Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Software Your Rights Online

Second Round of EU Patent Fight, Coming Up 188

Posted by timothy from the don'tcha-love-patents dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Seems that last fall's victory over EU patent regulations was just round one. The current draft rejects all clarifying amendments made by the European Parliament, allowing direct patentability of computer programs. A net-wide protest is being organized on April 14."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Second Round of EU Patent Fight, Coming Up More

Second Round of EU Patent Fight, Coming Up

Comments Filter:

  • I don't understand Nokia (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mindless4210 ( 768563 ) * on Monday April 12, 2004 @05:52PM (#8841898) Homepage Journal
    From this link [ffii.org]:

    Nokia's Patent Department is collecting signatures from CTOs for this letter in support the "working document" of the EU Council "Working Party on Intellectual Property", a group of patent administrators who run the European Patent Office. The letter portrays this document as a "balanced compromise" which "takes the Parliament's concerns into account" and says that this is needed in order to assure that electric household applicances, medical technology etc do not become unpatentable. Thereby the letter drafters deceive both their signatories (CTOs who usually do not read the directive proposals) as well as their readers.

    It disturbs me to see Nokia taking taking the role that they have been. Their statements seem to be quite misleading, and it is clear that they will have significant gain from software patents. With all the heat they've been getting lately [dailywireless.com], you would think that they might try to take it easy on such controversial issues. Either way, I am fully against software patents.

    • Nokia vs. Opera (Score:5, Interesting)

      by The Angry Mick ( 632931 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @06:06PM (#8842017) Homepage

      Nokia's position is a bit on the extreme side, which makes it all the more curious since most of the stuff they use is being written by Opera. From the article:

      "Nokia doesn't seem to be counting Opera among the European innovators", comments Håkon Wium Lie, CTO of Opera Software Inc, an innovation leader in the web browser market and producer of much of the software used in Nokia's mobile phones.

      One almost gets the impression that Nokia may be looking to do a bit of "embracing and extending", and then relying on the slow pace of the courts to kill off competition?

    • Look at the bright side [reuters.com]. Now we have a new group of leeches.
    • the idea here is to boycott nokia and tell them that you are, weather by email or snail mail.
      More power to you if you can hit them more thoroughly than with a cell phone, such as if you can recommand against nokia hardware for things like firewalls and the like.

  • Need to keep hammering (Score:5, Insightful)

    by flossie ( 135232 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @05:54PM (#8841913) Homepage
    After the stunning victory in round 1, we just need to make sure our parliamentarians stand firm. I am sure they will not appreciate this attempt to trample over their amendments. Time to get writing again ...

    • The important lesson: they never give up. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by David Hume ( 200499 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @06:07PM (#8842024) Homepage

      After the stunning victory in round 1, we just need to make sure our parliamentarians stand firm. I am sure they will not appreciate this attempt to trample over their amendments. Time to get writing again ...


      There is an imporant lesson here. That lesson is that these issues are never finally resolved. Just because objectionable legislation has been defeated once does not mean that it will not be re-introduced. The membership of legislative bodies changes over time. Lobybing continues. Contributions are made. If the financial incentive is great enough, business will never give up.

      Eternal vigilance is required. Perhaps the time you are most vulnerable is when you think you have *finally* won.

      • Re:The important lesson: they never give up. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by flossie ( 135232 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @06:19PM (#8842136) Homepage
        There is an imporant lesson here. That lesson is that these issues are never finally resolved.

        The first round victory was just the first reading of the directive in parliament. However, if (and it is a big if) we can ultimately get the directive passed in the form approved by the parliament, that will effectively put an end to the possibility of software patents in Europe for the foreseeable future.

        It will be a long fight, but it is not a hopeless one. If the good version of the directive gets passed, all EU member states will have to enact legislation preventing software from being patented. At the speed that European legislation gets enacted, it would be a very long time before anyone got a chance to alter this.

        • ``if (and it is a big if) we can ultimately get the directive passed in the form approved by the parliament, that will effectively put an end to the possibility of software patents in Europe for the foreseeable future.''

          I believe that is incorrect. AFAIK, current legislation does not allow for software to be patented. However, some software patents had been granted, and the directive is an attempt to legalize that. This means that, if the directive is accepted, we can expect more patents to be granted, BUT

          • Re:The important lesson: they never give up. (Score:4, Informative)

            by flossie ( 135232 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @01:48AM (#8845005) Homepage
            current legislation does not allow for software to be patented. However, some software patents had been granted, and the directive is an attempt to legalize that. This means that, if the directive is accepted, we can expect more patents to be granted, BUT there is a good chance they will be in accordance with the directive, which used to have various provisions to protect rights like reverse-esgineering to achieve interoperability.

            The original intent of the directive was to legalize the patenting of software. The commission introduced the directive with the stated aim of harmonising and clarifying patent law in Europe. The actual aim was to codify current practice of the European Patent Office which has recently been issuing software patents despite Article 52(2) of the European Patent Convention which states that computer programs are not patentable inventions. The original fight, therefore, was an attempt to prevent a change in the law which would make software patentable. Although patents have been granted by the EPO, we have not yet seen many adverse effects because the patent holders would risk having their patents invalidated by the courts if they tried to enforce them - hence the desire (by the pro-patent lobby) to introduce the directive.

            However, the European Parliament significantly amended the text of the directive. The most important change was that they explicitly reinforced Article 52(2) and insisted that software not be patentable. This is the reason that the European Commission threatened to withdraw the directive entirely rather than allow it to pass in its amended form. The directive was originally a Bad Thing, but in its form as last seen by the parliament it is definitely a Good Thing.

      • There IS a simple, permanent answer -- ban lobbying and campaign contributions. In fact, ban the mere possibility of impropriety; politicians shouldn't be allowed to accept any gift of any kind from anyone. Harsh, yes. But power must only come along with responsibility and accountability.

        Once political power isn't for sale, businesses will have no more leverage with politicians. Voting will mean something again. TRUE representative democracy can take hold.

    • Re:Need to keep hammering (Score:5, Interesting)

      by unsinged int ( 561600 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @06:29PM (#8842213)
      Whenever I read articles like this I get very upset, but it's difficult to do anything about it. Why? Because try stopping a dozen random people and asking them what their position is on software patents. It's not like abortion or gun control or taxation, stuff people hear about all the time. And even if you could communicate to them what it is, you still can't show them the negative effects. Sure, you can describe the effects, but not at a this-will-affect-you level where you can say "this will take $$$ out of your wallet" or "this will cause somebody physical harm."

      Incidently, most people I've asked who do know what a software patent is have told me that they just pretend they don't exist.
    • For people talking to parlimentarians, It might be worthwhile to put together a list of some of the most agregious software patents out there (like the domain name patent, and the plugin patent). Please put your list here.

      What are some of your (least) favorite bad software patents, and what are their (forseeable) effects?

  • As has been said before. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tsian ( 70839 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @05:54PM (#8841914) Homepage
    If you would really like to promote change, please take the time to write or call officials. This will almost certainly have a larger impact than any protest restricted to the net.

    I mean, obviously these people do not get technology in the way most of us do, otherwise they would not be suggesting such ludicrous laws. As such, take the battle to them on terms they understand.

    • Re:As has been said before. (Score:5, Informative)

      by flossie ( 135232 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @05:58PM (#8841945) Homepage
      If you would really like to promote change, please take the time to write or call officials.

      e-mail works fine. Most of the ones I write to (we have 8 Scottish MEPs) are generally happy to receive and reply to e-mails.

      • Re:As has been said before. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tsian ( 70839 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @06:00PM (#8841960) Homepage
        Oh, I think most will now respond to and read e-mail. However, I still think there is a large psychological difference between a full inbox and a large crate of letters.

        I would argue that the letters (or large amount of calls) seem more 'real' as they take up quantifiable amounts of time and space.
      • I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers reading in The Register about the crap the British government tried to pull last year, [theregister.co.uk] regarding the public's opinion on national ID cards. Most of the response was negative, so Blair et. al. decided that the emails (which were more negative than the snail mails, I suppose) did not count. So email at your own risk.

        As a disclaimer, the main bureaucrat behind this email scandal was David Blunkett [ananova.com], who is arguably the Ashcroft of the UK.

        • I think that comparing Blunkett to Ashcroft is rather unfair. Ashcroft is nowhere near that right wing and has much more respect for human rights than Blunkett does. Still, come the revolution, at least Blunkett won't need a blindfold.

          The ignored e-mails were part of a public consultation. The civil service will always find some way to manipulate a consultation to match their desired view. However, the aim when writing to MPs is not the same. Whereas consultations are really non-binding referendums, where

    • Excuse me, but how are you supposed to write or call your Prime Minister?
      It's not simply the Parliament and its elected MEPs that we are talking about here.
      • Well, by either:

        a) Calling the office of the Prime Minister

        or

        b) Writing the office of the Prime Minister.

        Much as you would contact a regular MP.
        • Unless you've got a cheque in your hand, don't bother. Refer to sig.

          • Re:Unless... (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Tsian ( 70839 )
            I don't know, I disagree. I know one local Canadian Alliance MP who was willing to buck the party line simply because of:

            a) The views he held

            b) His constituents responses

            (Specifically, he stated he would vote for Bill C-250 which added "sexual orientation" to the protected classes of hate crime legistlation...)
      • Excuse me, but how are you supposed to write or call your Prime Minister?

        If you write to ministers directly, you will rarely receive a reply; even if you do, it will be a standard civil service reply. The correct way to contact ministers (in the UK at least) is to write to your MP and ask them to pass your concerns on to the minister responsible. They will then forward your letter/e-mail to the minister and (eventually) send you back the reply.

        If you have a really good MP, you may be able to get them to

        • Unless of course you live in Sedgefield. Then you can write to Tony as much as you want. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader as to whether the constutients in Sedgefield have a really good MP.

          (Tony Blair is the "Honourable Member for Sedgefield" for those who don't know.)
      • Tony Blair doesn't read every letter sent to him, but he does get a summary of the letters he receives by subject and position. I imagine it's similar for most PMs.
    • Karma-whoring...

      Brits can find the name of their MP from the Common's list of members by constituency [parliament.uk], or can use faxyourmp.com [faxyourmp.com]. They can find names and contact details [europarl.org.uk] for their MEPs from the UK Office of the European Parliament. I'm sure similar sites exist for other countries.

  • The one good thing (Score:5, Funny)

    by The_Mystic_For_Real ( 766020 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @05:55PM (#8841921)
    The one good thing about this is that now the US won't fall behind Europe in the software field.

  • moo (Score:5, Funny)

    by sleepnmojo ( 658421 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @05:57PM (#8841937)
    If the sites don't go down in protest, we'll slashdot them

  • Protest in your living room. (Score:5, Funny)

    by normal_guy ( 676813 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @05:59PM (#8841950)
    A net-wide protest is being organized on April 14.

    And we know that influential lawmakers frequent Slashdot, Fark, Plastic, and Sourceforge.

  • Letter Template Explaining it all to Lawmakers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12, 2004 @06:00PM (#8841953)

    Some interesting parts from a letter you can send to people, hopefully law makers who can make a difference:

    http://slashdot.org/~Sanity/journal/60471 [slashdot.org]

    --

    Patents are well suited to fields where new innovations require years of research and large amounts of capital, however this is not the case with software. Every new innovation in software builds on a multitude of previous innovations, and even a single software engineer might solve hundreds of small problems in a single day of programming. Against this backdrop, the notion of the programmer seeking a 20 year patent on each of those small solutions is clearly ridiculous.

    Worse still, imagine now that this programmer is forced to ensure that every small innovation they might want to build upon is not covered by someone else's patent. The programmer might need to conduct hundreds of patent searches in a single day of programming, and even then they would have no guarantee that they aren't violating a patent! Clearly this situation would be ridiculous, yet this is exactly the situation that programmers in the US and Japan now find themselves, and is exactly the situation that current UK government policy will impose on European Software developers!

    Even large companies are not invulnerable to such parasitic practices. In the US, Microsoft is currently fighting against a small company called Eolas who have acquired a patent on an obvious technique fundamental to the operation of any web browser. This company, if successful, will be able to extort a tax on every company and individual in the United States that uses the Internet! It is worth noting that this company's only purpose is to generate revenue through extortion using this patent, they have never written a line of computer code, nor do they have any intention of doing so.

  • When first you don't succeed... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maynard ( 3337 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @06:00PM (#8841961) Journal
    Isn't it amazing how these guys just keep re-introducing the same (or worse) legislation over and over again without regard to the voiced desire of the citizenry? How many times must we mail letters to our representatives again and again on the same issue? How many times will companies and those affiliated with the WTO continue to introduce the same legislation, maybe hidden as a rider here, maybe out in the open there, each time with the hope that citizens will tire of voicing their opposition over the same issue again and again. Un-fuck'n-believable. Except it's just one of the many ways they game the system.... --M
    • that's just it though. if the latest 'big brother' bill doesn't make it through into law, they try to (usually successfully) sneek through the majority of the provisions as some hidden amendment to a 'child protection act' or other bill. the policitians know this game very well, and the corporate backers behind them know it even better - they will continue to try this and similar things forever. one step forward, two steps back. can't believe i just quoted paula abdul...shudder...but it's true. good qu

    • Re:When first you don't succeed... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Famatra ( 669740 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @06:16PM (#8842107) Journal
      maynard said:
      "How many times must we mail letters to our representatives again and again on the same issue? How many times will companies and those affiliated with the WTO continue to introduce the same legislation, maybe hidden as a rider here, maybe out in the open there, each time with the hope that citizens will tire of voicing their opposition over the same issue again and again. Un-fuck'n-believable. "

      The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
      -- Thomas Jefferson

    • Isn't it amazing how these guys just keep re-introducing the same (or worse) legislation over and over again without regard to the voiced desire of the citizenry?

      I've noticed this too... Isn't it about time for direct democracy?

      Representatives are 'central' as are federal governments... Hence a big slow-moving target with a lust for lobbying perks. Of course the EU is as central and federal and big as it gets. The more centralized, the easier to lobby. Open to abuse.

      If only ignorance was less common,

      • Democrazy (Score:3, Insightful)

        by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 )
        ``I've noticed this too... Isn't it about time for direct democracy?''

        I don't think that's a good idea either. I for one wouldn't trust the majority to have the knowledge or even dedication to take the right decissions in many of the specialized issues that come up in politics. It's very easy to influence public opinion, as has been shown at various occasions in history, and hardly always for the better.
    • The only way to stop the madness is to make it illegal, immorally wrong, or have a penalty which would, in effect, kill (or imprison) whoever tried to change things. Since times change, attitudes change, and people change - the above isn't likely to happen. Further, whenever there is money to be made by both good as well as bad people - you have a direct conflict of interest with hampering these people from doing whatever it is they want to do.

      Some things which people want to do (such as rape, robbery, a

  • time for me to once again... (Score:5, Informative)

    by cribb ( 632424 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @06:10PM (#8842048)
    put up a link to

    http://petition.eurolinux.org/

    on my webpage. also it looks like they'll be

    organizing a demonstration on 14th of april [ffii.org]

    in brussels.

  • Slashdot entry-page. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lewiz ( 33370 ) <purple@le w i z .net> on Monday April 12, 2004 @06:24PM (#8842182) Homepage
    It would certainly raise a lot of awareness if Slashdot went ahead and put up an entry-page or banner.

    I know this won't happen (such action would set a precedence -- all petitioners would expect the limelight) for obvious reasons but it would sure be interesting if it did.

  • Software patents are bad for your economy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by doc modulo ( 568776 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @06:28PM (#8842207)
    Software patents are bad for the economy of the country which allows them.

    Imagine this future scenario:
    Say, America has software patents and Europe doesn't. Now the American companies can't use the software recipies of their competitors (you lose your patent if you don't enforce it if I remember correctly) and so their software is not as good as it could have been without the laws. The European developers can program without the cost of researching their source code or the cost of buying permission of using patented source and can use the best solutions for their software designs.

    European software will, slowly but surely, become better and cheaper than American software and American companies won't be able to sell their software successfully in Europe unless they make a special "High quality European version". Because software is mostly used to streamline business processes. Business in America won't run as smoothly as business in Europe because european business' are using more, and higher quality accounting/production/etc. programs. American economy takes a hit.

    Private software user in America won't buy software from US companies because it's inferiour to the software they can (illegally) get from Europe. They pirate either the software made in Europe or the "European version" which they can't legally buy or they import the "illegal in US" Open Source programs. US software sales and services are down because of software patents, American economy takes another hit.

    Small companies make up more than 80% of all businesses in any given country. In the US, small software companies will die because of software patents, only a few big ones will survive. Software companies will abuse their positions to increase their profits at the cost of their consumers, American business'. American business' won't be able to buy as much software as they like or will have higher operating costs because of it. The few American companies that sell software won't bring in as much economic activity and taxes as a lot of small software companies + big companies. American economy takes another hit.

    Other countries like China which present billions of dollars of potential income for the US won't buy American, they'll buy EU or build their own software. Even less economic activity for the US software industry. American economy takes another hit.

    The worst thing the European politicians can do for their countries is to allow software patents in Europe. Europe will lose it's competitive advantage over the US software industry. Even worse, their position will be much weaker than that of the US. Because software patenting has been going on for a while in the US, US companies have the most, and the most important patents on software. US companies will be able to kill off most EU software companies using their patent portfolio's and that would be a bad thing for the EU citizens. I think that an EU politician that votes in favor of software patents is either incompetent or influenced by big US software companies. Their job is to act in the best interest of the EU countries and I think the pro-patent politicians are doing the opposite, vote them off before they can profit! Who's got a list?

    Software patents are only good for a few big US software companies, bad for everyone else in their country. And even that's doubtful because they're reducing their own market if my scenario above holds water.

    Software patents are bad for the economy of the country which allows them.

  • Get Attention - An Effective Protest (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blunte ( 183182 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @06:34PM (#8842256)
    This will fall under the label of civil disobediance perhaps, but a really good way to get attention to the anti-patent cause would be for those with technical power to shut down as much as was safely possible (not power stations, etc.) in protest.

    When 2/3 of the net is suddenly gone, that might gain some attention. And then a suitable argument for doing such a drastic thing would be, "imagine if TCP/IP was patented, this is the internet you'd have; or imagine if BT had won its hyperlink coup; or ..."

    Singly we have little power other than to perhaps get ourselves fired. But collectively we have the ability to put a grinding halt on e-commerce and more.
    • This will fall under the label of civil disobediance perhaps, but a really good way to get attention to the anti-patent cause would be for those with technical power to shut down as much as was safely possible (not power stations, etc.) in protest.

      I am strongly opposed to software patents. I have written to my MP and MEPs on numerous occasions. I protest on my own web page about the issue. But doing something to my employer's site against my employers wishes is definitely a step too far.

    • And then a suitable argument for doing such a drastic thing would be, "imagine if TCP/IP was patented, this is the internet you'd have"

      And you can be sure that the corollary argument being made by the big pigopolist software companies will be, "Imagine if TCP/IP was patented by you, it is the Internet that you would have." (Yeah, I know, TCP/IP wouldn't have become so pervasive if it was proprietary, but that wouldn't stop sleazeball corporations from making that argument to politicians as they stuff the

  • Reject and Repeal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Simple-Simmian ( 710342 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @06:37PM (#8842281) Journal
    This is a bummer that the non elected members who run the EU have rejected what looked to be a better compromise. My take is that we reject all software patents in the EU and repeal them in the US and Canada.

    Software patents are stupid it's like patenting an alphabet or individual words.

    • Patenting songs and artwork. If you need to draw an analogy for the layman, there's one they can identify with:
      I'm sorry, but if your art class wants to paint that bowl of fruit, you'll have to pay us 699 Euro for each painter's fruit bowl painting patent license.

      I think the large companies are jumping at an opportunity to lock out small players and the random genious that upset the industry every so often. It doesn't greatly effect the large companies, because they have the resources to cross license b

    • I get dibs on the letter F!

  • This calls for a boycot (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pivot ( 4465 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @06:44PM (#8842345)
    There's no point in supporting a company that eventually wants to take away freedom from open source developers.

    My next phone will not be a Nokia phone..

  • Slashdot's Role (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TeachingMachines ( 519187 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @06:56PM (#8842448) Homepage Journal

    I'm using a Debian Linux box with the Mozilla browser to write this. I built it myself, and with the help of Slashdot, the web site that introduced me to free software, open source software, and widened my eyes over the years to the complicated logistics and truly revolutionary nature of collaborative development. I recommend that Slashdot and its editors take the lead once more and join in the demonstration against software patents in Europe. Slashdot itself is in the crosshairs of this legislation, and high profile action may be necessary.
    Let's fight these bastards.

    Steve Scherer

  • reference please (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    for sake of completeness of information, could
    someone please post a link to the official position
    of the Council of the European Union on this
    issue?

    This would allow people to see in detail which
    parts of the European Parliament's amendments
    to the Commission proposal's were rejected and
    on what grounds.

    • Re:reference please (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Halo1 ( 136547 )

      for sake of completeness of information, could someone please post a link to the official position of the Council of the European Union on this issue?

      Here you are [eu.int]. The Parliament's version can be found here [eu.int]

      This would allow people to see in detail which parts of the European Parliament's amendments to the Commission proposal's were rejected and on what grounds.

      The big and important differences are articles 2, 3, 5, 6(a) and 7 (note that the numbering changed quite a bit between the original prop

  • The Toll Road Ahead (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12, 2004 @07:27PM (#8842732)
    Here is one Linux consultant's take on what Microsoft may really be planning. The EU patent issue is key. This in depth article discusses MCPP and the potential impact on Free and Open Source software. MCPP is what Sun just cross-licensed with MS. What is MCPP? Here's a quote from the article (link below)
    "Microsoft's Communications Protocol Program makes available for license by others more than 100 proprietary protocols that were not previously available. These protocols can be used, in accordance with the terms of the program's license agreements, to develop a broad range of server software products that use the protocols solely to provide services to Windows desktop client operating systems or other compatible server or client software."

    If you care about the future viability of FOSS for business use, you might want to read this: h++p://www.penguinpros.com/Viewpoints/TollRoadAhea d.html

  • It's a fight worth fighting... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Monday April 12, 2004 @07:36PM (#8842803)
    Even if it's a fight that we probably can't win.

    The European parliaments are almost as bought and paid for as members of the U.S. congress and senate. So while it's more likely that this fight can be won in Europe than the U.S., it's not that much more likely.

    But the defeat of software patents is such a worthwhile goal that it's worth fighting for no matter the odds.

    • Re:It's a fight worth fighting... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The members of parliament are much more accessible than US senators or congressmen. But the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CAN'T PROPOSE LAWS!

      The European Commission is the source of European legislation. The Commission is not voted for directly by the people. It's not even voted for indirectly, through the parliament!
      • The members of parliament are much more accessible than US senators or congressmen. But the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CAN'T PROPOSE LAWS!
        Afaik this will change once the European Union constitution is approved (but I'm not certain).

  • We're Fighting The Wrong Thing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RzUpAnmsCwrds ( 262647 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @07:58PM (#8842990)
    We're fighting the wrong thing. It's not software patents that are bad, it's *bad* patents in general.

    Think of this: if I developed an algorithm to encode images, without a patent I would have to keep the implementation secret to be able to make any money. With software patents, I can patent the algorithm, and release source code for the world to use.

    While the submarine-enforcement of the MP3 patent is bad, the actual patent is perfectly valid. Why shouldn't Fraunhofer IIS get royalties for the technology they paid for and developed.

    If you can patent an improved screw head ("Torx(R) Plus"), why not an algorithm? If you developed a new compression technology or a new encryption technology, why is that any less of an invention than an improved screw head?

    What we really need to fight are bad patents. Amazon's "one click" patent is one. Patents are *bad* when they are to broad or don't cover a real invention. But bad patents are a problem with the review system.

    This is so fitting with the Slashdot mentality that "software should be free" and that "copyright is bad". Copyright and patent law serves a valuable and important purpose: allowing inventors and (in this case) programmers to decide how their work is distributed. Copyright law has become problematic - we need to go back to the original 14-year copyrights. Patent law has become problematic - we need to stop "inventors" from patenting trivial concepts. But these are problems with the system, not with the concepts of copyright and patent law.

    I end with this:

    If you invented a new concept in software, such as a better compression algorithm or a better voice recognition algorithm or a more efficent protocol to transmit data, why is your invention any less of an invention than if you had invented a better screw head?

    If you inveted a new compression system, which is better for the community: a patent which forces disclosure of the algorithm and eventually expires, or a trade secret which requires that the algorithm be kept secret and closed and may never expire?

    • Re:We're Fighting The Wrong Thing (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Halo1 ( 136547 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @08:28PM (#8843168)

      While the submarine-enforcement of the MP3 patent is bad, the actual patent is perfectly valid. Why shouldn't Fraunhofer IIS get royalties for the technology they paid for and developed.

      There is no single MP3-patent, it's covered by a lot of patents. The basic one covers iterating *any* mathematical function over a sound sample until you can represent it in a desired number of bits. That's it. You can find the claim (in German) at the EPO [espacenet.com], here's the English translation:

      Digital coding process for transmitting and/or storing acoustic signals, specifically music signals, comprising the following steps.

      • N samples of the acoustic signal are converted into M spectral coefficients;
      • said M spectral coefficients are subjected to quantisation at a first level;
      • after coding by means of an entropic encoder the number of bits required to represent all the quantized spectral coefficients is checked;
      • when the required number of bits does not correspond to a specified number of bits quantization and coding are repeated in subsequent steps, each at a modified quantization level, until the number of bits required for representation reaches the specified number of bits, and
      • additionally to the data bits the required quantization level is transmitted and/or stored.

      And that is the basic problem with software patents: there is no way you can put in the law that they can't be as abstract as this one. Even if you have some innovation in abstract reasoning that is such an achievement one could think about granting its discoverer a temporary monopoly, the resulting monopoly is way too large compared what was discovered.

      If you can patent an improved screw head ("Torx(R) Plus"), why not an algorithm? If you developed a new compression technology or a new encryption technology, why is that any less of an invention than an improved screw head?

      You are asking the wrong question. The correct one is "Will granting patents on new compression algorithms make sure that more and better compression algorithms will be developed?". All empirical studies carried out until now answer that question with either a "We don't know" or "NO!" (Bessen&Hunt, FTC study, European Commission Directorate General on Research study, ...).

      What we really need to fight are bad patents. Amazon's "one click" patent is one. Patents are *bad* when they are to broad or don't cover a real invention. But bad patents are a problem with the review system.

      It's not just a problem with the review system, but with the patent system as a whole being unfit for monopolising advances in abstract reasoning. See this discussion [ffii.org] between a programmer and the Deputy director of the UK patent office. The latter concludes with:

      However, they [patent examiners who are also programmers] might express the communication problem the other way around - it's very difficult to persuade programmers that just because an invention is "easy", does not make it any less patentable.

      Patents were never intended to sort out brilliant inventions from stupid ones. The "non-obvious" condition is simply not fit for that purpose.

      This is so fitting with the Slashdot mentality that "software should be free" and that "copyright is bad".

      I don't know about the rest of slashdot, but in case of software patents, the opponents are actually great proponents of copyright. The problem is that software patents completely undermine copyright. What good does it do that you have the right to sell you self-written program if even its publication is prohibited because someone own a software patent it infringes on?

      • All empirical studies carried out until now answer that question with either a "We don't know" or "NO!" (Bessen&Hunt, FTC study, European Commission Directorate General on Research study, ...).

        Actually, a more recent (and more rigourous) empirical study concluded just the opposite:

        The myth of the software patent thicket [ssrn.com]

        Enjoy.

        • Actually, a more recent (and more rigourous) empirical study concluded just the opposite:

          The myth of the software patent thicket

          Good. Then hopefully finally the real discussion can start, instead of endless moaning about computer programs as such, technical effects and personal desires to get rich.

          Unfortunately, I won't have time to read it until the weekend :/

    • I wonder what Einstien would have thought? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There's some truth in that, but your argument assumes that all parties have equal access to the patent system. Companies backed by millions of dollars and whos sole business is to aquire and exploit patents will always game the system to unfair advantage over more innovative individuals and small companies regardless of whether the patent has real merit or not.

      Thats where patent law falls down in its idealism.

      Solutions: (?) All patent applications must be:

      1) Free
      2) Trivial to file
      3) Must be commercialy e
    • Very insightful post, it's good that some people actually think about matters instead of going with the crowds and booing at patents.

      I have followed reasoning similar to yours, and likewise concluded that the difference between sofnware patents and other patents is not that essential. However, rather than accepting all patents, I have come to reject them all.

      Consider this. R&D Department X invents a better way to compress images. They patent their invention, and are granted exclusive rights to it for

    • Re:We're Fighting The Wrong Thing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @01:26AM (#8844927) Homepage
      It's not software patents that are bad, it's *bad* patents in general.

      No, software patents themselves are absurd.

      I am a programmer. All software is in fact a feild of mathematics, not a feild of technology. Every program is in fact a pure mathematical function. Every program can be broken down into a pure sequence of addition subtraction and multiplication. It may be a tremendously long combinations of additions subtractions and multiplications, but that is ALL that it is. Pure math.

      You can connect a keyboard to a computer. A keyboard can be patented. You can connect a monitor to a computer. A monitor can be patented. You can connect a printer to a computer. A printer can be patented.

      The only thing a computer can do is calculate math. The only thing a computer can implement is a mathematical equation.

      If you are using a word processor - you type letters on a keyboard and that keyboard send numbers to the computer. Those numbers are fed into a mathematical equation - a math equation calculated by the computer. The result of that calculation is nothing but another number or sequence of numbers. Those numbers then go out to be displayed on the monitor or printed by the printer.

      The only thing a computer can do is calculate math. The only thing a computer can implement is a mathematical equation.

      Any physical thing a computer supposedly does is actually done by a patentable object connected to a computer. No one involved is arguing against such patents. The argument is only over patenting pure software - patenting a pure math function.

      As far as I know every patent office on earth has recognized that you cannot patent math. Even the US patent office recognized it. At least they did up until a few years ago when they reversed the rules. The EU patent office still has a rule explicitly forbiding such patents.

      The US is extorting other countries to force them to change their rules. For example this treaty term:

      Jordan shall take all steps necessary to clarify that the exclusion from patent protection of "mathematical methods" in Article 4B of Jordan's Patent Law does not include such "methods" as business methods or computer-related inventions.

      There would be no need for that treaty term unless software is in fact "mathematical methods".

      Countries that do not submit to US demands potentially face punitive 100% tariff rates- economic warfare. Ukraine had been hit with such tariffs. [ustr.gov] Note that "pirate media" is a dysphemism (antonym of euphemism) for the manufacture of ordinary blank CDs without a tracking number burned into them. The Ukraine's big sin to provoke punitive trade war is that they didn't feel like making it a crime to manufacture ordinary CDs without tracking codes on them. Oooo, Eeeeevil.

      [sarcasm alert:] Manufacturing blank 8-tracks and vinyl records and tape cassettes and 5.25 floppy disks and 3.5 crunchies without tracking numbers has always been criminal, so the US is perfectly justified in attacking Ukraine for not passing such a law for CDs. [end sarcasm]

      The US is strong-arming countries all over the globe to pass rediculous laws and to create absurd crimes. And it's generally doing so under the flag of "free trade" agreements. Any country that balks at such terms faces the imposition of punitive trade barriers. So much for advocating free trade.

      And don't think I'm anti-American. I *am* American. I'm appalled at my own country's behavior.

      "copyright is bad"

      BAH! Straw man argument!
      Current US copyright laws are an abomination, but if you repeal the crap passed since 1975 or so then we'd have pretty good copyright law. Note that every copyright law since 1975 has literally been written by lawyers employed by the publishing industry. Copyright is a *good* thing as long as you don't pass bad laws under the bann

  • What good do software patents bring? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @08:27PM (#8843167) Homepage Journal
    So software patents are back on the agenda, and influential politicians are pushing for them. It makes me think there MUST be something good to them, and it's just my severe tiredness that makes me fail to see it.

    The strongest argument pro-patent people have used that I can recall right now is that they provide (financial) rewards for innovation. So, supoosedly, the idea is that we want innovation, so we want patents. I think this kind of thinking is kind of narrow; there are other ways to innovate. If we so badly want innovation, we can pool some funds and pay for R&D, right? We can pay researchers to cooperate, rather than compete, and invent new things rather than other ways to do the same thing (which would have to be found because the competition patented their ways).

    So, there are alternatives to patents, and I think it's worth investigating them. Patents are always unfair in a sense, in that the first one who is assigned the patent blocks out all the rest, even though they may have worked just as hard to come up with the invention. In current systems, obtaining patents is costly, which favors already wealthy corporations over smaller ones, which can lead to consolidation of the market in the hands of the big guys and harm the consumer - which I think is a Bad Thing.

    Practical limitations make it very hard to encertian that a technology is not (or rather, cannot be seen as) infringing on some patent, which puts even those who try to play nice at risk of being sued - which is harmful no matter if they win, lose or settle the suit.

    Software patents in particular seem to have had the effect of stifling rather than boosting innovation.

    All in all, I am tempted to conclude htat patents in general and software patents in particular do more harm than good. Obviously, some politicians and some corporations hope to gain from them, though.

  • Bad patents in the US tainting the world? (Score:3, Funny)

    by StateOfTheUnion ( 762194 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @09:08PM (#8843432) Homepage
    Does anyone else get the impression that bad patents in the US are causing other countries to amend their patent laws to allow their companies to participate in what they see as a "land grab" for patentable technology. Patents are useful, but unfortunately bad patents in the US are spoiling the game for everyone . . . and I'm afraid that the the EU is just trying to sink lower than the US because their afraid that if they don't, then they're going to miss out on the "land grab" for software, business processes and other non-tangible idea patents.

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close