Linus, Monty, Rasmus: No Software Patents 301
Jan Wildeboer writes "The three most famous European authors
of open-source software have issued an appeal against software patents on NoSoftwarePatents.com. Linus Torvalds (Linux), Michael "Monty" Widenius (MySQL) and Rasmus Lerdorf (PHP) urge the EU Council, which will convene later in the week, not to adopt a draft directive on software patents that they consider "deceptive, dangerous, and democratically illegitimate".
They also call on the Internet community to express solidarity by placing NoSoftwarePatents.com links and banners on many Web sites."
It's a nice idea, but (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll get the Office Space vote. (Score:2, Insightful)
People wonder why Republicans win elections. Ineffective, but passionate, circle jerks like this. Good luck, we'll need it.
Re:It's a nice idea, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Virtually all involved parties now claim that they are against software patents, even those who are in favour of them!
It is certainly premature to declare victory, but I think the anti-swpat movement currently has the upper hand, and all because of geeks exercising direct democracy.
Re:It's a nice idea, but (Score:5, Insightful)
The beauty of being a politician is the public listens to what you say, not what you do.
So yeah, they'll make tons of noise about being against sw patents, and then silently pass it into law.
If it ever comes up, they figure ( rightly so I imagine ) that they can spin it so the other guy looks bad, and they were the knight in shining armor ( armour for those of you on the other side of the pond ).
Re:It's a nice idea, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Its possible, but very unlikely. This is exactly what the swpat advocates tried to do over a year ago, but they failed. Before you express your cynicism you should read up on exactly what has been happening over the past two years with this.
Re:It's a nice idea, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it still cynicism when it's based on past experiences?
Re:It's a nice idea, but (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you, now please go back to knowing that you cannot do anything and leave those that actually do something fight for what they feel is worth fighting for.
Most "Realists" are do-nothing naysayers (Score:3, Insightful)
Thos who can, do. Those who can't, claim its impossible and that those who are doing are wasting everyone's time.
Congrats big-time to the European techies for standing up to the entrenched interests on this subject and, possibly, changing the course of history for the better. I do not pretend to know what the outcome of your efforts will be, but
Re:It's a nice idea, but (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure they will try again, and we will be there to stop them, just as we were this time, but in an even stronger position having won the first battle. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
As another guy said, this kind of cynicism is self-fulfilling, but thanks to people who weren't so cynical about politics and actually engaged with it, it is now very likely t
The battle could go either way (Score:3, Insightful)
That kind of defeatist cynicism is not only counter-productive, since it risks becoming self-fulfilling. It's also quite unwarranted at this point in time, when looking at the political scene in Europe.
I september 2003, the FFII [ffii.org] and other software patent opponents won a major victory in the European Parliament, when a majority of the politicians there adopted a version of the directive that said no to software patents.
Last week, it was
Re:It's a nice idea, but (Score:3, Funny)
> even those who are in favour of them!
It's good to see that the ministers of the European Union are carrying on Europe's grand tradition of simple, transparent and honest politiking.
Re:It's a nice idea, but (Score:2)
Nonsense!
"New Europe" generally follow the U.S. because they dislike communism and socialism even more than the Republicans.
Re:It's a nice idea, but (Score:3, Informative)
There is in Europe right now some sympathetic attention on the political level in many contries. The Irish leaderships proposal could fall if Poland is voting against as they have resently said they would .
I think that the timing of this appeal has something to do with the current situation. The Directive is to be voted on soon
Re:It's a nice idea, but (Score:4, Informative)
Crossing fingers and stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Crossing fingers and stuff (Score:2)
Re:Crossing fingers and stuff (Score:2)
not a law adopted in the U.S. (Score:5, Informative)
The U.S. never officially adopted software patents. The U.S. Supreme Court always ruled that software for a general-purpose digital computer is not statutory material for a patent. Lower court decisions appear to have contradicted the Supreme Court, and the USPTO has certainly granted many patents like the ones the Supreme Court struck down, but software patents have never been formally legalized. If the EU formally legalizes software patents, they will precede the U.S. in doing so.
Re:not a law adopted in the U.S. (Score:4, Insightful)
The initial/primary problem was the Supreme Court 5-4 decision in Diamond v Deihr. The 5 member majority redefined how you evaluate a patent application. That 5 member majority went on at great length about how they were not going to allow software patents. The 4 judge dissent explained why the majority ruling was wrong, and that it did throw open the door for software patents.
The four judge minority was right. The change in rules for evaluating patent applications turned patent applications into a word game, and with the right wording software patents could not be rejected.
The majority had claimed they were not going to allow software patents, but once you make a rule that 2+2=5 it is impossible to avoid a sequence of VALID logic/legal steps leading from 2+2=5 to get to 1=2.
The problem is that patent applications now need to be evaluated "as a whole". If the patent includes something new and something non-obvious and it mentions patentable subject matter then it meets all three criteria and gets approved. The fact that the new and/or non-obvious "invention" itself is NOT PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER no longer matters. Now you get patents on a mathematical equation stored on any computer readable media. The mathematical equation is "new" and "non-obvious", but math is not patentable subject matter. Howevert the moment you mention "computer readable media" that is patentable subject matter - a physical object - dispite the fact that we are talking about a plain old ordinary floppy disk. The math is new and non-obvious, the floppy disk is a patentable physical object, and "as a whole" they satisfy all three criteria for a patent. Groan.
-
Re:not a law adopted in the U.S. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is false at a wholesale level.
If the claims mention some patentable subject matter, and the invention as a whole is patentable subject matter (you are correct in that) then the application passes the statutory subject matter requirement of 35 USC 101 (In re Sarkar). There are other requirements of 35 USC 101, plus 35 USC 102, 103, and 112 which
Ineffectual (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ineffectual (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ineffectual (Score:3, Insightful)
A little background on EU institutions for the non-European reader:
The EU Council represents the member states, and its meetings are attended by one minister from each of the EU's national governments. Which ministers attend which meeting depends on what subjects are on the agenda. If, for example, the Council is to discuss environ
There have been many (Score:2)
Anyhow...
If you want to contact your ME go here(what's an MEP?)
UK [europarl.org.uk]
If you want to fax your mp go here [faxyourmp.com]
Sorry, the whole MEP thing's a bit crap, and it looks like lists are regional.
They will listen. (Score:5, Informative)
Ok i think it's looking like a close run thing
According to this site [smallbusinesseurope.org]
there are 278 allied for patents.
and 269+ allied against.
The European People's Party and European Democrats (EPP-ED) remains the largest party in the parliament with 278 seats. The EPP-ED brings together Christian Democrat, conservative and other mainstream centre and centre-right political forces from across the twenty-five EU member states. The UK's Conservative Party MEPs are attached to the EPP-ED.
The Party of European Socialists (PES) is the second largest party in the parliament with 199 MEPs. The PES brings together the socialist, social democratic and Labour parties in the parliament. The UK's Labour MEPs are members of the PES.
The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) brings together European political parties with common liberal and democratic ideals. This group was newly formed from the European Liberal and Democrat Reform group (ELDR) after the June 2004 elections. Despite only having 67 MEPs, which is relatively small compared with the EPP-ED and PES, the ALDE often holds the balance of power in crucial votes. The UK's Liberal Democrats are members of the ALDE and the current President of the ALDE is the UK's Graham Watson.
The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA) is the political grouping to represent green parties and parties of stateless nations in the parliament. The UK has two Green party MEPs and the SNP and Plaid Cymru MEPs are also members of this group.
The European United Left/ Nordic Green Left (EUL/NGL) is a socialist and communist group within the parliament. (go on you reds)
The Union for Europe of the Nations (UEN) is an anti-federal group of MEPs from parties on the right of the political spectrum.
The Independence and Democracy group (formerly known as the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities (EDD)) is critical of further European integration and centralisation and favours the creation of a Europe of Nation States. The UK's UKIP MEPs are attached to this group.
Wow, it's just like a bush kerry, but with less blood and more money involved.
The time has come... (Score:4, Interesting)
NoSoftwarePatents.com (Score:2, Informative)
People look out for their own self interests.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux and and MySQL have much to lose if strong european software patents become a reality since both are technologies that, for whatever their pluses, rely heavily on imitating prior art.
Therefore, it is little surprise that they'd come out against software patents. It's like hearing exactly one side of the argument. I don't see any reason to take their views as somehow more correct or enlightened than microsoft's or IBM's might be from the other side. each actor is acting in his economic self interest in a pretty blatant way.
Re:People look out for their own self interests.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like all software written in the past 50 years. Perhaps you also heard about "standing upon
the shoulders of giants". That's how development works in general: you take an existing thing, add your own ideas and wow: there's an improved version (which someone will take and add his own ideas to make something even better).
Re:People look out for their own self interests.. (Score:2)
That does not conflict with patents and royalties. Right now, to stand on giants' shoulders, one needs to chip in some money.
Who wants to be a GPL giant is welcome to do so, but why should we take away the right of non-GPL giants to collect some fees for their work?
All other aspects (what is and should be patentable, etc.) remaining the same, I don't think anyone has the right to take away from innovative thinkers the only means they
Re:People look out for their own self interests.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People look out for their own self interests.. (Score:5, Insightful)
As do virtually all technologies. I'll point out, however, that despite popular views to the contrary software is not technology. It is mathematics.
I don't see any reason to take their views as somehow more correct or enlightened than microsoft's or IBM's might be from the other side.
So I'll go with two of the great thinkers of The Enlightenment, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, who were both scientists and inventors of commercial products and yet opposed the overbroad and over strong application of "intellectual property" in general, believing that ideas were for the benefit, and the property, of all mankind.
And software is nothing but an abstract idea.
KFG
Re:People look out for their own self interests.. (Score:2)
Not that I disagree with you about its patentability.
Re:People look out for their own self interests.. (Score:3, Insightful)
A scientific theory is tested by experiments. And is considered valid until new experiments come up with results that the theory cannot explain.
A mathematical theorem, on the other hand, is proven with irrefutable logic from unquestionable postulates. One is always free to disregard or change postulates, and come up with different theorems. That is how "non-euclidean geometry" came about; Riemann and others dropped Euclid's Parallel Postulate, and saw what they could come up
Re:People look out for their own self interests.. (Score:2)
So you're saying it's okay to modify GPL software, embed it (say into an MP3 player) and not provide means for customers to obtain the modified source code?
And if you install the same code on HDD via Web download, then that is NOT OK?
Physical representation has nothing to do with patentability of someone's intellectual effort (as you say it's an approach - meaning there are multiple ways (for example to
Re:People look out for their own self interests.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The defense said the guy was innocent, but they're the defense so of course they said that. The prosecution argued to the contrary, of course. Oh, well, no disinterested parties weighed in so I guess we'll have to declare a mistrial and move on."
What you've managed to do is completely ignore what both sides are saying. Why don't you listen in and see which is more convincing?
Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Of course, we campaigned against that too, and they ignored us then as well.
If Linus was American.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this the first time Linus has used his 'fame' like this?
I say great work for all three of them, I have used all thier products numerously, and together, they should win awards (although the combined 'banging head against wall' linux, mysql and php have given me in the past
Patents are patently a bad idea, they illegitimise our very thoughts. I am all for protecting and incubating progress for small companies, but patents have only done the following:
Small company gets rediculous patent, Kodak buys them, and forces a settlement for publicity.
The european constitution should write that software is free from patents. Patents are supposed to bring about change, yet we see it stiffling progress at every turn!
I myself worry about patents in my own programs, and ask
OK I'll shut up.
Re:If Linus was American.... (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem, however, is in the system that grants patents. It seems that patents for pretty trivial stuff is being granted (double-click??). And the only way to really enforce a patent is to go to court and sue somebody if they steal your idea. So what happens when a big company patents a solution to a problem that's been in the public domain for ye
Re:If Linus was American.... (Score:2)
However only nasty money stealing corps are winning at the patent game.
We pay the price. Imagine how much cheaper services would be if the companies weren't shovelling heaps of cash at each other, with little lawyers stuffing it down thier designer trousers.
I agree, patents are good anti-
Re:If Linus was American.... (Score:2)
Why is that so?
Note that laws regarding theft already prohibit somebody from stealing from me.
Note too that a method for doing something that I've patented doesn't belong to me; I have simply been given an exclusive right by the government to use that method for a certain number of years in exchange for my willingness to tell other people how to do it, so that they can eventually do
I would use the banners... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a good cause, and I support them wholeheartedly, but they could really do with a more professional edge...
Re:I would use the banners... (Score:2)
* 45% thought the new desktops were about to be implemented, and the geeks were hanging around outside waiting for the job to start;
* 32% thought that new Active Directory system broke down again, and that this was the v
Re:I would use the banners... (Score:2)
It's also on my web page, put it on yours:
<a href = http://nosoftwarepatents.com><img src="/nsp_logo.gif" border=0 alt="No Software Patents!" width=352 height=37></a>
http://nosoftwarepatents.com/ima ges/nsp_logo.gif
copy the image locally to prevent your page from slowing down if they get slashdotted again...
Or if there are
Re:Fair comment... (Score:2)
right, europe... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re Torvalds et al.: I don't care what a few figureheads have to say. Especially not benevolent dictators with special interests and a band of unwashed groupies (us, mostly..) whose drumming typically resonates as far from the realities of modern politics as can possibly be measured. The tune is markedly different, but the drum might as well have been made in Redmond.
I would like to see people discussing personal freedom and rights. I would like to see this as a battle for the individual, not "us" vs "them". Unfortunately, that involves a lot more thinking than "gooooooo Torvalds".
Re:right, europe... (Score:3, Informative)
Right. Because there are no European [ffii.org] organisations [fsfeurope.org] campaigning [eurolinux.org] on this [theregister.co.uk] issue [caliu.info].
Absolutely none.
Software Patents Sometimes Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Software patents are even more important than patents in other fields, due to the ease with which software techniques can be duplicated. Patents are absolutely necessary to protect small companies from having their ideas taken without any credit or compensation to the original source.
Much of the criticism against patents that has been leveled on this website is also driven by ignorance. People do not realize how specific patents are. I have seen posts on many patent articles here that read the first one or two claims and assume that a huge range of existing work is covered, without checking out the remaining claims that make it clear that one very small thing that is original is the actual target of the patent.
I won't defend the existing patent system too much, since it is flawed with respect to software. Since software patents are easy to implement, the costs required to develop them can be recuperated much faster than other areas, so a shorter duration of protection would probably be better. Some patents have been applied overly broadly, or granted when they were not merited.
But the abuses do not stop the patent system from being useful for software. The problems are things that can be worked out, not fundamental flaws with the idea of patenting software algorithms.
Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good (Score:2)
Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good (Score:3, Insightful)
What problem? Software patents solve NO problem at all. Software patents are a relatively new invention implemented in only a few nations--the vast majority of computer science research took place and takes place WITHOUT the "benefits" of patent protection. With software patents, there is LESS incentive to research new ideas and applications in computer science--researching prior art becomes more important than fi
Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good (Score:5, Insightful)
MP3s of economists on SWP at recent conference (Score:2)
But don't listen to me. World experts covered the topic much better at the recent two day con
Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think so(*). Because
1.) (Software)Patents are very expensive which is a much higher burden for a small company than a big one (in relative terms)
2.) Defending patents is expensive. In the ideal world, it would be simple yes/no outcome of a log(n)-searchtree if a patent applies or not. In the real world, it very much depends on how you pay your lawyers...
3.) Corruption. Yes, it happens.
And if a patent application of a 10000+ employees company is considered, the name is probably well known to the evaluating person etc.pp. Not so with 5-people garage inc.
IMHO, SWPATs are just an addition to the immune system of the big companys, to squash the smaller ones and in the end to stifle innovation. Yes, this is a rant.
(*) - I don't even think that ordinary patents do any good to small companies, but that's another issue...
Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good (Score:2)
Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Software needs to interoperate with other software. Sooner or later you have to sign away your patent protection to gain the closed API, or use of someone else's patents. If you look at the companies that have successfully used patents against big companies, they are almost always pure patent plays that sell no real product.
"I have seen posts on many patent articles here that read the first one or two claims and assume that a huge range of existing work is covered,"
Patents for browser plugins successfully used in court, one click patents successfully used in court, patents for video conferencing successfully used in court..... The courts seem to have the same problem!
"But the abuses do not stop the patent system from being useful for software."
Its not just abuses there are more fundamental problems:
Software implementation is already covered by copyright. The algorithm inside the software was never previously patentable, as a result most existing software is built on algorithms that haven't been disclosed.
YOU CAN'T TELL THE ALGORITHMS USED FROM THE COMPILED RESULT.
Hence prior-art can't be established because you can't see inside the old software.
The BSAs tricky wording removes the 'technology' requirement from software (as required by TRIPS). Other inventions have to be technological, but thanks to some backdoor work by the BSA, simply being software is enough to count as technology.
So a one-tick of a paper order form isn't patentable, but the same system written in software is.
The lobbyists bypassed the EU Parliament to push this through.
Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good (Score:2)
That's pretty much the whole idea behind patents: protect the original innovator. Could you give an example of this working in the real world? A single patent of software that you consider valid and granted to a small to medi
Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good (Score:2, Insightful)
And here is the problem, patents should not be used to protect ideas. By allowing a patent on an idea, what you are saying is that it is impossible for another person to come up with the same idea through independent tho
Software as a mathematical forumula or as an idea (Score:3, Insightful)
When a person tries to patent software, they either patent the idea of what is done or a particular implementation. The problem with this is that patenting an idea doesn't require implementation (an
Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good (Score:2)
I'm sure you'll agree that clarity is important here and attempts to blur the distinction between the various forms of expression can be misleading. Simplistic, even.
Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good (Score:2)
The European Parliament, composed of democraticly elected MEPs voted for a limited and fairly acceptable law which allowed limited software patents, though I'm not sure if it included my desire for patent clamants to demonstrate a inovative leap.
The Council of Ministers however is rejecting this democraticly chosen version in favor of it's own infulenced by bi
Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that's exactly why software patents are dangerous. If a developer can come with a solution to a problem, it's more likely that another developer will solve a similar problem using a similar solution, without knowing about the former developer or his solution.
I for one, would agree with patents on some algorithms that took a considerable amount of research, mone
Insight? You don't understand patent claims. (Score:3, Insightful)
Every single claim stands by itself, (although it may build on another claim e.g. 1 or N-1) and you can be sued for any single claim that you violate.
In addition, if the patent has an overbroad claim 1, a court may still decide that the rest of the patent has merit. This is very wrong and puts no incentive up for patent attorneys to even file a decent patent!
Th
Mindless, ignorant drivel. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apart from this being generally one of the most insightless posts there's ever been on this subject - while disgracefully and ironically dismissing as ignorant the many truly insightful ones there have been - the parent is himself grossly ignorant even of what a patent is: Patent claims in a patent document do not narrow the scope of any of the earlier claims. Each independent claim stands on it's own - which is why it is called a claim! I would've thought most people here would know that by now. Driven by ignorance indeed!
Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with software patents is that they don't really protect "the little guy," at least not if the little guy actually writes software.
Let's say, for example, that your small company gets a patent on some cool idea and creates a software product based around this idea. Now, let's further speculate that your idea becomes the next web browser, the money starts rolling in, and Microsoft announces plans to create a similar product.
Your company is safe because it has a patent, right?
Wrong, because chances are good that your company infringes on all sorts of patents that Microsoft has, including stupid patents like the double click and the isNot operator. So the Microsoft folks show up with a stack of papers three feet thick detailing all of the ways in which your product violates their patents. Now, theoretically you could fight Microsoft, but the reality is that the litigation could easily cost you hundreds of millions of dollars, and there is a good chance that you would lose on at least some of the patent infringement charges.
So what do you do? You cross license your patents with Microsoft, and you probably end up paying Microsoft some money because they have more patents than you do. After all, you still want to be able to sell your product.
The only case in which patents help "the little guy" is in those cases where the little company doesn't actually write software. Microsoft (or IBM, or Sun, or whoever) can't put pressure to cross license patents on companies like Eolas, because Eolas doesn't actually have any products.
In the real world all patents do to "the little guy" is force up his development overhead. This gives the larger development firms a distinct advantage. They already have patents that they can cross-license, but you don't. This allows the large software houses the ability to shut down smaller shops essentially at will. How many small companies can afford to litigate against IBM or Microsoft?
Now, if you want to live in a world where the little guys have to satisfy themselves thinking up patentable ideas instead of actually writing software, that's fine. It's not where I want to live, however.
Good point: Big companies for software "patents" (Score:2)
Fighting the smart way (Score:3, Interesting)
the smart way instead of the hard way.
I think that if we continue the fight the hard
way (lobing) we will have to fight it every year
as long as we have a corrupt governments, which
i have reason to think is as long as we use money
as a payment system.
I think the smart way to handle the patent problem
is to make a patent license which work with patent law
as the GPL work with copyright law.
here is an example:
There is 3 players
1) The public patent foundation (PPF).
A not for money foundation which
hold a collection of patents under PPL.
2) a small inventor.
3) a big corporation.
Here is how I think the public patent licence (PPL) should work.
For a inventions under PPL the following is required.
a) All other patents the invention violate must be under PPL.
b) Blueprints/Source code/technical details for the invention must be published trough the PPF.
The is also a similar Lesser PPL (LPPL).
For a inventions under LPPL the following is required.
a) All other patents by the invention violate and made by the inventor must be under PPL.
b) Blueprints/Source code/technical details for the invention must be published trough the PPF.
c) The inventor must be a member of PPF.
As a member of PPF you pay a fee which help maintain the
PPF patent portfolio.
So, PPL invention is free for all while
LPPL invention have some secondary patents.
Scenery.
1) The small inventor.
a) A inventor get a patent, for an invention and start to produce and sell the
product.
b) A big corporation start to make and sell a cheep copy.
c) The small inventor call the corporation and say stop that I got a patent.
d) The big corporation say your invention violates 10 of our inventions.
Please, grand back your patent or we sue you.
e) The small inventor sells drops in the competition with the cheep copy,
and he can't afford to maintain hes patent.
f) He donate the patent to the PPF and get a nice tax discount.
g) The PPF goes to the big corporation and say your violate
one of our patents, either stop making the cheap copy or get a PPL or LPPL.
Re:Fighting the smart way (Score:2)
Thats what Linus etal are trying to achieve.
Considering your PPLs and LPPLs is at best a little premature.
I think the PHB will turn into a UXB when he reads about the PPL software using GPL components downloaded from the PPF and trying to decide if he can sell the frikkin thing.
As for it being the smart method, all I have to say is, the approach used to great effect with copyright issues may not necessarily work for other areas.
Re:Fighting the smart way (Score:2)
Yes, but this is not the reality of the world.
To win the battle this way you'll have to
have more money/time than your opposition, for lobing your government
or else the opposition will just keep trying every year, until they got there way.
I would rather spend my time programming !!
PPL is like judo your use the power of the patent law
against itself.
The more strict the patent law is enforced the better the PPL becomes.
Not No Software Patents, but SMART Software patent (Score:3, Insightful)
the FFII and others cannot even define precisely what a "software patent" is and most of the arguments boil down to no patents period - which is never going to happen.
instead of engaging the pro-patent side in thoughtful debate and trying to reach a compromise, Open Source is shooting themselves in the head by taking such a strident anti approach.
my colleagues are of the opinion that the best way to combat the anti-patent forces is simply to let them speak and make fools of themselves in front of the parliament. it seems to be working. emotion and passion are simply no substitute for sustained debate.
at the end of the day, friends, the EPO is not controlled by the EU and even if the EU does nothing the situation at the EPO and in the member states of the EPC will remain unchanged.
torvalds et al, despite their god like status on slashdot, are simply no counterweight to the European companies supporting the directive:
Accenture, Agilent, Alcatel, Apple, Bang&Olufsen, Blaupunkt, Bull, Canon, Corning, Dell, EADS, Epson, Ericsson, Fujitsu, Grundig, Hitachi, HP, IBM, Infineon, Intel, JVC, Kenwood, Konica-Minolta, Lexmark, LG Electronics, Loewe Opta, Lucent, Marconi, Matsushita, Microsoft, Motorola, NEC, NEC-Mitsubishi, Nokia, Nortel, Philips, Pioneer, Samsung, Sanyo, SAP, Sharp, Siemens, Sony, Texas Instruments, Thales, Thomson, Toshiba.
and the National Trade Associations:
Austria: FEEI; Belgium: AGORIA; Czech Republic: SPIS; Denmark: ITEK, ITB; Finland: SET; France: ALLIANCE TICS, SIMAVELEC; Germany: BITKOM, ZVEI; Greece: SEPE; Hungary: IVSZ; Italy: ANIE, ASSINFORM; Ireland: ICT Ireland; Latvia: LITTA; Lithuania: INFOBALT; Malta: ITTS; Netherlands: Nederland-ICT; Norway: ABELIA, IKT Norge; Poland: KIGEIT, PIIT; Slovakia: ITAS; Slovenia: GZS; Spain: AETIC; Sweden: IT Företagen; Switzerland: SWICO, SWISSMEM; United Kingdom: INTELLECT; Turkey: ECID, TESID
http://www.patents4innovation.org/
what is needed is to put down the spears and drums and to engage in thoughtful debate so that reasonable legislation will result. give up the NO PATENT position and try to reach the compromise that is inevitable and that best serves everyone's interests.
Re:Not No Software Patents, but SMART Software pat (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with software patents is very simple and it is this: software is not a traditional industry in which invention is expensive and needs protection. In software invention is the process itself. When a vague notion of patents is applied to t
Re:Not No Software Patents, but SMART Software pat (Score:2)
It should be kept in mind that the fools rushing in are the patent lobbyists, trying to define very abstract and highly dubious principles unprecedented in commerce.
While it's possible to portray the FOSS position as naive and unrealistic, it's equally possible to regard it as a prudent and conservative restatement of the status quo ante.
My own opinion, which I have not seen stated elsewhere, is that society should indeed reward those who produce ideas, but this req
Re:Not No Software Patents, but SMART Software pat (Score:2, Interesting)
"The maximum term for patent protection is 20 years. By contrast copyright lasts much longer, for 50 years after the death of the author. Curiously, the OSS lobby has not voiced any concern about the much longer term for copyright even though copyright is the protection mechanism favoured by the OSS lobby. If 50+ years is not too long, why is 20 years maximum too long?"
This is such a bloody irritating strawman it is untrue. If my web browser infring
Re:Not No Software Patents, but SMART Software pat (Score:2)
Re:Not No Software Patents, but SMART Software pat (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not No Software Patents, but SMART Software pat (Score:2)
Re:Not No Software Patents, but SMART Software pat (Score:3, Insightful)
I really wonder where that open source obsession of all you pro-software patent people comes from. You guys even seem to think FFII is some kind of open source lobbying organisation. Maybe the fact that this easily shown to be false when talking to politicians is one reason that we have been so successful until now, as that i
Re:Not No Software Patents, but SMART Software pat (Score:4, Insightful)
It's nice to know that the Eu is finally becoming the main location for so many US and Asian companies. Feels like 5 of those are actually european companies.
Re:Not No Software Patents, but SMART Software pat (Score:3, Interesting)
Take your straw man and go home. Pure FUD.
Stating that patentability should not be EXTENDED to software is in no way an argument against patents on actual inventions.
cannot even define precisely what a "software patent" is
engage in thoughtful debate so that reasonable legislation will result
The definition of valid patents (and by implication defining by exclusion non-patentable software) has already been created, the thoughtful debate has occured, a
Re:Not No Software Patents, but SMART Software pat (Score:2)
What is crucially missing... (Score:4, Interesting)
Because the problem is, companies have *already * invested in software patents in Europe. So take a large company that has applied for maybe 50 software patents over each year, worldwide, in the past 3 years.
Some companies do so because they believe that their software methods should be patented. And while it is true that some awarded software patents are outrageously stupid, some are really nontrivial.
Other companies have mostly seen a "tactical advantage" in doing this, because (1) at a certain level (read: non-technical execs, financial analysts, shareholders) the number of patents granted per headcount per year is thought to reveal the quality of a Research & Development organization, and (2) when you have a portfolio of patents of your own, people are less likely to attack you for infringement, out of fear that you will attack them in return.
You can agree or not with these reasons, but the reality is that they have pushed many companies to invest millions in software patenting. So, as long as activists out there don't propose a way for these companies to "land smoothly" in no-software-patent land, actions like these are very unrealistic.
It doesn't help that the group is using bogus figures, such as claiming an average cost of EUR 30,000 for patenting something. Application fees have been made very small (in the hundreds of EUR depending on the country). Patent attorney fees, from my own experience, are more likely to range in the EUR 2,500 range for single-country application, and twice or three times that for worldwide application. That is not EUR 30,000 at any rate, unless you count in the inventor's own time writing down his/her invention.
Re:What is crucially missing... (Score:2)
Some succesful attempts to sneak some SW patents (which are not enforcable - and are not enforced) into the EU patent office (while well knowing that they should not be able to do so) does not change this fact.
In fact, I suspect, these were moves done out of fear that someone else patents something before them - having an explicit decision that there should not be software patents alleviates that fear most efficiently.
Too late for the U.S. but... (Score:3, Insightful)
if we Americans can voice support for the EU to ban software patents, then we must might be able to use that as a flanking maneuver to ultimately get them stopped here.
It's a thought.
Re:Too late for the U.S. but... (Score:2)
How so? All the relevant Supreme Court decisions were *against* software patents. That open source indemnification insurance company that PJ from GrokLaw helped start could end up taking a case to the Supreme Court and getting the entire concept invalidated. Or Microsoft could (vs. Eolas, etc.).
Re:Too late for the U.S. but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Same thing that happens with any other invalidly issued patent, nothing. Hell, that's what they do with most patents, absolutely nothing. Most issued patents simply sit in a filing cabinet gathering dust.
The only effect is if they attempt to enforce their patent and take someone to court - the court would toss out the case.
Do they sue the gov't for issuing them in the first place?
No, you don't get to sue
And where is Slashdot's support? (Score:3)
All right, let's see /. do this.
deceptive, dangerous, and democratically... (Score:2)
The EU Concil is anything but democratic. They make arbitrary decisions by whoever has the loudest voice at the moment.
Why doesn't the.... (Score:4, Funny)
- Set up a standalone trust/charity/not for profit organisations
- Patent various aspects of the OS code/world and any new stuff that's developed
- Take out the patents in the major places (e.g. us/eu etc.)
- Assign the patents to the above organisation
- State that the software patents can only be used in OS products or have to be licenced from the above organisation
- Team up with a bunch of laywers to tackle anyone who uses the patents without permission (no win no fee)
- And fight, head-on, the bigger organsiation
The monies from licensing fee can then be used to develop/promote/move forward the OS communityLook the OS community has proved that we can write good software and fight hard when we need to. We have also shown that we can organise disperate people in various places, timezones, languages etc. and form them into a very effective development team. Now why don't we do the same for patents and a) protect ourselves and b) fight back!
Hell if anyone else is interested in helping I am more than happy to try and setup the organisations (UK or worldwide), e.g. do the leg work, talk to people etc..
what do people think?
Jaj
Lack of information (Score:2)
Members of Latvian Open Source Association (LAKA) work together with our MoJ on software patents problem. I've discussed this issue with them last friday [solutions.lv]. It turns out that EU authorities had very little information on software patents before we started this anti-patent company. Now they understand (we hope) how harmful SW patents can be for entire SW industry here in Europe.
Horrible banners (Score:3, Informative)
Has anyone looked at the immature banners [nosoftwarepatents.com] that are provided by NoSoftwarePatents.com [nosoftwarepatents.com]? The European banner [nosoftwarepatents.com] is misspelled: Europe's better off without software patents. Learn the difference between a contraction and a possessive before making banners to be distributed around the world. The other notable one is "Stop the patent mafia!" [nosoftwarepatents.com] That may be a valid analogy, but it is so childish that no one will take it seriously. Then, a barely readable sign surrounded by flowers [nosoftwarepatents.com].
The advocates of this side tend to cite naive outrageous one-sided claims, then wonder why businessmen and politicians don't get the message. Some of the over-hyped Slashdot headines serve as good examples. Pictures of students protesting isn't going to sway anyone's opinion. Try a picture of a company losing money because everything they try to do is covered by some trivial patent.
Self Correcting Patent System (Score:3, Interesting)
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/arnold/archive/2004/
None of this political position really matters.... (Score:3, Informative)
The reason is really very very simple...
politics and machine switching logic are way big time different things.
There are two ways to discover gravity. drop and apple or step off a cliff.
Either was gravity is going to take charge.
The same applied to software.
The difference here is that it seems half of the people with influence are insisting on doing it the harder and more deadly way. While the others are trying to present apple dropping evidence to those who find that evidence to weak to accept and respond with smart ass comments about making apple pie, again and again... they will try again next year if they don't kill someone this year....
So there is really only ONE WAY to get the hard reality across to the death seekers.... give them death...
ALOT OF IT!!!
bring to a hault all software development and use of anything that is not patented yet and don't pay for anything that is....
This can be bigger and better than the itty bitty "boston tea party". And it can make the boston tea party analogy hardly used...
So I'm being asked now..... how would it be possible to have such a party, that those against patents on software would most certainly attend?
Any ideas? Or is there a fear that most will wimp out?
Re:And in related news... (Score:3, Insightful)
So IBM [ibm.com] don't care about Linux, for instance?
Re:And in related news... (Score:2)
No, they don't.
Do you know how much money from patent royalties they make every year?
If you think they'll support anti-software patent laws you are nuts. Whoever dared to try would get fired right away for destroying shareholder value.
Re:And in related news... (Score:3, Interesting)
And they strengthen that position every day. So I would expect that one day, when they feel the time is right, IBM will strike out against software patents.
Re:Did anyone actually CLICK the link? (Score:2)
Come on this is Slashdot, who reads the article before posting?
Re:Did anyone actually CLICK the link? (Score:2)
Re:no patents? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the FSF page about GIF [gnu.org]:
Of the places whose patent databases we were able to search, the latest expiration date seems to be Friday 11 August 2006.
Note that the patent which expires at that date is not the Unisys patent, but an IBM patent also covering LZW (and therefore GIF).
Now, I guess IBM is unlikely to sue (it would probably hurt their Linux strategy), but that doesn't make that patent disappear.