




EU Ministers Went Off-Brief In Patent Vote 290
MartinB writes "Several EU ministers reportedly went against the wishes of their nations in voting for the proposed EU Software Patent legislation in May. Among those misleading the council of ministers were representatives from Holland, Poland and Germany. The Dutch parliament is going as far as asking to change its vote, which was originally in favour of making software patentable."
It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the USA didn't get things right on the first try either. We created a national government under the Articles Of Confederation that had so little power it couldn't tax and therefore quickly ran into problems getting anything done. (The writing of the US Constitution was actually a rather peaceful overthrow of the existing US government of the time rather than the creation of a government where there was none.)
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:4, Informative)
Fortunately the world noticed in time (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately it seems a few European nations have noticed the current US system is only good for patent lawyers and draining resources to fight off vulture corps. Even Microsoft's recent BS patents being awarded had to have helped wake up the EC to the insanity which is destroying the American ability to innovate and compete.
Maybe a few of them also noticed that such legislation was only a first step. Next would have been a "unified" patent database "offered" by the US which would have started with a portfolio of bogus patents owned by US interests. Essentially signing over a world-wide "software tax" to US corporate interests.
Not only would the US businesses continue to be gutted by IP vultures, the EC businesses would have been caught up in the same nightmare. The US is quite welcome to continue destroying the American economy, but thank God the rest of the world has finally noticed the insanity of their patent "system" as a viable model.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, sounds like something else [congress.gov] I've heard of.
At least here in Canuckistan, the business interests only have to buy off the Prime Minister, and the rest of the party is forced to follow. Simpler and more efficient kakistocracy!
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:5, Insightful)
You say this like it's a bad thing. Remember, we didn't need an income tax until 1913, when the chick who wrote the screenplay for "The Mummy" [msn.com] wrote "her other horror story" - the first income tax form.
It'd be funny if it wasn't true; and yes, I know that the government had tarrifs on imports well before 1913. But taxing income just bugs me - it's not taxing the rich, it's taxing the people who are working hard to create a new barrier to prevent new people from becoming rich.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:2)
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:4, Interesting)
For better or worse we also have stopped our isolationism and need to support a standing military capable of fighting wars overseas to preserve our interests. This doesn't just affect oil in the middle east, but it gives the US leverage to prevent things like China invading Taiwan (which could devastate the tech industry for several years)
Income taxes are more useful than consumption taxes (which preceded income taxes) to tax the rich. The percentage of income spent on goods is typically inversely proportional to the income of an individual. For example poor people spend almost all their money (people living month-to-month) on goods and necessities; Rich people can buy goods and necessities, and still have money left over to save. A consumption tax would be regressive, since poor people would be taxed on nearly 100% of their income, while rich people 70-80%.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly you have to assess the value of the assets "fairly", plus it's just not worth the time to assess the value of low value assets, just major ones. Thus land + housing + financial asssets are the main tax targets under such a system, simply because it's not worth the governments time to evaluate the worth of o
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:2)
Indeed, I (grandparent post) recognized that consumption taxes are even more regressive than income taxes; and occasionally think asset taxes would be better in some ways. An amusing way of declaring your assets, is to assign a value to everything (list big-ticket items, and list "everything else" as another item with value), and those items are essentially up-for-sale at ebay at that price. That way people'll be conservative about overvaluing their assets, not undervaluing them.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:3, Insightful)
What the hell does that have to do with anything? This is an income tax, remember? It's a tax on how much you earn not how much you own. Stop diluting the argument with irrelavant statistics.
Imported from the UK (Score:3, Insightful)
However inequitable it may seem, income tax was fairer than most other taxation methods which were largely based on your assets on a particular day. Tax assesment was horr
Re:Imported from the UK (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:2)
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:4, Insightful)
Income taxe, that taxes you as you get the money.
Possesion taxes which tax you on what you have, even if you are not spending it.
Outgo taxes which tax you on what you spend.
Outgo taxes encourage savings, discourage spending, which runs counter to the consumption based philosophy our society is based on. It is a tax on the poor, as the poor do not have enough cash to save, thereby a larger portion of their money is taxed. The rich simply spend a far less percentage of their money, so they end up being taxed less.
Possesion tax, discourages savings - if you spend what you have instead of saving it, the government never taxes you. Smart people would go on lots of trips when they are young, never letting the government see the 10,000 bonus they earned. Unforunately this seriously hurts people that want to retire and live off of savings. Again this tax affects the poor people the most, preventing them from making the change from poor to rich. While the rich do tend to get taxed the most, they generally have enough money to avoid being seriously harmed while the poor/middle class have a HUGE road block on the way to becoming rich.
Income taxes encourages people to save what they earn, thereyby helping people become rich. While it does not hurt the rich the most, it is the best for poor folk, as they can both get taxed less than the rich folk and do not have a roadblock stopping them from becoming richer themselves.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:5, Insightful)
The quote that I find most relevant here, And I'm going from memory is:
Prime Minister: I explicitly ordered the UN ambassidor to abstain from the vote!
Humphery: Yes but an order to the Foreign minster becomes a strongly worded word to the permanent secretary. Which becomes an advisory to the UN under secretary. Which becomes a suggestion to the Ambassador. Who will vote for what's best for him.
I would not be surprised if this thing happened in the countries involved. Yes Minister while being a satire and funny. Is still a satire and reflects on real life.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:3, Interesting)
So close a refelection that Margaret Thatcher once called it "[a] closely observed portrayal of what goes on in the corridors of power".
I often say that Yes Minister would be even more hilarious if I didn't know it was actually the sort of thing that goes on.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think it's a good idea to compare both institutions. You compare a intergovernmental institution with a nation. When you want to compare US with EU member states, you have to check whether Negroponte represents the opinion of the majority of the US citizens when he casts his votes in the UN Security Council.
Nevertheless, you are right that this might rock the system, just as much as the EU world was rocked when the fraud by the French commissioner Edith Cresson was brought out. Perhaps nice to know, although off topic, is that the dutch EU civil servant who brought this to the light is now a member of the European Parliament.
There have been a lot of complaints by Dutch MPs that they are unable to control the ministers in the Council of Ministers. But they did not act. So finally, they know now they can control the Dutch vote over there. About time.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:5, Interesting)
You compare a intergovernmental institution with a nation.
At first, the United States *was* an intergovernmental institution. There's a reason they're called "states", and it's no coincidence that 'state' is a synonym for "national government". At first, it really was a union of independant states.
What makes things signifigantly different is the culture. Unlike the EU, The new USA was made of member states that all spoke the same language. Unlike the EU, they all came from the same original parent culture. And unlike the EU, the states in question had no previous history of independant sovereignty to protect, and so were willing to 'give up' a little more. (They were moving from being colonies of an empire to being states in an alliance, without any intervening period of independant, non-allied rule.)
This could happen in the USA too. (Score:5, Insightful)
What Americans actually vote for is "electors" who have been selected by campaign organizations to be the people who will represent the people who are running for president. Each state holds its own election to determine which slate of electors they will send to the "Electoral College"... whomever gets a majority of the votes for president there wins. (Should three candidates get electoral votes, and nobody gets a majority, the election is kicked to a special session of the House of Representatives where each state gets exactly one vote.)
The point is that these electors were selected by the campaign of the candidate they're supposed to vote for, and are contractually and legally bound to do so... but, uh, what if they don't? That's just plain uncharted Consitutional territory. The Supreme Court would most likely have to issue a ruling that'd end up deciding the outcome, deciding if the votes would stand as originally cast, or if the "expected" result should be used instead effectively making the Electoral College meeting the formality we all want it to be.
That's exactly the situation the EU seems to have worked themselves into here. They've ended up with "unfaithful" representatives who didn't do as they were expected to, and the EU hasn't exactly pondered what to do in such a situation yet.
I'm just saying, it's not like this is a situation that could never happen in the USA...
Re:This could happen in the USA too. (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how the EU is set up with regards to this?
Re:This could happen in the USA too. (Score:3, Informative)
However, electors *have* cast votes for a different candidate than the one they were expected to vote for. Tennessee in 1948 is one example.
See here [presidentelect.org] or
Re:This could happen in the USA too. (Score:5, Informative)
The Two step French approach (Score:3, Informative)
"According to French polling rules, the presidential elections, a direct vote for the candidate, takes place in a two-step election process. The top two finalists meet a second time in run-off elections, which is how Le Pen has managed to face off with current President Jacques Chirac for the top job. The process allows for alliances to take shape in the two-week period between polling, just as it g
Re:The Two step French approach (Score:2)
What we really need is a Condorcet voting system; a little longer to run, but at least people can both send a message to the elected (with a careful choice of "alternative" first choices) and sen
Re:This could happen in the USA too. (Score:2)
Getting a different guy in the White House is a "minor" change?
Wow. I thought I was cynical.
Re:This could happen in the USA too. (Score:2)
I think each state getting #ofRepresentative + 2 "votes" for president is a good thing, however I think that it shouldn't be all or nothing. Perhaps each district within a state would determine their particular "vote" and the extra two would go to the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote.
Re:This could happen in the USA too. (Score:3, Interesting)
there is at least one state (new hampshire, i believe) where one elector votes for the candidate who recieves the popular vote in each congressional district, and the remaining two electors vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in the state as a whole. thus it is not uncommon for new hampshire t
Re:This could happen in the USA too. (Score:2)
#ofRepresentative + 2 "votes" = # Representatives + # of senators :)
I know, I just thought it went without saying
Re:This could happen in the USA too. (Score:3, Informative)
They didn't trust anybody...not even the general public. (The line "Your people, Sir, is a great beast" is commonly attributed to Alexander Hamilton.) The electoral college, and the original way that senators were elected, were yet another check and balance... and some argue that the amendment that switched us to direct election of senators is a mistake.
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
If you think about how ignorant and/or stupid the average person is, and how few people even bother to vote anyway, do you really even want them choosing the president?
Re:This could happen in the USA too. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This could happen in the USA too. (Score:3, Interesting)
The point is that these electors were selected by the campaign of the candidate they're supposed to vote for, and are contractually and legally bound to do so... but, uh, what if they don't? That's just plain uncharted Consitutional territory. The Supreme Court would most likely have to issue a ruling
This is incorrect.
First, this is not uncharted territory. It has happened several times in the past that electors didn't vote the way they were expected to, though I don't believe electoral infidelity has
Re:This could happen in the USA too. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite. The EU Council, which took this decision, is not intended to represent the people. It represents the governments of the respective member states'. The governments, in turn, are supposed to represent the people.
(The EU parliament is the direct representative
Re:This could happen in the USA too. (Score:2)
Wrong (Score:2)
In other words - the Dutch wish to vote No (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In other words - the Dutch wish to vote No (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7442 [osnews.com]
Re:In other words - the Dutch wish to vote No (Score:5, Informative)
And I'm glad or parliament is not in favour of this, thank god there are some sensible people in politics *knocks on wooden thing*
Re:In other words - the Dutch wish to vote No (Score:2)
And now the Minister of Eco. Affairs claims it was an error in his word processor.
I gotta agree with you. That's about the most farfetched excuse I've ever heard. His word processor made a mistake!? What did it do? Did spellcheck change "No" to "Yes"? The bastard should be investigated thoroughly and don't be afraid to break out the anal probe. Regardless of what the investigation finds, he should be sacked for incompetence at the very least.
Re:In other words - the Dutch wish to vote No (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In other words - the Dutch wish to vote No (Score:2)
What a shock (Score:4, Funny)
In other news, the sun rises.
Bit like a revolution in the electoral college (Score:2)
It's Legal... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's Legal... (Score:3, Interesting)
No it isn't because it was just a preliminary voting on the draft of the directive. The text first has to be translated into all official languages of the EU before there can be a final vote but normally that just confirms what the preliminary voting said.
BTW even if the decision of the first voting is confirmed it's not law because first there has to be a second reading in parliament if that votes against patents (again) the council has to vote for unanimous
Found It (Score:3, Informative)
And it looks like I was wrong. If the parliament rejects it a second time it's dead
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Those two bills are taken to a "conference comittee", where appointed members of the House and Senate hammer out the differences to each other's satisfaction, and report out one unified bill. However, that comittee can't pass their bill on to the President directly, both the full House and Senate must pass exactly same bill with a majority vote in order for that to happen. If either house amends the conference's bill and the other doesn't make the exact same change, then it's back to the comittee room to try again.
The point is that this meeting of the Ministers with briefs shouldn't be able to come up with a binding decision... they should come back with a suggested law their legislative bodies should review and cast the real vote on.
Stop the ride! (Score:3, Insightful)
Or we could just ditch the whole thing. My parents voted to join a common market in the 70s (a 2 way split in this household). What we have now is a fundamentally un-democratic, sleaze-ridden gravy train for an 'elite' band of largely unknown technocrats, elected through an utterly flawed process.
The sooner we have a referendum to get out of this farce the better.
Re:Stop the ride! (Score:2)
The French demonstrated a rather effective solution to such a situation back in 1788 or so, but I don't think the ability to even dream of such an action is in their or anyone else's blood any longer.
Re:Stop the ride! (Score:2)
I dream about it all the time.
French revolutionaries were not anti-patent (Score:3, Interesting)
Well I'm not sure you've chosen a very apt example there, because one of the first things the French revolutionary National Assembly did, in early 1791, was to pass a patent law stating that "it would be to attack the rights of man in their essence not to regard an industrial discovery as the property of its author".
-wb-
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't want someone in control of, say, a Minuteman silo to be allowed to just "behave like a human being" whenever he or she wants to. No, when trust is betrayed on such a grand scale it is time to make some repairs. The decision must be made as to whether the entire system is too flawed to continue, or whether some drastic changes can save it, but if the EU does not serve the needs of its member countries (and peoples) then it should be dissolved until something better comes along.
Regardless of the outcome on software patents (the effects of a bad decision will not be felt for some time, but they will feel them, much as we are) this is a political disaster. If the ministers cannot be trusted to adequately represent their members on something this important, what else can they be trusted to screw up? If I lived in Europe right now I'd be very concerned. I guess we aren't the only ones suffering undue corporate influence in the halls of power.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Although you may not agree with this current vote, there may be others in the future where you would want the ministers to vote for what is right rather than to rubberstamp what they are told to. It's called statesmanship. What if the voting were reversed? What if their briefs said to vote for software patents but they decided not to?
Even our damned chancellor... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Even our damned chancellor... (Score:3, Informative)
The federal government is confused. There are big German software company's too (SAP) with IP portfolios and they have respectable lobby groups. The EPO itself certainly seems to want software patents. It is difficult to go around s
Re:Even our damned chancellor... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the easiest or best known (or possibly the obvious) way of doing something is restricted, people and companies are motivated to come up with a new way of doing it
Well, software patents can cover the entire concept. The patents are written so broadly that they come to apply to things you'd never expect them to cover.
Re:Even our damned chancellor... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be curious to know whether you would support the kind of interoperability exception contained in article 6a [ffii.org] of the EU parliament's (amended, anti-swpat) version of the software patent directive? If so, you might want to support or donate to the FFII [ffii.org] anyway, because they played a
Re:Even our damned chancellor... (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the most undemocratic decisions here... (Score:5, Interesting)
A vote in the European Parliament not long before had REJECTED US style software patents, much to support of the vast majority of their constituents.
The ONLY people interested in promoting Software Patents here are a few (not all) of the large corporations (Microsoft, Nokia) and, of course, the IP lawyers, and some relatively influential (unfortunately) politicians and civil servants who have been duped. The VAST majority of others who are aware of this are dead against it. To make the message clear, excuse the shouting...
WE DO NOT WANT SOFTWARE PATENETS HERE.
Software patents are not in force here yet, hopefully they will not be but there is an enormous fight on our hands to prevent it.
Re:One of the most undemocratic decisions here... (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, you crazy cats, gotta make up something quick, damned lameness filter... Woodstock 94! w00t!
I always did wonder.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Why must we always hurt the ones we love?!
Re:I always did wonder.. (Score:3, Funny)
They won't get rid of those politicians, because all they care about is healthcare or terrorism or the issue-du-jour....
I took off my briefs too... (Score:2, Funny)
Go Figure.
About time. (Score:5, Informative)
Here in the Netherlands, the fact that that asshole minister of us voted FOR software patents has been a nice little riot in the dutch techie world. People were encouraged to write said minister, write to his party, write to the head of the party, parliament, etc. I think that all of this caused sufficient public backlash that forced our goverment to make that bastard swallow his words and do The Right Thing(tm).
Dupe? (Score:2, Informative)
They know the game (Score:5, Insightful)
The corporations won the war.
This Should Be No Surprise (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This Should Be No Surprise (Score:5, Informative)
You do realise that the problem in this situation was the coucil, that is the gouvernements of the member countries? Not "Eurocrats in Brussels".
Re:This Should Be No Surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This Should Be No Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't talk rubbish. The bad people in this are representatives of National Governements: they are the Bad Council Ministers. The good people are representatives of the people: elected members of the European Parliament, not beholden to National Government interests.
According to your arguments, then, the European Parliament should be making of beuraucratic, self-interested, and destructive policies which ruin my autonomy as a UK citizen. But that's not true!
The European Parliament wants to guarantee my software and business method freedom. The freedom to write and share my creative work. And they frame it in quite noble and clear language too, so the good intent isn't easily twisted. It means I am free to do the work I want and invent and share all my best ideas, as much or as little as I want. It's my choice, I'm free, so I'm happy.
The UK Government wants to take away my software and business method freedom, making it illegal for me to publish my own code on my own web site and making it even more illegal to sell my own code. If I come up with an improvement to an existing idea, I cannot safely share my improvements in public. I can be sued, and go to jail if I cannot pay massive fines.
So, you still think it's better to eliminate the EU part?
If the UK Government gets its way, through the Council of Bad National Government Ministers, my work becomes effectively illegal and I am less free. It's that simple.
I have no special interest in being a member of the EU. But when the European Parliament would guarantee my freedom, and UK government if it was totally independent would take away my freedom, then I must support the European Parliament on that issue. Wouldn't you?
-- Jamie
Some questions ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me start by saying that I think submarine patents are a gross abuse of the system and should be abolished. And I agree that, in general, intellectual property law needs to be reformed. Both these ideas are beyond the scope of this post.
Now, you ask the average open source advocate what s/he thinks about software patents, and s/he will be opposed to them, on the grounds that they stifle innovation. I can buy that to some extent. However, if you ask the same advocate why s/he wants a particular patent invalidated, it's usually to copy a patented algorithm and incorporate it into an open source product. That doesn't seem like innovation to me. It's true that open source would let others learn about the algorithm and improve on it, but there's nothing preventing you from studying a patent -- in fact that's the whole point of the patent process. If you're keen enough, you can take the ideas in the patent and implement a free work-alike (like png, gzip, or the free equivalent to rsa), and innovate away.
Looking deeper, I don't see that it's consistent to be in favor of patents but opposed to software patents. This is because software blurs the line between a device and a description. For example, consider an integrated circuit. This is clearly a device, and hence patentable, right? But it can be described using a language, such as VHDL. In fact the VHDL can be used with a programmable chip to instantly implement a work-alike to the device. Hence, if the chip is patentable, the VHDL should be patentable too.
It's as though you had a description of a tool (a drill, say), which could be instantly implemented on some universal machine. The description is only trivially different from the tool. (This may sound ridiculous, but with 3-d printers and related technology, the day may not be far off when we see such a thing.)
To take a Touretzkian view, this means that either all patents are valid (including software), or none are
Re:Some questions ... (Score:2)
No - its usually because she has already implemented the algorithm independently and want to be able to continue to use it.
*snip*
but with 3-d printers and related technology, the day may not be far off when we see such a thing
*snip*
that either all patents are valid (including software), or none are
The day where anything can be
Re:Some questions ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I like the idea of Open Source, but I don't think it should be forced on people, and I'm sure lots of people here agree with me. I also don't think software should be patentable. I do think it should be copyrightable, though.
The difference is that with a patent, you're covering an entire process. You've patented going from A to B, and nobody else can do that without paying you off. With a copyright, you've only restricted one path between A and B, and others are free to find their own.
With real inventions, it doesn't tend to work this way. I could invent a light bulb with a filament made from cork, and Bob could invent one with a filament made from pasta. In my limited experience I think both would be valid and neither would be able to sue the other. Software patents, however, seem to always deal with the results, and not the processes. Someone is given a software patent for the equivalent of every light bulb, no matter what materials it uses. This is the problem.
Re:Some questions ... (Score:2)
So you patent either results, or whatever that can be an important piece in the large chain that makes systems work, and
Re:Some questions ... (Score:2)
Actually your VHDL code may be copyrighted just as the circuit diagram can be. The problem is that when you copyright the design, it can't be used as the basis of a patent because it should be free of all encumberances after the protection per
My gripes with software versus real patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Ideas are often trivial to come up with, and should more often than not be dismissed for being obvious. Since that is a sleeping criteria, huge amounts of trivial ideas will be granted a software patent. It is also requires no real-world connection at all. You could pick up "Science Illustrated", and patent everything they claim is "likely to appear in the next 20 years".
3. An expired software patent is still protected by copyright. Since the software itself and the patent description is essentially the same sequence of commands, you can't use it anyway. While whereas with a real patent, I could use your exact blueprints (as appearing in the patent) to build my own device.
Real patents describe a path from state A to B. Software patents describe the process of going from A to B. Getting a patent should mean that you've actually done some work and found a way from A to B, not merely assumed "some way to go from A to B will be invented". That is not innovation. That is profiting from someone else's innovation, and is directly opposed to the purpose for which patents were created.
Kjella
Re:My gripes with software versus real patents. (Score:5, Informative)
Except that's not how patents on physical inventions work. Patents on almost everything except software cover implementations of ideas, and ideas for physical objects are not patentable at all. Only in software and other non-physical areas (e.g., "business methods" patents, which are even more absurd than software patents) are ideas given such protection. That's one of the major reasons that even people like me, who support IP law in general, think software patents are a horrible idea.
The case against software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
You're exactly right-- the advocate wants to use a particular technique to build something. Now, if you view this sort of activity as nothing more than a commercial process in which the open source developer is trying to get somethng for nothing , with no greater significance, then it's perfectly reasonable to follow your line of reasoning. Problem is, in the aggregate, building things is how innovation happens. Cut it off and innovation strangles.
The "gray area" for policy makers is not whether software inventions should be considered patentable because of their similarilty/dissimilarity to physical devices. The real argument is whether software patents will advance the process of innovation (and otherwise benefit society), or slow down innovation and harm society. Opponents of software patents have made an excellent case that in this particular situation, at this time, software patents will severely restrict innovation in an important industry.
Now a great deal of their justification comes from the observation that software patents being allowed in places like the US are overly broad and carelessly considered. But more importantly, it comes from a deep understanding of the nature of invention and the state of the art in software. Whether you're considering hardware or software, inventing new things has almost always required the use of components invented by other people. Imagine if the independent inventors of last century had been denied access to the capacitor, battery or transistor-- because those things were patented and only large corporations with legal departments and plenty of capital could afford to license them. So many of the things we take for granted today would never have been invented.
Why are software patents different from these physical devices? For one thing, where many patented devices can be constructed and sold in bulk for a reasonable per-unit price, it's difficult to purchase an algorithm or an application at your neighborhood Fry's. And since corporations generally can't profit through bulk manufacture/licensing of software components, they profit through high licensing fees unmanageable to the small inventor. Or they profit by using their patent portfolios as defensive or offensive weapons against potential competitors. Open source development, arguably one of the most promising engines of 21st century software innovation and cost reduction, is in some cases an innocent victim of this, in others, a direct target.
But here's the important issue: while physical device patents may have encouraged invention and innovation throughout the last century, there is no reason to assume this will be the case for software patents. While an efficient model may develop to smooth over the economic inefficiencies of a software patent system, none has yet, and the interim costs will be high. So the near-to-medium-term result of software patents is not a net increase in innovation or a financial windfall to society, it's exactly the opposite. And for this, some argue that society should subsidize the creation of a software patent industry. I don't think it's worth it, and I think this is the aspect of the debate we should be focusing on.
Re:Some questions ... (Score:2)
Re:Some questions ... (Score:2)
The RSA algorithm may seem like a 'breakthrough' to a software developer but as a mathematician I see it rather differently. The patenting of the RSA algorithm, like the DHT algorithm before it and any other piece of maths disguised as a software idea was a disgraceful act - effectively the partial privatisation of a piece of mathematical knowledge.
The patent on the RSA algorithm was particularly egregious as it is the obvious and *only* algorith
Re:Some questions ... (Score:2)
Re:Some questions ... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Alan Turing, having given us the design for a machine that can produce the same mathematical results as any other known mechanical process, has prior art on all software. Any patent he would have taken would have expired a long time ago. To patent a specific use for his machine is like some joker patenting the use of Edison's Lightbulb for lighting a living room, and another joker patenting the use of lightbulbs
Re:Some questions ... (Score:2)
Re:Some questions ... (Score:2)
Why not ask instead, the average mathematician, scientist or proud owner of what he or she once assumed to be a general purpose electronic computer? Just how is it you think anyone has the right to lay claim to exclusive ownership of any particular use of such a device and deny the owner of the machine his right to put it to that use?
"it's u
Re:Some questions ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do some reading about the history of patents and you will see that patents were introduced to make sure inventions were not kept secret and would disappear from society when the inventor died. Granting the patent
Re:Some questions ... (Score:2)
The spin in this article is un-fucking-believable (Score:5, Insightful)
What right to collect royalties? Their entire problem is that so far they don't have that right!
Reform. (Score:2)
They want special rules for software patents? Well then, how about this: You can only be granted a patent on process A which achieves X if you in the patent describe a process B which also achieves X, which is released for everyone to use. B of course would typically not be as effective (memory, time, whatever) as A, so the patent grants you, for a limited time, the exclusive right to one [efficient] method to achieve something, but it can never give you a monopoly. Of course, someone else is free to come u
I'm shocked, truly shocked! (Score:2, Funny)
EU goverment is too complex (Score:3, Insightful)
The EU system is still too complex, people doesn't understand how it works, and that's why that kind of weird things find a place to happen.
In a more simple and logical system people is aware of what's going on, and have more direct ways to interact.
Of course EU goverment is still in preliminary stages, we have just aprouved a (still to be referended) new (and complex) constitution, that's why we need to be specially careful. It's really easy that a 'technical' matter as software patents could be politically manipulated by interested lobbies as a 'minor' question.
One of the big problems in the EU process is the dichotomy between states fighting to keep his power, and the need of a better interstate and interregional harmonization, another is the need to equilibrate very different economies. In that big scenario software patents risk to be a undesired and silenced loss!
More than ever we need to keep talking about these things.
This just in (Score:3, Insightful)
We WILL vote yes, to save his own goddamn face.
He can do that too, motions on our parialment our not binding.
See (dutch) Webwereld.nl
Goddamn motherfucker. Sorry for the cursing, im MAD. I am being ruled by idiots, with NO respect for their constituents.
"/Dread"
Dutch minister refuses to withdraw Yes-vote (Score:3, Interesting)
So far, I have not heard any report in the normal media about this political conflict which has been ongoing for some months now. Appearantly, the normal media does not consider it as news, probably because they do not understand the issue. Which is a very sad things.
EP divided over this issue (Score:3, Informative)
I've talked to many members of the european parliament about software patents. As FFII correctly reports, the representatives are really divided about this issue. A majority is just plain ignorant of the problem, and will vote according to the wishes of the party that sent them in the parliament (probably pro swpat).
Others are genuinely interested in avoiding the blunders of the US patent system, but they don't know exactly how to do it. The most favored solution would be to patent computer based innovations that are having a "technical" impact. The idea being to protect software controlling industrial robots and some such. Unfortunately, the definition of "technical impact" is being disputed and very blurry, to say the least.
Then there's the fraction of representatives who have fallen prey to the IP lawyer lobby group. They really believe that they are helping innovation by unifying the already present patent laws in all EU countries.
All in all, it looks like we've lost this battle to the giant IP/patent holders. Perhaps we didn't protest loud enough and have been widely ignored by the mass media. That's very sad indeed.
That's a Move in the Right Direction (Score:3, Insightful)
Parent munged Oblig Simpsons Quote Re:I'm shocked. (Score:3, Funny)
Sideshow Bob is on trial for release.
Lawyer: Isn't it true you have Die Bart Die tattoed on your chest.
Sideshow Bob: Actually it's German for The Bart. The.
Head Juror: Oh, well no one who speaks German could be evil.
Sideshow Bob gets released.
Re:Interview For Patent Attorney (Score:3, Interesting)
Well not being a patent attourney, but being directly affected by it. Yes there are thousands of software patents in europe, most of them illegally and sloppily granted. (Guess the only exception to this is the UK where SWPATS already are legalized on a national level)
Ive read several of them most go like. System and machine implementation - this is the wrapup, then a vague description of the algorithm to cover as ma