Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Government Politics

EU Parliament Demands Fresh Start for Patent Directive 188

Posted by michael from the don't-forget-poland dept.
ravenII writes "Members of the European Parliament from countries including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden have asked for the software patent directive to be redone from scratch, according to a report on Monday."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Parliament Demands Fresh Start for Patent Directive More

EU Parliament Demands Fresh Start for Patent Directive

Comments Filter:

  • First Thought (Score:2, Interesting)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 )
    My first thought was: the directive was stalled. The parliament got what it wanted: no legalization of software patents. Why reinitiate the debate, when you've already won? Now on to RTFA.
    • There are still many officials who do not understand software patent risks, and the absence of societal benefits. Reopening the debate offers more chance to solidify opposition to the software patent push that will inevitably reappear.
    • My first thought was: the directive was stalled. The parliament got what it wanted: no legalization of software patents. Why reinitiate the debate, when you've already won?

      We (freedom-loving people) didn't win, we merely took the item off the immediate agenda, which will hopefully delay them for a few months. The only way to permanently stop software patents is to rewrite the directive, make it totally toothless, make it go through a thousand committees, and hopefully make sure it gets lost in some euroc
      • Not quite. The only way to permanently stop software patents is to rewrite the directive and make it very clearly, in no uncertain terms, state that software is _not patentable_.

        Because the patent lobby actually does have one thing right; the current status of the EPO granting dubiously enforcable software patents is not acceptable. The directive needs to put a stake through the heart of that abhorrent practice.

    • Re:First Thought (Score:5, Informative)

      by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @01:39PM (#11323494) Homepage
      Groklaw's commentary on the request provided some interesting comments. One reason is that if the motion is granted, software patents end up years away rather than months away. Another reason is that it provides the European Council a graceful way out of software patents.

      While I am glad that software patents have been thwarted in Europe -- hopefully for good -- I do wonder if that kind of motion will be broadly used to set back other controversial, but less pernicious, kinds of legislation.
    • "Why reinitiate the debate, when you've already won?"

      I think you forgot what this was all originally about. The EU was supposed to put together a directive to harmonise the different patent systems. This was necessary and useful!

      It wasn't supposed to be about making software patents legal by changing member states patent law. That was the influence of lobbyists.

    • Because the current state of law is unacceptable: it is not clear whether the software is patentable or not.
    • My first thought was:
      "Damn, we already promised the big business that they'd get their patents. Lets retry."

  • Patent machinery (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lindsay Lohan ( 847467 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @01:34PM (#11323426) Homepage Journal
    Members of the European Parliament from countries including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden have asked for the software patent directive to be redone from scratch
    The patent directive is ill-advised because it unnecessarily broadens the area that could be governed by patents. It's not even just about software patents. Patents on ideas are wrong, whether in software or in business. You should patent some concrete machinery, not a way of doing things.

    • Re:Patent machinery (Score:3, Informative)

      by goldspider ( 445116 )
      So, Ms. Lohan, what would you do if you had a GREAT idea for a REVOLUTIONARY gaadget, but didn't have the resources to create a prototype?

      Your sentiment, while popular, only makes it EASIER for corporations to dominate the patent arena, since they have the capital to actually create these things.
      • what would you do if you had a GREAT idea for a REVOLUTIONARY gaadget, but didn't have the resources to create a prototype?

        I would take a bank loan, ask my family and friends, max out my credit cards, talk to a VC if worst comes to worst... A capitalist economy has many people willing to give money to a GREAT REVOLUTIONARY startup. You just have to find them, and give a convincing presentation.
        • So your idea of patent reform is to impose even more financial barriers on innovators? Wasn't the purpose of patents to allow us little guys to profit from a good idea without having to risk our future on it?

          • Re:Patent machinery (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @02:11PM (#11323933) Journal
            Wasn't the purpose of patents to allow us little guys to profit from a good idea without having to risk our future on it?

            From where I stand, its not doing that. Not even close. I'm working with a startup, and we thought about patenting our software, and the first thing we did was run into someone else who has patented something similar (the only difference is that their patent calls for two databases to do what we can do with one database and logic). Having spent more than it would have cost to file a patent ourselves on a lawyer, search, and the reactive scramble, we decided it wasn't worth it.

            Even as it is, externally our program shows no difference at all to the patented algorithm, since it does essentially the same thing in an internally different way. Eventually we'll probably be sued, and millions of dollars in fees and legal expenses later, finally convince a jury that no, two databases are not the same as one database and a handful of user-supplied rules. And thats if we're not forced to open our codebase to our competitor, after which we'd pretty much be dead. It'd be what, two days? a week? Before they update their software with new rule-based operation that they just "thought of" and we'd never be able to prove they stole.
            • Yes and the world will implode. There is always a way - if your software is that great you can find it.

              Now assuming you are correct, and thusly the patent system is flawed - does not mean it should be decimated into nothing. It means that the patent system needs to be revamped. More qualified personnel need to work in the software division of the patent office, etc.

              It really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp.

              On a side note, why not prove to the patent office (there has gotta be someone in there

              • Re:Patent machinery (Score:4, Insightful)

                by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @08:25PM (#11329568) Journal
                why not prove to the patent office that your process is different.

                In other words, feed the system more by having someone write the patent and file it and adding yet another patent to the pile?

                My preferred solution is to require:

                1) software patents that expire within the usual software life cycle (of about 4-8 years)
                2) require some form of structured pseudocode that clearly describes the process being claimed
                3) Similar to a Design patent, only one process can be claimed per patent, none of this "The system in 1, 3 and 8343 whereby the operator is eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwitch while entering data with his/her left pinky" that plagues the system now.
                4) Titles and abstracts will be written by the reviewer to accurately describe what is being patented, NOT the misleading gibberish and shoutoutz that show up in the patents these days.
                5) 2+4 require more qualified personnel as you say.
                6) In the absense of 3, date each claim individually to prevent submarine patents (real ones, not the "zomg you sued us from nowhere" we hear about often here) where people claim a flagrantly invalid process just to get a starting date, and then bounce the patent against the patent office repeatedly while adding new (sometimes their own, often other peoples') innovations to the claims, resulting in a patent that may expire sooner, but for which all prior art must beat the original filing deadline, even if it had been in use a whole year before the actual claim had been added.
                7) Better beats older. If you invent a sort process that sorts in O(n log (n/2)), and patent it, and I read the patent and see that by changing a line in your pseudocode it becomes O(n), I win. People who wish to use my O(n) patent come to me for licensing, even though your patent may have been heavily used. People who only want to use O(n log (n/2)) can go to you for your silly patent, but you have no right to challenge mine for one-upping you.

                Of course, eliminating the "business method" patent that software uses now would be the far superior model. Businesses ran fine for over 200 years (Ending in 1998 with the State Street case) here in the US without patenting their "methods", and even longer in Europe.
        • So I have shitty credit because I spent the past year working on this great revolutionary gadget and had to max out my credit cards. My family wouldn't trust me with a penny - who can blame them considering my credit; and well the banks would shoot me dead if i walked through their door. VC's are notorious for ripping people off "Sure we will help you, and just like the RIAA/MPAA we will give you 1% profits on all of your inventions."

          Sorry, your thought process on this matter is over-simplistic. There

      • Re:Patent machinery (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Znork ( 31774 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @02:05PM (#11323815)
        If you dont have the resources for a prototype you wont have the resources to file for a patent, and you _definitely_ wont have the resources to enforce it, nor defend yourself against countersuits.

        Of course, in the case of software, if you have a GREAT idea for some REVOLUTIONARY program, you'll get sued for violating several hundred different patents, losing the savings and venture capital you'd managed to scrape up, and driven to living on the streets in personal bankrupcy before you've finished your first thousand lines of code.

        Personally I'd rather have the legal right to invent without getting sued than the right to sue without inventing.
        • That's quite incorrect. They'll probably let you finish the code first.
        • If you dont have the resources for a prototype you wont have the resources to file for a patent, and you _definitely_ wont have the resources to enforce it, nor defend yourself against countersuits.

          SHARE THE WISDOM, COMRADE!

      • If you don't have a "proof of concept" working, you don't have anything to patent. There's too much prior-art on hot air!
      • what would you do if you had a GREAT idea for a REVOLUTIONARY gaadget

        If my idea was so complex that it couldn't be immediately realized (in other words, if I only had a theory of something) I would write it down and would copyright it.

        • But then if I could get a hold of a copy of your copyrighted work, I could build the invention myself -- your copyright wouldn't stop me from doing that.

          • Re:Patent machinery (Score:5, Insightful)

            by molnarcs ( 675885 ) <csabamolnarNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @05:40PM (#11327447) Homepage Journal
            But then if I could get a hold of a copy of your copyrighted work, I could build the invention myself -- your copyright wouldn't stop me from doing that.

            True. The difference between a world with ideas/software patentable and a patent-free world is only this: in the case of the former, your idea is already stolen before you even come up with it.

            To put it differently: you come up with an idea you have no means to implement at the moment. Should you be granted a patent for your idea? Because if you should, than I have lots of ideas, which, if I had the means, I would patent asap. Are these great ideas? Maybe some of them... Do I have to prove that they are? (proof is in the pudding - or rather, the implementation!). I just have to wait until someone builds a gadget that is based on my ideas (more or less) and then... sue! Yes, that would be great.

            Actually, as I said, I don't have the money to patent my ideas. But [insert_name_of_random_corporation_here] has. And what these usually do is that they patent ideas as fast as they can. It doesn't matter if these ideas are great or not. If you patent 1000 ideas each year (I use ideas here in a very broad sense) there is a good chance that at least a few of them would be great ideas. And because they are great ideas, it is very likely that someone else would think about it, who instead of using the patent system as a lottery (and spend his/her money in patenting the idea), would build the thing. And because someone, who didn't bother to try to implement it patented it first, this inventor (of not just great ideas) would find himself in the court room.

            Of course, this is just an example - a little bit exaggerated (or is it? we have seen these things before) but still it shows quite nicely how easily a patent system could be abused. And it WILL be abused, because there is no way you can filter all the patents that are applied for in the patent office. Also, if you are so brilliant as to think up the idea of The SuperGadget - you will have to work to get it built/implemented. If you come up with an idea of something that there is no way you can implement, than you are not that brilliant.

      • Re:Patent machinery (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Epistax ( 544591 )
        Who needs a prototype? What he heck are you talking about anyway?

        From what 'Ms. Lohan' said, this is the proposal: If you can draw a plan, that's concrete, take a patent on the design. What we don't want to see is someone patenting the idea of squirting water into the air from a fish tank and recovering it to oxygenate the tank. Make a specific device and patent that. What we have in software is currently parallel to patenting the design of a 'car' instead of, say a 'honda civic'. When you write a s

        • Re:Patent machinery (Score:3, Informative)

          by AviLazar ( 741826 )
          When I write software people can compete by writing their own software. I patent a process in my software (maybe i came up with a great 3d rendering engine). Now i didn't patent "3d rendering engines", I patented a process of a specific 3d rendering engine. So if joe schmoe wants to patent his own process of 3d rendering - i cannot sue him for that. I can only sue him if his code was stolen from me.
          So the Software Car is your 3d rendering engine, the specific car (your Honda) is the specific 3d rendering

          • stealing not required (Score:5, Insightful)

            by brlewis ( 214632 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @03:16PM (#11325224) Homepage
            I can only sue him if his code was stolen from me.

            That's not true. You can sue him just because you feel like it. You can win if his lawyer thinks there's some possibility a court might decide that your patent claims cover his software, or if he thinks the legal costs wouldn't be worth it.

            You can probably win more damages if you can prove he was aware of your patent, but by no means does he need to steal your code, or even be aware of its existence, for you to sue him.

            • A half-wit judge can also not allow the case to go to trial when he see's the docket "you are trying to sue this guy because he walked by you on a public street?"

              Again, the problem then resides with our litigation system.

              Yes I realize that people can sue for pretty much anything (a shame really) but short of the absurd (and yes the world is full of them) a person needs to have a substantial reason to sue.
          • I can only sue him if his code was stolen from me.

            If his code was stolen from you, you could sue him for copyright infringement.

            Patents have nothing to do with that situation at all.

    • Re:Patent machinery (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ThosLives ( 686517 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @02:00PM (#11323719) Journal
      Your comment is starting to get at the heart of the matter: what is it that patents (and copyright) are "supposed" to do?

      "Copyrights" should really have been called something like "distribution and performance rights", but back in the day, you enforced this by limiting the ability to copy. Now there are no physical barriers to copying so the word is odd. What "copyrights" are intended to do is this: make sure that the people who originate a work of art are the only ones with the right to obtain compensation for the distribution of that art. I'm not even sure how 'performance' fits in, because there are some folks that maybe wrote a song but couldn't sing, but other folks will go see someone else who sings it better - so are the people paying for the song or the performance of the song? It's not clear what the correct distinction should be.

      Patents were slightly different - they were originally around so that the garage inventor would be protected from the giant corporation (at least, I hope that's the original intent!). Think about it: if you're a big corporation, you don't need to be "protected" from people stealing your idea because you can build and market it. If you're a small operation, you have to work hard to get resources to develop. The patent protected that period of time so that a rich entity didn't come along and beat you to market using your idea. Now only big entities can easily get patents, and they don't so much use them to be first to market but to keep others out of the market. The intent of a patent should be "development protection" rather than "market protection" (we all know that artificial barriers in the market are inherently Bad). Giant companies hardly need development protection, and the only reason they want "market protection" is to cover their incompetencies (yes, I know the truth is hard to swallow) at adapting to changing markets.

      So, my proposals to revamp the whole system would be to come up with a new system of "distribution rights", "performance rights", and "development protection" with appropriate, thoughtful definitions for each of those (to distinguish what customers want as in the example of the writer and singer that I gave above). What we need to keep in mind is that the people that deserve the "protection" from these laws is not the big businesses (publishers, manufacturers, etc.) but the people that generate the thigns of value - the artists, the engineers, the performers. After all, you will always have artists and engineers independently of the means of getting their ideas out to the masses; the current trend in "intellectual property" seems to miss this.

      • "Patents were slightly different - they were originally around so that the garage inventor would be protected from the giant corporation (at least, I hope that's the original intent!). "

        Not quite. The original reason behind patents was to keep innovation from being kept secret, the idea being that if innovations are out in the open, others can build upon those innovations and advance the technology.

        The deal made was that if you are willing to share your innovation with the public, then congress would gra

        • Re:Patent machinery (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ThosLives ( 686517 )
          Yes, I know about the limited monopoly in exchange for public disclosure. However, why would this be preferable to trade secrets? Companies like trade secrets because they can have complete control over a technology - if that trade secret is something that cannot be easily reverse-engineered or duplicated. (Companies prefer trade secrets where possible; the danger is trade secrets are not - afaik - legally protected). Having a monopoly in exchange for public disclosure only encourages innovation where peop
          • "Companies prefer trade secrets where possible; the danger is trade secrets are not - afaik - legally protected"

            Actually, trade secrets ARE legally protected, and people have gone to jail for misappopriating trade secrets -- but the burden is on the secret-keeper to actually keep it secret and to prove to the court that it is deserving of protection...

            "Having a monopoly in exchange for public disclosure only encourages innovation where people can base things on that disclosed invention without having to b
        • No. A patent was originally a grant from the king to some particular benefit. (I'm not sure just how widely that was interpreted.) The most commonly encountered fossil from that time is the term "a patent of nobility", but I believe that it was also applied to such things as the official royal jam maker. (I remember my feeling of the bizarre when I first encountered a jar of jam with the label on it "Official Jammaker to the Royal Household".)

          I'm fairly certain that it was also used to identify those w
      • (we all know that artificial barriers in the market are inherently Bad).

        ..until we sat through a economics 101.

        I agree with more of your comments than the average /. post on this topic, but it's really retarded to talk about anything not purely IT related on Slashdot. I'm not trying to single you out, but the amount of stuff that I read that's _just_plain_wrong_ is astonishing.

        By the way, a lack of artifical barriers in the market is what makes human trafficking, prostitution, and loan sharking possib

  • Bush will be happy ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by auburnate ( 755235 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @01:35PM (#11323437)
    The article states:
    Poland's last-minute intervention has made them popular with supporters of the anti-patent movement.
    Bush has his famous "You forgot Poland" comment. Maybe he was on to something.

    • Re:Bush will be happy ... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @01:42PM (#11323518) Homepage
      Poland's last-minute intervention has made them popular with supporters of the anti-patent movement.

      Yes, and it's not too late to show your gratitude either by adding your signature and any comments to the "Thank Poland" [thankpoland.info] letter. People on Slashdot so often advise writing letters to bureaucrats in order to complain, it's nice to able able to thank them for getting it right once in a while.

  • Good or Bad News? (Score:3)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @01:40PM (#11323497) Homepage Journal
    ``Mueller said it is important for the patent directive to be restarted because many MEPs did not take part in the initial discussion on the directive, as they belong to new member states or were voted in during the EP elections in June. "A majority of today's MEPs didn't get to participate in the first reading in 2003, and the governments of the new member states were barely finding their seats in the Council last May," said Mueller.''

    While this is a valid reason, and I agree that the directive should be restarted, I wonder if this is good news or bad news for those opposing software patents. Many of the new member states are new to capitalism and have more extreme capitalist views than the old members. This might slant the debate in favor of software patents.

    Considering that the EP originally voted largely against software patents, I think a restart will rather increase the chances for US-style software patents in Europe.

    • patents vs capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)

      by brlewis ( 214632 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @01:43PM (#11323543) Homepage
      Many of the new member states are new to capitalism and have more extreme capitalist views than the old members. This might slant the debate in favor of software patents.
      What are you talking about? Capitalism is about free markets. Patents are about state-sponsored monopolies. Extreme capitalist views would slant the debate in favor of removing patents altogether, not just software patents.
      • You are right, but most people lump together capitalism and intellectual property and even democrazy. What I should have said is that they have more US-like views than the older EU countries, but I wanted to keep nationalism out of it.

        • US-like views (Score:3, Informative)

          by brlewis ( 214632 )
          The US is not homogeneous when it comes to support of software patents. The US Supreme Court repeatedly ruled that software for a general-purpose digital computer is not statutory material for a patent. Unfortunately a lot of people are determined to mis-read their opinions, particularly Diehr. Diehr has a section IV specifically about "Don't misread our ruling this way" describing the way their ruling is always misread.
    • Many of the new member states are new to capitalism and have more extreme capitalist views than the old members.

      Poland is one of the new memberstates and it is also new to capitalism. Still it has been one of the countries agaist(to my understanding) software patens.

      New eastern memberstates don't have any signifiend software industry at the moment, so they would lose their change to enter the market if patents would be allowed at this moment. Their view might change after IT industry gets bigger in there

  • What US Should do (Score:4, Insightful)

    by superpulpsicle ( 533373 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @01:41PM (#11323511)
    Start from scratch! The U.S. patent system is screwed up beyond belief. There is nothing I can say here that hasn't already been said before. Also we need to make it so that no corporations can own patents. Only individuals or groups of individuals should own patents. An entire corporation is too big and too financially strong of an entity to own a patent.

    • "need to make it so that no corporations can own patents. Only individuals or groups of individuals should own patents.

      See bold text for contradiction.

      "An entire corporation is too big and too financially strong of an entity to own a patent."

      The overwhelming majority of corporations are very small, and many are weak and failing.

      • But a corporation isn't just a group of individuals; it is a legal entity in itself, with legal rights. I think what GP was trying to say was that it's okay if Joe Schmoe wants to patent something, and it's okay of Joe Schmoe and his brother Jim Schmoe want to patent something, but it's not (or shouldn't be) okay if Schmoe Bros. Inc. wants to patent something -- a proposition with which I tend to agree.
        • Or more directly: outlaw the corporation itself. I fail to see why an imaginary entity should have the same rights - no, more actually - than a real person. I also fail to see why people who use the corporation to commit criminal acts (corporations aren't self-aware; it's *people* doing the illegal things here) are often protected from going to jail, while if I do the exact same thing I'll almost certainly be rotting in a cell somewhere.

          Corporations should never have been given rights. They are not peo
    • Corporations start small, then get big, if they're good at whatever it is they do. To prevent them from owning patents is just insane and goes against everything this country stands for. I believe that those who discover new "things" and file patents should have exclusive access to that "thing," unless they choose to license it. What on Earth would make you want to scrap that is beyond me. However, I will state that patenting business methods can get a bit messy.

    • The Supreme Court of the USA decided a long time ago that corporations are people in their own right and are therefore entitled to all other freedoms that regular people enjoy.

      We need that to be overturned before anything else.
    • I'm vehemently against software patents, but I'm not really ready to dismantle the patent system as a whole. In some fields the R&D costs are high enough that I can see society benefiting from trading a temporary monopoly for publication of the technology. Software is obviously different. I think software patents have to be taken out of the picture before you can have a good discussion about the system as a whole.

  • Fantastic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @01:48PM (#11323592) Journal
    They will get rid of one problem and add another. All we need. Theres no single way to make a patent law which can't be abused by large companies, we live in a world which leans in moneys favour, they have it, we don't.

    Good game, we lost see you next round.. erm wait sorry someone patented rounds, we can't use that either.
  • How much of this is a power stuggle between the parliament and the comission? The outcome of that could be just as important as the software patent question.

  • The lesson I learned.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SlashDread ( 38969 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @01:51PM (#11323626)
    No matter how un-effing-believable un-democratic EU ministers can be, and you MUST research the EU patent story for some disgusting examples, the people -directly elected- in the EU parliament have listened and -do- hold some power. Yay.

    Now if only we (as in we, the people) could get more direct say in EU minister appointments, or resignments.. we would not have to go through all this absurdian EU counsil of minister elbow politics.

    We should look at the US.. some things clearly work better there, and some things do not. Much local power for example.. good idea. Big Money and politics.. bad idea.
    • "Now if only we (as in we, the people) could get more direct say in EU minister appointments"

      You do. They're the same ministers that you vote into your own countries government.

      The same ones who commonly use "the EU" as a scapegoat for what they themselves push through in the council of ministers.

      The 'local powers', in this case, are not on the side of the voters.
      • You do. They're the same ministers that you vote into your own countries government.

        Huh? I have yet to hear of a country where ministers are directly elected by voters. Usually people vote for the members of parliament, which then decides balance of power between parties those MPs are members of, which is the basis for goverment... but the government is generally composed by the parties (ie. collectively by groups of MPs), and this level of indirection means that ministers are rather more independent o

        • Well, true, I was overly simplifying it. The point is that there isnt any more or less specific way for the voters to influence, or gain more influence over, the appointment to the council than there already is in the local country, as they are the same. The way we the voters have to influence the council membership is to not vote for the local parties appointing ministers who do not represent our interests.

        • I agree.

          To put it a different way, voters cannot know when they vote for individual MPs which ministers will be appointed to the EU Council, nor the policies which will be represented by those ministers.

          If voters dislike a bad EU minister, they may be able to vote that minister out of office, but they have no way to prevent another minister with similar policies being given the same appointment - a consequence of the diversity of MPs.

          This means that the policies represented by the EU minister at any g

  • let's patent recipes too!!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by xutopia ( 469129 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @01:53PM (#11323642) Homepage
    Patenting software is like patenting recipes! I say if patents pass we should patent recipes as well!

  • another good read (Score:2, Informative)

    by ravenII ( 835685 )
    As Entrope [slashdot.org] pointed out there is another disscussion at Groklaw. Various user comments and the article makes a good read
  • Which is somewhat embarrassing, but not surprising. As in so many areas, I assume the UK followed the party line laid down by the US.

    I wrote to my MEP about the fisheries-meeting shenanigans, but heard nothing back - did any other Brit /.ers have any more luck?
    • I got a reply.

      It was a very patronising "we don't think it will pass and even if it does, we're happy with the wording". Completely ignored my points.

      Now I think of it I've written to politicians on a number of occasions, generally to express a point of view different to the party line, and I've had a similar response to that every time. Kind of makes me wonder what my tax goes on because it's certainly not representation.

  • Perspective Is Needed (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tilleyrw ( 56427 )

    1. The number of tasks that can exist in the world is infinite.

    2. The population of minds to solve said tasks is finite.

    3. QED, the set of solutions is finite.

    Therefore, patents should not exist.

    If the set of solutions is finite, it is only a matter of time before elements are repeated.

    "There is nothing new under the sun."

  • Patents and Small and Medium Sized Businesses (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TeachingMachines ( 519187 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @03:02PM (#11324922) Homepage Journal
    Thus patent-related risks, for example, were increasingly having an effect on decisions made by public administrations and private organizations on whether "in view of infrastructures and their possibilities to purchase software and services from small and medium-sized companies."

    People are finally getting it: small and medium-sized businesses won't be able to produce software products and services if the patent directive is initiated. IBM holds 40,000 patents, any one of which can be used against a small company, essentially bankrupting them. Microsoft is in a similar position. Amazing that Europeans are seeing the light.
  • when being Polish actually makes me proud.... (http://www.gnu.org/thankpoland.html)

    ...now if we only could get the fuck out of Iraq.

  • What part of 'No' don't they understand? The "EU Patent" lobby lost. Go solve some more pressing issues instead of trying to protect big business.

  • Grassroots (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @03:55PM (#11325862)
    I realize the article is primarily about the EU. But it's also about software patents, and being a citizen of the US, I'm interested in what I as a mere citizen can do to fight for patent reform (the kind against software patents, of course) in my country. And considering that there's a strong tendency to legislate through treaty these days, especially between the US and UK, and especially in the realms of IP law, a success against software patents in the US is a success for the world in general.

    Anyway....

    Are there any US Representatives or Senators who have USPTO reform and the elimination of software patents on their agendas? Are there any who support the OSS and/or Free Software movements? Is there a process by which individual US citizens can file prior art claims against patents (either in the application stage or after granting them) without spending a god-awful amount of money on legal representation, and if so, how does that process work? Are there any industry players (other than Linus and others in the Free Software arena) who have come out as supporting the elimination of software patents?

    I guess, in total, I'm asking this: is my time/effort/money better spent as an individual citizen on this issue, or should I just give my dollars to the EFF and let them fight on my behalf?

  • EU patents a bad thing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by prunesqualour ( 149818 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @04:47PM (#11326664)
    There's a decent piece [guardian.co.uk] in today's Guardian about patents on software. Interest declared: I wrote it.
    • Yes, very good indeed - thanks for writing it. It's a shame though that the media still fail to recognise this as an issue that is of great concern to everyone. The Guardian has been immeasurably better than the rest of the UK media but they still relegate it to the geek section, as though we were still in the 1970s and few people had ever even seen a computer.

      If only there were some way to give journalists and editors a taste of life under a regime of literature patents and "pen and paper implemented inve
  • Software is not patentable. So why are they persisting to do wrong?

    Here's a thought as to why they don't yet get it (nobody wants to tell them why its really not patentable.)

    In regards to dealing with increased complexity in software MS has their longhorn and their software factories effort, free software has its edos project, neither of which are in promotion of honesty regarding programming, or what is the application of abstraction physics.

    Its really quite simple. To support the non-patentability of s

Slashdot Top Deals

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Close