual Property, etc. and all such bullshit.
    On the other hand if the EU introduces SANE software patent rules (such as quoted on /.), then the Bush administration won't be able to come forward with such absurd claims.
    May the Source be with you!
    • Wrong. There is little pressure from the US. It's more up to the lawyer pressure groups. There are not even business interests. The DIHT (german Chamber of Commerce), German Monopolkomission (monopoly commission) were against it while the ministry of justice was slightly in favour. Learn more about at http://swpat.ffii.org

  • Open source: the next logical extension of patents (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Radical Rad ( 138892 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @10:24AM (#6319434) Homepage
    If patents can be issued for software then software should only be sold with the source code provided so that the publisher's competitors can verify that their intellectual "property" has not been pirated. There would no longer be a need for source code secrecy or non-compete agreements since ownership could be easily determined, after years of litigation of course. Even with this "protection", I'd bet that the same large companies who are pushing for software patents would be afraid to allow other patent holders to examine their code.

  • Patently Absurd (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's a sad state of affairs to be sure that patents exist at all, but if these people want to fuck themselves like the Americans, 'more' power to the dumb bastards.

    I am not trying to troll or be more offensive than I need to be, and what I have said is just my own small opinion. And just to show that I am not completely off ballance, I am not against copyrights, as long as they are not 'eternal'.
  • The original patent system was implimented so that if a person were to make a discovery or invention, it would be advantageous to that person to obtain a patent, publishing the details of their discovery, instead of keeping the method a secret in perpetuity. Clearly, if the greatest inventions are kept secret, nobody would be able to build off of them, and technological progress would stagnate.

    So, how about we allow software patents, under the condition that the SOURCE CODE for all patented algorithms be placed in the public domain? Corporations would then not be legally allowed to make money on them due to patent law, but society as a whole would benefit by the non-profit use of the source code, allowing software technology to continue to progress without having to rediscover old code.

    Clearly such a patent should be limited in duration, much moreso than patents on other stuff -- say, like 4 years or so? What do you think?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close