Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Government The Courts News

More on the Microsoft v. EU Decision on Software Patents 445

Posted by CowboyNeal from the settled-for-now dept.
bollow (a) NoLockIn writes "As pointed out on Groklaw, Microsoft has told the EU's Court of First Instance that "certain of the communications protocols that the Commission requires it to provide are covered by patents or patent applications and that it intends to file, before June 2005, a large number of patent applications." In view of this, Poland's courageous action against software patents is a great relief. There's an online thank-you letter for Poland with already over 10000 signatures."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More on the Microsoft v. EU Decision on Software Patents More

More on the Microsoft v. EU Decision on Software Patents

Comments Filter:

  • Poland.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 23, 2004 @08:07PM (#11173247)
    I guess we're sure, now, that Poland will never be forgotten.

  • /. /.ed? (Score:2, Informative)

    by brain007 ( 798589 )
    Wow, 85 AC replies vs 3 real replies.

    Let's hope someone patents AC spam so that they get charged a dollar everytime they wanna talk about something offtopic.
    • it has to do with a bug in slashcode or a problem with the /. servers I think, ppl cant log in and now it seems the main page is intermintently down
      • Yea, I figured as much.

        I'm thinking someone figured out a way to do some AC spam DDOS type thing.

        It would take a lot to bring down /. though.

        • Re:/. /.ed? (Score:5, Funny)

          by kesuki ( 321456 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @09:24PM (#11173672) Journal
          It would take a lot to bring down /. though.
          Not really a simple "shutdown -h now" would do it.
          • Not really a simple "shutdown -h now" would do it.

            I was playing around as root :) on a server once when I was learning Linux (dangerous), and I found out that you can simply echo stuff straight over /dev/kmem. Makes the box lock up solid. What other (stylish) ways do Slashdotters have to make boxes go bang-bang?
            I did rm / -rf once too. (On purpose. No, really. It was an only machine that needed rebuilding, and we thought, what the hell.) It wasn't that great. It trashed some dirs, and stopped when it g

        • Pretty much. Look at the replies, and it's the same AC's over and over again. Heh.. I wonder how easy it is to turn off AC posting for now.
          • ask and ye shall recieve... click user preferences over on the top left of this screen, from there click on 'comments' then look for "Anonymous Modifier (modifier assigned to anonymous posts)" and set that to -6. All AC posts even those rated +5 funny are now -1 (to you) you can safely browse at 0, and not see any AC posts.
    • That's probably because /. apparently is having problems with user accounts right now, including logging in (though I could log in to post :).
      • I was able to get in, logged in automatically, by going directly to the story page (from an RSS/RDF aggregator). But the homepage is no go, as you've all noted.
      • It probably has something to do with increased traffic - it's the holidays, and people are snowed in all over the country.

        I was able to get in through the RSS page, btw. Go to http://slashdot.org/index.rss [slashdot.org] and the main page will be there, just in a non-html format.

    • Source of /. problems found? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Lord Satri ( 609291 ) <alexandreleroux@gmail . c om> on Thursday December 23, 2004 @10:08PM (#11173921) Homepage Journal
      There has been a major security issue with Slashcode revealed this week. See http://www.slashcode.com/article.pl?sid=04/12/20/1 946225 [slashcode.com]. I hope today's Slashdot troubles are not related to this...
      • Nope. The major security issue is a cross-site scripting vulnerability. Basically, you craft a special URL to /seearch.pl and steal the password of those who click on the link. This is just a shitstorm of AC spam DDOSing the site. (I thought FormKeys prevented this?)

  • Oh, it's MICROSOFT! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You know, I read the headline, and I honestly could not figure out WHO'S sql server was being delayed. So I said to myself while opening it; why diden't the author of this specify which SQL server is being affected?

    On a slightly more seious tone (though I did honestly not know who's server was being delayed; I thought it was some no named server that I'd never heard of!), do not allow microsoft to pull another 'we own the word windows'; never shortern Microsoft SQL server, into SQL server- at the abso

  • IP laws in the internet age (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think you missed the thrust of the grandparent's comments. A better way to put it would be that the DMCA makes it trivial to prevent all legal copying. Do we threrefore need specific legal rights to restore the ability to create "fair use" copies? It may be impossible to prevent most forms of copying from a technical stand-point, but doing so makes you a criminal, even if what you're doing falls easily under "fair use" provisions. lq
  • RSS URLs e.g. http://slashdot.org/slashdot.rss [slashdot.org] and http://apple.slashdot.org/apple.rss [slashdot.org] seem to work, and it seems possible to load any valid article or comments.pl or article.pl URL e.g. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=133791 [slashdot.org] or http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/23/22 59226&tid=155&tid=123 [slashdot.org], but the index pages e.g. http://slashdot.org [slashdot.org] or http://apple.slashdot.org [slashdot.org] all seem to be broken, I get mostly 503s and the occasional 500.

  • European Patent Law (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jmcharry ( 608079 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @10:06PM (#11173906)
    Unless there has been a change since I had a minor involvement with it, European and international patent law requires that a patent be at least applied for before an invention is put into commercial service. Apparently putting an unpatented invention into commercial service is roughly the equivalent of publishing it. I believe this is different from US patent law.
    • Unless there has been a change since I had a minor involvement with it, European and international patent law requires that a patent be at least applied for before an invention is put into commercial service. Apparently putting an unpatented invention into commercial service is roughly the equivalent of publishing it.

      Which should render that invention unpatentable. Ditto for a court judgment mandating publication, even if the whatever was technically patentable before (including where there was a patent a

      • However Microsoft would need to specifically enumerate which patents [...] which would effectivly publish what they wish to keep secret.

        Isn't the whole idea of patents that the invention will not be kept secret? How can they expect to patent an invention and keep it secret anyway? A patent application must include details about how to build whatever was invented. That is why software patents, if they would be allowed, would require publishing of the source code (which makes it pretty much patenting a m

    • Re:European Patent Law (Score:4, Informative)

      by back_pages ( 600753 ) <back_pages AT cox DOT net> on Friday December 24, 2004 @08:47AM (#11176036) Journal
      In the US, offering the invention for sale is certainly the equivalent of publishing it. From the date it was first offered for sale, you have 1 year to apply for the patent. If you wait longer than a year and the patent examiner discovers it was offered for sale, you are subject to a 35 USC 102(b) statutory bar which means your invention falls into the legal category of SOL regarding a patent.

  • Software interfaces (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alwin Henseler ( 640539 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @10:32PM (#11174092)
    As far as I can tell, the judge wasn't impressed with Microsoft's arguments, and ruled essentially that software interfaces should be openend up enough to allow competing implementations of protocols, even if these happened to be patented.

    And also that documents defining protocols or interfaces may be copyrighted, but that fact alone should not prevent competing implementations of such protocols. Read: perhaps a patent covered protocol, a copyrighted document describing the details, but still allow 3rd parties to make their own implementation of it.

    Microsoft may have many bases covered, but sometimes the interests of society to enable inter-operating software, weighs heavier than the patent/copyright interests of a company. IMHO a very balanced, and righteous decision. It doesn't prevent Microsoft from making money with implementation of such protocols, it just levels the playingfield a bit for other parties who want to do that as well.

    If a software interface isn't so crucial, one might say: let company have its way, and consumers choose alternatives if they want to. But with 90+ % market share, a software interface can become crucial, or leave no real alternative. A legal decision like this is good, simply for putting at least some limits on corporate greed and vendor lock-in.

    If you can't beat them, make them irrelevant.

    • Patent number 123, a method for machine to machine communications over a network.

      The first machine opens a socket to the seconds and sends the message hello.
      The second machine replies with myprotocol v1.0

      End of patent.

      The problem is when the patent includes things like handshaking that must be implemented in exactly the way the patent says for them to work.

    • Re:Software interfaces (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ignavus ( 213578 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @02:20AM (#11175093)
      "sometimes the interests of society to enable inter-operating software, weighs heavier than the patent/copyright interests of a company"

      In theory, the interests of society ALWAYS weigh heavier than the copyright/patent interests of a company. Patents and copyrights only exist (in theory and law, if not in practice) because (and to the extent that) they benefit society. They are NOT an inherent right.

      The law allows patents and copyright in order to increase the number of inventions and works of creative writing. If it can be shown ineffective at reaching that goal - or even worse, counter-productive - then patents and/or copyright should be abolished.

      That is why software patents are bad news - they correlate with a decline in innovation.

      • Re:Software interfaces (Score:3, Informative)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        In theory, the interests of society ALWAYS weigh heavier than the copyright/patent interests of a company. Patents and copyrights only exist (in theory and law, if not in practice) because (and to the extent that) they benefit society.

        This is explicitally described in places such as the US. Even though this may not be explicit with in the EU the assumption behind any law is that it must be to the benefit of the society it applies to.

        The law allows patents and copyright in order to increase the number of
    • perhaps a patent covered protocol, [], but still allow 3rd parties to make their own implementation of it.

      Normally the sole function of a patent is to be able to block 3rd party use or implementation.

      YES! You have found the perfect compromise to the software patent confict! LET them patent logic/math/software if want, but make them unenforcable worthless patents with no effect whatsoever! Woohoo! I say we immediately make it law world wide! :)

      -
  • Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it...
    Why was there such a big push to get software patents through in the EU before the end of the year, why was the dutch deligation applying pressure on Poland to accept software patents without a vote?
    Could it have been related to the judgement date of the Microsoft appeal?
    Through court actions, Microsoft postpones having to give more information about their protocols, until Software Patents are safely in place, to turn their punishment into a completely ineffective slap

    • Why was there such a big push to get software patents through in the EU before the end of the year, why was the dutch deligation applying pressure on Poland to accept software patents without a vote?

      Simple non-paranoid answer: because the EU presidency rotates through all the member states, and each country wants to make the biggest impact (reed: most treaties, laws etc.) when they have presidency. The Netherlands has one week left...

      So, another case of a government with tiny brains and big ego's.

    • The Dutch government has an unhealthy need to support american companies. That's why we are in the JSF project, instead of the Eurofighter, and that's why we were having secret talks with Microsoft about long-term contracts for a quarter of a million government desktops. Personally I would _very much_ prefer that such money would be spent on the local economy, creating European jobs instead of sending ever more money over the atlantic.

      Anyway, I still STRONGLY believe that Microsoft is currently in the pro

  • come on /.ers http://thankpoland.info/ is still up - go and sign your name.
    • I did, and this is what I said:

      I'm a software developer on a project containing nearly a million lines of code. The thought that at some time in the future I would have to search through a mountain of patents to check that every single line of code is non-infringing is terrifying. It would be like allowing novelists to patent plot devices, or a sentence structure that has a particular emotive effect, and so I thank you and our Polish friends for having the courage and principles to stand against the forces

  • Courageous act? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by peterprior ( 319967 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @04:01AM (#11175349)
    Why must it have to be such a courageous act? Shouldn't it be more an act of common sense?

  • Letter to Wlodzimierz Marcinski (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shaper_pmp ( 825142 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @04:12AM (#11175368)
    I would like to take the time to thank you personally for resisting pressure from special-interest groups with a vested interest in pushing software patents. Software patents are slowly stifling our industry, and by extension muddling and retarding our technological advancement as a species.

    The original aim of a patents was to grant a *temporary* monopoly, for the express purpose of encouraging innovation by allowing inventors to bring a new invention to market without having to worry about plagiarism. Software is not an invention - is is more akin to an idea, which was expressely *not* patentable for most of the history of patents.

    The US has (relatively) recently begun to allow the patenting of ideas - software algorithms, "features" of software, even "business models"(!), and this has almost completely co-opted the patent system from an inventor support mechanism to a business weapon - "You do what we want or we'll sue for infringement". This was never the intention of patents, and patenting of ideas instead of inventions has mired the entire US technology industry in litigation, and made independant developers afraid to write useful software in case it infringes upon a patent they didn't even know existed.

    Add to this the US patent office's blatant inability to understand the industry, and terrible track-record on prior art (eg, people were able to successfully patent the idea of "hyperlinks", even many years after the web became mainstream), and you have a situation where patents are issued almost carte-blanche, and it is left up to the legal system to decide who owns what (which rapidly becomes a case of "who can afford the most justice"). If it's left up to the legal system to decide on patent claims, invariably the richest company or individual will succeed, and many (most?) smaller developers and inventors are simply priced out of the market - they can't afford to defend their patents, so they aren't worth the paper thay're written on.

    This devalues patents as a concept unless the holder can afford hundreds of thousands of pounds of legal fees. This leads invariably to a type of techno-feudalism: the rich and powerful can own all the (intellectual) property they desire, while the poor have no rights they can defend - their right to own (intellectual) property exists in name only.

    I doubt this gigantic and unequal division between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is the *intended* consequence of a decision to allow software patents, but it is the inevitable one.

    Many thanks for taking the time to read this letter, and please continue to resist pressure from all those who would co-opt our laws and statutes for their own selfish ends. You have the support of the technology worker (even if not the technology companies) behind you.

    <name>
    <e-mail address>
    • Add to this the US patent office's blatant inability to understand the industry, and terrible track-record on prior art (eg, people were able to successfully patent the idea of "hyperlinks", even many years after the web became mainstream), and you have a situation where patents are issued almost carte-blanche, and it is left up to the legal system to decide who owns what (which rapidly becomes a case of "who can afford the most justice"). If it's left up to the legal system to decide on patent claims, inva

  • Polish translation request (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bollow (a) NoLockIn ( 785367 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @05:13AM (#11175497) Homepage
    Would someone be willing to translate the Thank Poland letter [thankpoland.info] into Polish for me?

    I have a friend who's from Poland, but he's been away from writing anything in Polish for six years, so I think it's probably better if someone else does the translation and I ask my friend only to double-check the translation for accuracy.

    -- Norbert Bollow (contact information here [bollow.ch])

    • Without diactrics (damn Slashcode):

      My, nizej podpisani, chcemy przekazac Rzadowi Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej
      szczere wyrazy wdziecznosci za dzialania na rzecz usuniecia z porzadku
      obrad posiedzenia Komisji Rolnictwa w dniu 21 grudnia 2004 "pozycji A"
      dotyczacej przyjecia "Dyrektywy Patentowej na Oprogramowanie".
      Przyjecie tej "Dyrektywy Patentowej" byloby ogromnym bledem Unii
      Europejskiej.

      With diactrics in LaTeX format:

      My, ni\.{z}ej podpisani, chcemy przekaza\'{c} Rz\k{a}dowi
      Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej szczere wyra
  • it looks like the EU, thanks in part to the FSF who actually listened to what i had to say, is actually going after microsoft at the level where it actually matters.

    AOL: waste of time.

    Netscape: waste of time.

    Media players: mostly a waste of time.

    Browsers: mostly a waste of time.

    Protocols and specifications: absolutely essential.

    Stopping agreements forcing OEMs to only install windows: pretty essential.

    US Dept of Justice: time wasters (esp. on not taking BEOS, protocols and specifications into account
  • The fact is that the Dutch were pressuring everyone to accept the text of the proposal. This makes me suspiscious, because, as I pointed out in a recent post [slashdot.org], the Dutch have become even more America's whore in recent years than the English have. What do the Dutch have to gain from selling out the EU to the Americans? Are they so scared of the Germans and the French and did America make some really big promises about saving Holland economically and politically, or did they just offer to give the Dutch nice

Slashdot Top Deals

If it's not in the computer, it doesn't exist.

Close