EU Closer To Rejecting Software Patents 213
niekko writes "BusinessWeek is reporting on the hot subject of European software patent directive. 'The European Parliament moved Tuesday toward rejecting a proposed law creating a single way of patenting software across the European Union, officials said -- a move that would effectively kill the legislation since lawmakers do not plan to set forth a new version.'"
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:If only... (Score:3, Funny)
Knowing the kind of "sense" that is common today, quite frankly I hope you're wrong.
Re:If only... (Score:2, Informative)
Taken from Groklaw:
The amendments FFII view as most important are the amendments to Articles 3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.2 and 6a. By the way, FFII says that MEPS are apparently no longer reading email about the directive. You can only reach them in Strasbourg by phone or fax.
Re:If only... (Score:5, Informative)
Failing that we want a rejection of course...
Re:If only... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've written to a large party in my country and they responded (quite extensively if I may say so) that they were against software patents. The other large party did not respond, but then I was informed from other FFII members that it was even more determined against patents (in the last vote).
I think that after the referendums in France and Holand, the parliament understands that public opinion is not to be taken lightly. A large number of people will get enraged if software
Re:If only... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course I pointed out that I'd read various stories on the Internet and they assured me that a lot of it was political posturing and that it wouldn't go through.
Don't know what to think about that really, but that's the word straight from the horse's mouth.
(They had nothing to gain by telling me that either, I was originally talking with them about a trademark issue - the UK Patent Office handles that too).
Bob
Re:If only... (Score:2)
Really? I wrote to many of my country's MEPs and got responses on about 75% of them. Some were from secretaries with detailed outlines of the MEPs position (which did not always coincide with mine) and reasons for the position, some where signed by the MEP him/herself asking for additional questions.
My mails where always polite and cited examples - in one mail I outlined multiple algorit
Re:If only... (Score:3, Interesting)
They will no doubt try to use the European Patent Convention instead, create precedence for software patents, maybe try a new directive.
But it will not be easy for them. Many journalists, politicians, etc, actually have a clue by now. Many people have become active fighting software patents, and they are good at it. Every election brings in younger and more technology-savy members. Most countries have legislation against patents on software.
If they do kill this directive we might a few y
Good luck to all you Europeans... (Score:3, Insightful)
Our prayers go with you.
Re:Good luck to all you Europeans... (Score:3, Insightful)
Judging from what i've seen on Slashdot, the people -- even the ones that think they know everything about software -- aren't any smarter in this respect, either...
Re:Good luck to all you Europeans... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good luck to all you Europeans... (Score:3, Interesting)
I still don't understand much of these laws. They seem stupid and dumb to me, designed to protect the rich corporations, not people.
Problem #1. What if there is an idea that everyone would have, but someone out there patents it first? Does that mean that everyone else can not use that idea for their own benifi
Re:Good luck to all you Europeans... (Score:2)
Ways of doing business are already being patented - look at the multiple Amazon cases. Most of these patents are painfully obvious but would still cost milion$ in court/lawyer fees to get revoked. The patent systems worldwide are effectively being used by big bus
Unregulated capitalism doesn't last long... (Score:2)
...as it quickly degenerates. Capitalism seems to me to be an intermediate state between anarchy and oligarchy.
Just as the distribution of particles in a chemical suspension will not remain uniform without constant agitation, the distribution of economic power will not remain disbursed throughout the population without constant antitrust enforcement.
It seems that we are seeing the tail end of this now.
Re:Unregulated capitalism doesn't last long... (Score:2)
Unregulated capitalism? Is this a joke? Did I miss a sarcasm tag? Intellectual property only exists because of big daddy government helping out the corporate fat cats. You think those rich executives are in favor of laissez faire? Haha. That's a good one. This is not about capitalism. It's about rising fascism. It's about corporations teaming up with governments against a common enemy which wou
Re:Good luck to all you Europeans... (Score:2)
Being able to define software patents gives them more stuff to trade, at the same time making the company appear more valuable to shareholders.
As another example, the concept of "carbon credits" has been proposed, where companies (and perhaps even individuals) get to trade the right to pollute the environment ie. they buy and sell credits which give them the right to use hydrocarbon based energy sources.
Just something else to "trade" which was fr
Re:Good luck to all you Europeans... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then it shouldn't be granted a patent; one of the requirements is non-obviousness. This is why things like Amazon's "one click" patent are so frowned upon; they should never have been granted in the first place.
Erm... yes. That's the point. If you put in the time and money for the R&D, then the patent system is supposed to grant you a major competitive advantage (a short term monopoly) so that you can take advantage of your invention. If it's good enough that people want it straight away, they'll pay your price; if it's not, they can wait a while until the patent expires, and you won't make any money. Hence you have to charge a reasonable price.
The problem, once again, isn't the principle of patents per se, it's that the period for which the monopoly is granted is excessive in a business as fast-moving as IT (and indeed several others). It doesn't take a decade to capitalise on a great technology idea in this day and age, it takes months.
Ford can't patent tyres; another requirement for granting a patent is the lack of "prior art", i.e., that no-one else has done it before.
The answer to your tyre example, once again, is that Ford shouldn't be granted the patent for a change that is "simple and easy". And if Ford really do invest a large amount of time and money to develop a safer tyre, the patent scheme is there precisely to stop some rip-off merchant cloning the thing cheaply, since he doesn't have to recoup his investment from the profits he makes in manufacturing.
What you're missing in saying that everyone should have access to those tyres at the cheap rate is that without the patent protection, they might never have been invented in the first place. The little guy certainly doesn't have the huge R&D resources Ford does, and if Ford doesn't see any competitive advantage from bringing its weight to bear on the problem, why would it do so?
Of course there are ethical dilemmas where the industry concerned makes products related to health and safety. This happens with pharma companies all the time when it comes to places like Africa, who couldn't possibly afford the going rate in the US or Europe. The solution to this is simply to charge a realistic rate everywhere, which might not be the same rate everywhere. But even in this case, again you have to remember that not many people would invest in pharamceuticals if there was no scope for a reasonable ROI, and patents are the guarantee that when significant discoveries are made, that ROI will be forthcoming. Without the catalyst, you risk losing the whole process.
In short, the principle of patents is fine. What's wrong is that they're routinely granted with inadequate checking for obviousness and prior art, they last too long for many industries, once an obvious patent is granted it can be absurdly difficult to get it thrown out, and the costs of patent lawsuits (like any other) are ludicrously prohibitive in some jurisdictions, meaning the little guy can't enforce his own patents, or defend against unjustified patent infringement claims by the big guy. Fix the system so it works properly, and the underlying principle is fine.
Re:Good luck to all you Europeans... (Score:2)
Problem #1 Should be addressed by the existing requirement that the invention not be obvious to a knowledgeable person in that field.
Problem #2 Goes to the heart of the patent system. It is designed to create monopolies that cause higher prices. Getting a temporary monopoly is supposed to be the reward for putting in the R&D to make the invention in the first place.
Let's assume that in your example the Ford invention was truly difficult. Without
Re:Good luck to all you Europeans... (Score:2)
I'm surprised this got modded up as much as it did. Because of this, I'll answer.
I still don't understand much of these laws. They seem stupid and dumb to me, designed to protect the rich corporations, not people.
Patent law exists for a reason; among other things, it keeps predatory groups (including rich corporations) from using small inventors as a free R&D playground. Imagine, you do all the work to develop a new product, then someone with $$$$ buys your product, reverse-engineers it, and sells a
Re:Good luck to all you Europeans... (Score:2)
Maybe that works when you are rich and can afford to defend your patent in court. Personally, I would never bother patenting an invention because I could never afford to sue anyone. Face it. Patents specifically and intellectual property in general are designed for and by those who already have gigantic piles of money. In other word
Re:Good luck to all you Europeans... (Score:2)
Re:Good luck to all you Europeans... (Score:2)
Re:Good luck to all you Europeans... (Score:2)
LMAO. You sound like a Jeremy Rifkin fanboy.
Really, the people living in Europe are just as bigoted, racist and uneducated as Americans. They're not angels, you know. They're humans.
Oh, and CSI is about just as boring and lame as The Da Vinci Code.
Re:Good luck to all you Europeans... (Score:2)
Yes, Yes, and No. Where I live, if you only have a High School diploma you are considered effectively illiterate, and the only prospect you have is moving bricks and applying plaster.
Good post, besides the last analogy. (Score:2)
But the point remains. While I don't believe patents are bad, the original timeframes for them were created at a time when invention and technology development was a lot slower. Now, 15 years is an eternity.
But even if the 15 years remains, the patents they grant now aren't any good. They allow patents for non-specific ideas.
Re:Good luck to all you Europeans... (Score:2)
Not all of us here on /. are uninformed bottom-feeders. Some have legitimate philosophical objections to aspects of patents and how they are used.
I believe that the chief problem with patents is that they can be used to create a monopoly. In the past, I think that made sense. Today, I think it would be better to adjust patent laws to make sure that the inventor gets just compensation from anyone using his idea, but prevent him from establishing an absolute monopoly. That way innovation is encouraged becau
Re:Good luck to all you Europeans... (Score:2)
1. Inefficiencies in the legal system. It costs money and time to bring or defend a patent claim, something a small scale innovator has little of. It is of note that around 1/2 of economic growth in the US comes from entrepreneurism - small companies or individuals. Small companies and individuals can are are threatened by patent infringemen
More details (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More details (Score:2, Informative)
It is sounds too good to be true for me... (Score:2)
Re:Have a reality check (Score:2)
Haven' t we heard this before? (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought this was the 2nd or 3rd time that software patent directive has come up. How do anyone know that there won't be another version for us to talk about months from now?
Re:Haven' t we heard this before? (Score:5, Informative)
A more likely eventual route to "harmonisation" allowing software patents could be through decisions of a proposed Community-wide Patent Court, if the EU ever manages to agree to set the thing up.
The CPC has been a long-standing goal of the EU system for a long time.
Re:Haven' t we heard this before? (Score:2, Informative)
However, the EU commission promised through a letter today that they would comply entirely with the Parliament, that is, if the Parliament ammends the directive, they would accept the ammendments, and if the directive was to be rejected, they wouldn't touch the issue anymore.
Maybe they're afraid of ending up in the same way the EU council did:
Killing this directive is dangerous. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the directive doesn't pass, they can still lobby individual governments.
If the directive passes in castrated form with provisions preventing pure software and business method patents, member countries won't be able to enact legislation permitting it.
So, what we, Europeans, really want is for the directive to pass in a form that once and for all prevents this abomination called software patents to be reborn.
Robert
Re:Killing this directive is dangerous. (Score:5, Insightful)
The pro-swpat people actually claim this is only for "harmonisation" of the current system. In a sense they have a point: I think one of the positive outcomes of no directive could be that even between two regimes that allow software patents enforcing them might be somewhat difficult.
Of course a good directive would still be much better than this. But we'll wait and see the result tomorrow.
Re:Killing this directive is dangerous. (Score:2, Interesting)
However, for that matter, time is 100% on our side. First of all, we already convinced a lot of people that cannot be convinced of the inverse because they have the facts. Then, a new parliament usually has an interest to "continue the prior work", so if we have two rejection of the directive in the parliament, it's very unlikely that a third parliament is going to accept full pat
Re:Killing this directive is dangerous. (Score:3, Insightful)
One is reminded of the infamous USAG John Ashcroft
quote "In 1000 attempted terrorist attacks, we
must be right 100% of the time. The terrorists
need only be correct once."
Defeating the EU software patent this time is
important, as it must be every time such a bill
reaches the EU ministers. The monopolistic
corporations that sponser such bills need only
be successful once (, and then it passes). The
price of freedom is e
Re:Killing this directive is dangerous. (Score:3, Insightful)
Any future harmonisation directive will then be even more difficult to pass, if it does not allow software patents.
So we want a good directive ASAP.
Re:Killing this directive is dangerous. (Score:2)
What's more is that this showed severe problems with the democratic processes in the EU.
In September 2003 the EU parliament voted for a version of the directive that would have prevented software patents *and* provide a clear legal framework. As the parliament is the only elected entity in the EU that shouls have been the end of it! The fact that it wasn't shows that something is *fundamentally* wrong in the EU.
I was always pro-EU but after this sobering experience I thank Fran
Re:Killing this directive is dangerous. (Score:2)
Re:Killing this directive is dangerous. (Score:3, Informative)
The combined citizenship of the EU is barely able to stave off the CIID. Once the sponsors of the legislation work behind the scenes on in
Re:Killing this directive is dangerous. (Score:2)
I'm afraid you probably are. Here in Cambridge, a major tech centre in the UK, there's been a lot of debate about this recently, precisely because of the risk it poses to local industry. (There are several hundred small tech firms within five miles of my home.) If software patents were already legal in this country, I imagine someone would have noticed by now...
Re:Killing this directive is dangerous. (Score:2)
Do you have a reference for that at all? It's the first I've heard of it, and as I said, the local debate has been extensive. It includes at least one MEP who's obviously been doing his homework, so I'm surprised no-one has found anything adverse at the UKPO...
Re:Killing this directive is dangerous. (Score:4, Informative)
I have highlighted the outright lies with italics:
Remember, the words "technical contribution" are lawyerly weasel-words that allow an otherwise invalid patent to be approved.
I believe that claims that the consultation was wide-ranging and balanced have been debunked elsewhere. It was done with about the same fairness as the survey the Home Office put out, that shows that most people are in favour of ID cards.
The page goes on in this way; further analysis can be found here [ffii.org], here [ffii.org], and here [google.com].
Re:Killing this directive is dangerous. (Score:2)
Thanks. I'd mod you (+1, Informative), but...
Give it time... (Score:4, Insightful)
The EU is still new. They have members voting on ideals, and what is best for the people. That will change.
The USA is forcing its' system of government everywhere in the world. Soon, the "people" will elect thier new representatives. And the rich and wealthy businessmen will use their money to advertise candidates who are most favorable to their interests.
As long as money = speech, the people are the ones who will keep getting screwed.
As soon as money is taken out of politics, then people can debate which policy best fits their needs. But as long as 7 million dollars is spent on advterising about how the candidate is an asshole or fear, we are screwed. Can anyone in the USA honestly believe the pharmasutical companies advertising that drugs in Canada are dangerous for consumption in the USA? All the pharmasutical companies want to do is sell the exact same drugs in the USA at much higher prices. But when it comes to politics, there is no requirement that the truth is told.
What will happen in the EU is the powerful and rich will get people into positions of power. It is like the MAFIA. For a long run, they worked the system. They took low level thugs and got them jobs in the police force. They paid for the education of lawyers, and got some elected as judges. Before you knew it, the MAFIA could sell drugs, even if there was a police officer watching. If some good and ethical cop arrested someone the MAFIA wanted to protect, there was a good chance they would get a judge which would throw out the charges.
That is what the rich are doing. They are buying political offices. This will destroy the world, most will be forced in factories, into a slave like exsistance.
Re:Give it time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm, but all its members have a very long history, and that history weighs on the entire union. It's not like the US, where the country was really made anew, since the settlers decided to break away from the British rule and decided to quietly forgot about the natives' existence when the constitution was made (not counting the French influence).
Besides, look at the russian federation: it too is very new in a sense, much newer than the EU in fact, yet it's corrupt all the way to Putin, and businesses do whatever the hell they want provided they have money and don't step on the prez' toes.
Re:Give it time... (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree that the truth isn't being told about the pharmaceutical industry to the public. The thing is that they have tried telling the story in the past and the public doesn't want to l
Re:Give it time... (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno. The impression I've gotten from watching this EU software patents thing play out over the past year or so is that it's already happened.
The EU MPs vote on ideals. Sometimes. When their arms are twisted. Then the EC blatantly ignores them. Also, every once and a while the MPs will vote to explicitly cede a little more power to the EC.
The checks on the EC's power are diminishing with time, and it's the EC that's already stuffed with folks beholden to business interests.
However, except to the extent that US businesses are involved, I don't think it's fair to blame the US for this. The US didn't determine the structure of the EU, and issues of corruption are universal. The US could drop off the face of the earth, tomorrow, and your analysis of the weaknesses of representative democracy in the media age would still hold.
But ... nor do I think it is appropriate to blame representative democracy per se; elected MPs have been the sole (if inconsistent) hedge against the unelected EC which has been trying to repeatedly hammer through software patents. The biggest failings of the EU government to serve the needs of its people (versus businses) appear to be in its least representative-democratic portions.
Out of curiousity, if it were up to you alone, what system of government would you choose for Europe?
Re:Give it time... (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a long history of the rich taking as much as the poor will tolerate. For a while, the USA had factories filled with children working 60 hour weeks, for slave wages. It took an act of Congress to shut down these factories, and only because of massive outrage.
Re:Give it time... (Score:2)
The question we humans must answer is to what degree we will tolerate their criminal schemes. I say we exile them to a barren island and let them prey on each other.
Re:Give it time... (Score:2)
The flaw in the original posters rhetoric is that the first world won't be pushed into factories. We'll be pu
All in Europe say NI! (Score:5, Funny)
Your proposed law was a hamster, and software patents smell of elderberries. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second taah-me.
A hounding from the Well-Connected at 4AM CET. (Score:2, Insightful)
If this is rejected then I have a paraphrase from Star Wars Eposode IV: "Don't underestimate the lobbyists, they'll be back and in greater numbers"
Re:A hounding from the Well-Connected at 4AM CET. (Score:2, Interesting)
If we get this directive rejected in second reading,
adios corporate america (Score:2, Interesting)
6 new jobs over there is a pittance, but an eu WITHOUT software patents is where i want to do business.
adios corporate america.
Re:adios corporate america (Score:2)
The only parts of the British Isles that are NOT part of the EU is: the Isle of Man (where I live), and the Channel Islands. The Isle of Man is very business friendly (zero business tax).
Hej då Amerika? (Score:2)
Re:Hej då Amerika? (Score:2)
Re:Hej då Amerika? (Score:2)
Re:adios corporate america (Score:2)
Is this a good or a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
So MEPs, try harder!
Tristan.
Re:Is this a good or a bad thing? (Score:2, Informative)
Tonnerre
Wait a minute, is this bill good? (Score:2)
I always thought this measure was just like the US one that allows the crazy patents. Maybe it isn't evil after all.
Wait, that sound
Re:Wait a minute, is this bill good? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is. The trouble is that the pro-SW patent lobbyist claim to not want SW patents, as saying they want them would make their position hopeless. The major proponents have been linked time after time with organisations that have _no_ interest outside software or business method patents.
So instead they claim they dont want software patents, then turn around and lobby against any changes that would ban software patents. If, at any time, they're confronted on this inconsistency they ignore, avoid the question or divert the subject.
"Can someone tell me if I'm missing something?"
Indeed, yes, you are.
"If so, maybe it is time to say that this measure is okay."
And there you have the reason. The exact target response the obfuscation is intended to create.
It's hard to tell the difference, even for people who've followed the debate for years on end, so it's no wonder that people fall for it.
Re:Wait a minute, is this bill good? (Score:2)
Yes. You are missing the part about software being a series of zeros and ones, a form of code, a form of communication with a computer. Patents should not apply to it any more than it would to language or mathematics. A series of opcodes and operands is really a combination of both language and mathematics. If you can patent software you should also be able to patent abstract ideas/thoughts, sentences, block diagrams, speech patterns, sounds, philosophies... Y
Re:Wait a minute, is this bill good? (Score:2)
The problem with this bill is that it suggests software as such cannot be patented.
Just consider Articel 4A of the directive:
"A computer program as such cannot constitute a patentable invention."
Sounds good, doesn't it? At least until you realize that a "program as such" is a specific creation - like a book or film - which is already protected by copyright. The wording is ambiguous, e
Re:Wait a minute, is this bill good? (Score:2)
>The bill -- which would extend patent protection to computer programs when the software is used in the context of realizing inventions...
Wait, that sounds logical.
Of course it sounds logical. BOTH sides want to allow patents on inventions and only on inventions. The problem is that the two sides are using different definitions for "invention".
According to the anti-SW-patent side "invention" means some new physical object or some new phy
Legal Scenarios (Score:2)
We all know that Americans are not liable on international courts but they can sure drag anyone they wish to their courts so they can get "justice" done.
The only solution is for foreign firms to license their technology/services to whatever bully is enforcing the most patents. Look at the current situation with RIM and th
Re:Legal Scenarios (Score:5, Interesting)
It depends. Suppose a European firm tries to sell a product in the US that violates some US software patent. Then the firm can be sued in the US. Or, if a European firm has a subsidiary in the US which produces software that violates a US software patent, even if the product is meant for the European market. Again, the firm can be sued in the US. However, as long as the firm is located outside the US, and does not export to the US, it is basically safe (except maybe for a "nukular" threat, but I suppose not even W will go that far).
The funny thing is that a European firm that develops a "new" software concept might get it patented in the US. The net result, without software patents in Europe, is that in Europe many competing businesses might create products based on this "idea", while in the US there will be only one firm that is allowed to sell this product. Imagine what will happen to the price and quality of such a product. I expect that US citizens will get mightly jealous of the great software Europeans are allowed to use for little money, while the US is stuck with one piece of expensive crap. Maybe then the US will get rid of its software patents.
Re:Legal Scenarios (Score:2)
So both European and US companies can be sued (and lose) for patents violations when selling in the US but not the EU.
Which is why it is so stupid when european companies threaten to move to move the productions to US and India if they cannot get software patents in EU. They might move production to India anyway, but not because of Patents.
Wait! The headline is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Software patents do exist in Europe and the only way to make them invalid is a directive that effectively excludes software from patentability. So the rejection of the proposed (pro-softpat) text does not really solve the problem.
Re:Wait! The headline is wrong (Score:2)
Re:Wait! The headline is wrong (Score:2)
Software patents do exist in Europe and the only way to make them invalid is a directive that effectively excludes software from patentability. So the rejection of the proposed (pro-softpat) text does not really solve the problem.
true, but the SWPats that have been granted have been granted illegally and (as far as I know) have not been enforced yet in Europe (because enforcing illegal patents implies the significant risk of loosing them). So, yes, the rejection does not solve the problem, but at least
about software patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear MEP,
As you are probably well aware, soon the EU parliament will have a 'second reading' of the directive for allowing patents on "computer implemented inventions", which, as I will show below, actually amount to allowing software patents (swpat), though this is heavily disputed and denied by the proponents of the directive, including the European Commission (EC).
The way in which this directive has gone through the EU Council of ministers is mind boggling and shows exactly how much the EU has a democratic deficit. Despite the fact there was no real majority for the draft any more (the change in vote-weight after the enlargement alone accomplished that, apart from a lot of change of minds of some other countries), despite the fact that stringent motions of national parliaments were passed to oblige the national ministers to redraw the proposal as an A-item so that it may be further discussed, despite the fact that the EU parliament and their JURY-commission asked for a new first (re)reading with almost unanimity, the EC chose to ignore and disregard all this, while giving no explanation, apart from "for institutional reasons as to not create a precedent". In other words, the "common position" had to be followed, even though there was no common position any more, because, apparently, the form is more important then the facts.
This is a stupefying prime example of absurd bureaucratic reasoning and mentality; to give more importance to formality, and to place appearances before the changing facts. Bureaucracy abhors changes, even to the detriment of real democratic values. But then again, maybe this shouldn't surprise us, as the EC is exactly that: bureaucrats, whom were never voted into the position they occupy, yet create laws that could potentially influence millions of EU citizens (to which they do not have to answer to). The EU constitution leaves this democratic deficit as it is, alas. And as seen by the handling of this directive, the deficit is pretty huge.[1]
I will not go further into the procedural mess and the apparent disrespect of the EC for the EU parliament, but rather concentrate on the different aspects of the directive itself (content). I will do this by stating, and then debunking, the rather dubious claims and arguments made by the pro-directive camp, which, alas, also include some misguided MEPs - though I haste myself to say the large majority of the EU parliament is well aware of the facts, as can be readily seen by the amendments made in the first reading.
The following statements for why it is necessary to have the (current) directive is as follows:
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
2)It is necessary for the stimulation of EU software business, so we can effectively compete on the world-market.
3)It is needed for the harmonisation of the internal market, and to retain the status quo. (Similar as the "we do not change the current practise" or the "it will avoid drifting towards US-style patentability" -argument).
I will now debunk all these arguments (sources mentioned at the end of the document) in a rational and clear way, instead of all the FUD currently being made by many of the softwarepatents (swpat) proponents.
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
First of all, we have to ask ourselves, what, exactly, a patent is. A lot of pro-swpat advocates use terms as Intellectual Property (IP) rights, while those encompass a lot of different concepts, such as copyright (which is already used for software). We can find the following definition:
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a government to an inventor or applicant for a limited amount of time (normally 20 years from the filing date)... Per the word'
Re:about software patents (Score:2)
Re:about software patents (Score:2)
Nope.
about software patents and enough propaganda (Score:2)
"Oh, please. As if this site didn't already post enough anti software patent propaganda"
Not really. At least in my opinion. But that is higly subjective, since 'enough' is in the eye of the beholder. And so is 'propaganda'.
"(real actual arguments are scarce)"
Only if you refuse to acknowledge them as arguments.
", now you had to do it, too."
Indeed.
"Cut this copy-pasting out, okay?"
Nope. I don't even see why I should. It's my text, I wrote it, so I can copy/paste it as m
Re:about software patents and enough propaganda (Score:2)
Re:about software patents and enough propaganda (Score:2)
Actually, i just wanted to say that i'm sorry for not reading your comment, but i'm just so fed up with the constant anti-patent boo-hoo-hooing that goes on on Slashdot that when i saw (and skimmed) your comment, my first reaction was to post a cheap flame.
However, now that you've mentioned appendices and references, you've managed to raise my curiosity. I'd read the whole thing with the appendices, but anything longer than five
Re:about software patents (Score:2)
Frankly if you can't recognise three or four pages of well-reasoned argument, logical conclusions drawn from those arguments, and can't comprehend of someone taking the time to write a lucid explanation of such an important issue with the aim of avoiding one of the more cataclysmic developments in modern computing, maybe you're the one who should stop posting. Deal?
And for reference, I read the whole thing, and found it fascinating (if slightly repetitive and in need of some proofreading). Fuckw
Re:about software patents (Score:2)
Thank you for your time. Next!
Re:about software patents (Score:2)
Thank you for your time. Next, please!
FFS he works for American corporate interests! (Score:3, Interesting)
How on earth do we end up with a legislator that not only has outside interests, but outside American interests?
Re:FFS he works for American corporate interests! (Score:2)
Steady On (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Steady On (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if all you want to do is come up with ideas, and pay some lawyers, without actually making anything usef
Re:Steady On (Score:2)
Re:Steady On (Score:2)
Ideas are or certainly should be free, as in both speech and beer. It is a specific implementation of an idea that people can attempt to 'protect' from other people who may want to use it. Even with software patents you will not have recourse. Do you really think that you can afford a court battl
The decision should be clear (Score:5, Interesting)
Ask yourself: do you benefit from software patents?
I know I don't, especially in light of the quality of the latest "innovations" that are really just a reworded version of the same junk. Software patents have only been a hindrance to me. They're only a bane and a bother to 99.9999% of the population. Why should almost everyone's time be wasted with increasingly ridiculous nonsense that benefits almost no one, stifles technology use and acceptance and doesn't really succeed in identifying and rewarding all of the innovators? Even the officially sanctioned innovators don't receive that much in return once all of the lawyers and filings and other administrative overhead eat up the profits. So, it benefits only a few people and the rest of us bear the costs in the form of wastes of time, service interruptions, higher product and service costs, responding to legal claims, etc.
Does an art museum interrupt and charge a painter for each brushstroke that resembles someone else's painting? It's not worth their time. Similarly, software patents are not worth our time at the level they want to enforce them. Instead it just costs us an environment in which to innovate freely.
don't be confused (Score:2, Informative)
this is not the end of sw patents in europe, it's just a continuation of business as normal...
sum.zero
Not enough (Score:3, Insightful)
It was rejected! (Score:3, Informative)
And the actual vote was.... (Score:2, Informative)
``We buried a bad law and did so without flowers,'' Eva Lichtenberger, a member of the parliament from Austria's Green party, told reporters.
Re:pfffft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hope I can sleep tonight.. (Score:2)
Re:I hope I can sleep tonight.. (Score:2, Funny)
Seriously, man, you can't be serious.
Re:Shooting yourself in the foot. (Score:2)
No. Why should it? I can't really follow you there...
This "meme" comes from a slashdot story where the poster asked this question out of the blue...
Re:Shooting yourself in the foot. (Score:2)