Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Government Politics

EU Software Patent Argument to Reopen? 164

Posted by Zonk from the more-debate-is-good-for-the-soul dept.
pryonic writes "The Register is reporting that the EU software debate may be reopened by the Internal Markets Commissioner Charlie McCreevy. He has unveiled a public consultation on 'future action in patent policy to create an EU-wide patent system can take account of stakeholders needs.'" More from the article: "Both individuals and businesses are invited to contribute to the consultation which will run until 31 March. In launching the initiative McCreevy said that the European Commission wants to make the single market for patents 'a reality.' He urged individuals and businesses to give their views on how that could be achieved." Groklaw has commentary on this development as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Software Patent Argument to Reopen? More

EU Software Patent Argument to Reopen?

Comments Filter:

  • You must STOP it now, we couldn't in the US (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:29PM (#14492781)
    You MUST STOP SOFTWARE PATENTS NOW. We could not in the US and look at the mess we are in.... Do whatever it takes to talk with your representatives, MPs, etc. Get a good, solid dialog going and put this to bed.
    • There's too much money and power at stake. Could you imagine how much money IBM would have right now if they could have patented software from the get-go?

    • Re:You must STOP it now, we couldn't in the US (Score:5, Insightful)

      by El_Muerte_TDS ( 592157 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:57PM (#14493029) Homepage
      We tried and succeded, or at least, until 2007. It just won't stay dead.
      One "yes" and we're screwed. One "no" and we'll have to repeat it over and over and over again until hell freezes over (or we until we say "yes", whatever comes first).
      • Well, ``keep asking the people until they give us the answer we want'' is the EU way, is it not?
      • Maybe instead of having to fight back these software patent proposals every year, an EU delegate should propose amending the EU charter to specifically BAN software patents? Seems the pro-patent folks can't take "nay" for an answer.
      • The guys who get patents approved in EU and their parties won't get my vote until hell freezes over, too.
      • Hey, this method how I got a pony for Christmas. (Well, it would have been if I'd actually wanted a pony)

        More seriously, can we even begin to calculate the time and resources that have already been diverted into reacting to nuisance policy initiatives instead of developing better software?

        Does the EU have an ultimate authority who has a genuinely final say on such issues?

        Xix.

    • Re:You must STOP it now, we couldn't in the US (Score:4, Interesting)

      by nickos ( 91443 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @04:03PM (#14493081)
      I didn't see this mentioned on /. at the time and only found out about it myself just recently, but France may be about to get the worst copyright law in Europe and ban Free/Open Source Software - see here [boingboing.net]...

      SNEP and SCPP have told Free Software authors: "You will be required to change your licenses." SACEM add: "You shall stop publishing free software," and warn they are ready "to sue free software authors who will keep on publishing source code" should the "VU/SACEM/BSA/FA Contents Department"[1] bill proposal pass in the Parliament.
    • Well, we can start by emailing Charlie McCreevy: Charlie.Mc-Creevy@cec.eu.int
      (according to his contact page on [eu.int] the commision website.

  • Single market = OK (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mtenhagen ( 450608 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:30PM (#14492791) Homepage
    The goal of creating a single patent system for europe is not a bad thing in itself. But they should start with the lowest dominator instead of trying to make "everything" patentable.

    Lets hope they've learned something from the previous attempt and they will go for a clear patent systems that only allows "real" inventions.

    But I honestly dont think that the big money will accept a more strict patent system. So we need to keep the politicans aware of what the citizens think!

  • This will be fun! (Score:5, Funny)

    by lbrandy ( 923907 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:30PM (#14492792)
    >omg patents are so bad (+2, Insightful) >>omg yea, the system is broken (+2, Insightful) >>> yea how you can patent a process.. this is riduclous (+5, Informative) >>>> but we need patents to continue innovation (+3, Interesting) >>>>> No you don't! In my business, , and then (+5, Informative) >>>> i have patented complaining about patents, you owe me money (+5, Funny) >>> It's all president's Bush's fault. (+5, flaimbait) >>>> I hate microsoft (+5, Off-topic)
    • Sounds about right to me. Welcome to Slashdot.

  • Surprise surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gasmonso ( 929871 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:32PM (#14492821) Homepage

    Is it any surprise that the issue hasn't gone away? Look at the two major supporters for software patents...Microsoft and Sun. They are just using their power and influence to dictate policies that favor them. What I found amusing is this... "The bill had been supported by the European pro-patent lobby, which included corporations such as Microsoft and Sun, who claimed that the directive would encourage investment in research and development in Europe." Sure it would encourage investment....from large companies like MS and Sun. They of course will reap most of the benefits aswell. Software patents are a bad idea and stifle creativity.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

    • Re:Surprise surprise. (Score:5, Informative)

      by tambo ( 310170 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:37PM (#14492863)
      Look at the two major supporters for software patents...Microsoft and Sun.

      You've forgotten about the biggest software patentee of them all. IBM's software patent practice just dwarfs those of Microsoft and Sun combined.

      - David Stein

      • To be fair, IBM seems to mostly use the threat of patent litigation to avoid patent litigation. Not that they're altruistic or anything but in general they seem to be less assholish with their patents than Microsoft or Sun.
      • > You've forgotten about the biggest software patentee of them all. IBM's software patent practice just dwarfs those of Microsoft and Sun combined.

        No idea whether IBM patents software as well - presumably they do - but they do also patent lots and lots of real stuff. You know, chips & electronics.
      • Let's face it, the real problem with software patents is patent-encumbered standards.

        The single-click patent is just plain stupid, but it doesn't allow Amazon to lock up the entire web.

        The vfat long-names patent is just plain stupid, and it alows Microsoft to limit the ability of other company's products to interoperate with Windows.

        These days, IBM does not have the market power to create de-facto standards and then use patents to exclude others from developing to those standards. Unfortunately for us all,
    • "They are just using their power and influence to dictate policies that favor them."

      Yeah, and lions eat antelopes. Not sure what your point is here, other than businesses will protect their interests. Not too insightful, seeing as it's been that way forever.

      "Sure it would encourage investment....from large companies like MS and Sun. They of course will reap most of the benefits aswell. Software patents are a bad idea and stifle creativity."

      Listen, I understand your point, but you haven't made it here. Al

      • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Simon Brooke ( 45012 ) *

        Sure it would encourage investment....from large companies like MS and Sun. They of course will reap most of the benefits aswell. Software patents are a bad idea and stifle creativity.

        Listen, I understand your point, but you haven't made it here. All you've done is try to vilify MS and Sun, and that may get you karma, it doesn't explain why you think...

        A serious point is that both Microsoft and Sun are both US companies. Like other US companies, they already have a huge bank of software patents which

    • After a while, even MS and Sun would begin suffering, because what software patents really encourage is companies whose sole existence is to be patent-enabled parasites on software firms, getting their profit from ill-conceived patents. What really needs to be done is tighten up the rules so that if a company is ever caught trying to sneak one-click-shopping style patents, they are forever banned from getting patents, and any company that has a member of that company's board on its own board is also banned

    • It sucks.. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by bmajik ( 96670 )
      I am an MS employee (although my posting is DEFINITELY my own opinion and has no relation to anything that might be the position of my employer).

      I am against software patents, such as they exist today in the US.

      I am _for_ government granting artificial protections to people/organizations that create IP, because i beleive that authors, software developers, and musicians deserve to have some say in how money is made from their intellectual property, and it seems necessary to make the model work (at least for
      • "I am _for_ government granting artificial protections to people/organizations that create IP"

        Why?

        It would be entirely possible to have a non-monopoly protective system, where, for example, you apply for a 'innovation credit patent', much like today, but instead of threatening and/or coercing every user of the invention for your money, the users would simply notify the PTO that their product contains your innovation, and the PTO would pay you.

        See, for example, in your hypothetical situation where you feel y
        • What you propose sounds interesting, but how is it different than the part of my message you quoted? What you describe would be a govt institution that artificially creates a market for the re-use of IP, which is what I was trying to express (apparently, i did not do so successfully)

          One "downside" i see is that it's not clear that the inventor has any say in how they are compensated; the PTO apparently decides that? That puts the balance of power a bit more into the hands of the govt than i feel ok with..
    • The Register article has it wrong. As is very clearly documented Sun, together with Red Hat and others, lobbied against software patents in Europe, as I just documented in my blog [sun.com]. I know, because I was the person acting on Sun's behalf.
  • A bigger menace to society than even software patents is the slashdot effect. One freaking minute after the story is posted, Groklaw is down.

  • Single market, with a twist. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vik ( 17857 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:37PM (#14492861) Homepage Journal
    Here's a novel idea. Instead of all the countries in the EU changing their patent law to include software patents, why doesn't the US prohibit software patents? Seems a better way of making a single market to me.

    Vik :v)
    • Well, then go lobby your senators or who ever is deciding this in the US, to "harmonize" their patent laws with the EU before the EU changes theirs. ;-)
    • Wait, are you suggesting that the United States change their way of doing things in order to... wait for it... fit in with the rest of the world?!? Come on, you are talking about the only country in the world still using the imperial system of measurement.
      • They're not the only one with the imperial system. Let me see, there's St. Lucia (but only for the next 4 years), Antigua, The Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis, and Dominica.

        Every little pseudo-democracy should use it.

        Vik :v)
    • Here's a novel idea. Instead of all the countries in the EU changing their patent law to include software patents, why doesn't the US prohibit software patents? Seems a better way of making a single market to me.

      It won't happen in the U.S. because it can't happen in the U.S. without pollitical reform. Parts of Europe are still democratic and the opinions of the voters still hold some weight. The U.S. corporatocracy [wikipedia.org] would never permit it. One can always hope for democratic reforms, but they seem unlikel

  • Stakeholders need? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spyfrog ( 552673 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:38PM (#14492877) Homepage
    "create an EU-wide patent system can take account of stakeholders needs."

    Why do I have a strong suspicion that the biggest stakeholder, the public, won't matter when it comes to decision?
    • I think he meant "shareholders".
      • Stakeholders == everyone involved with the company: shareholders, but also employees, unions, the state, local communities, society as a whole, even the environment.

        The idea that stakeholders, as opposed to mereley shareholders, should have their say in the way businesses are run, is a central concept of European-style capitalism.

        In practice, politicians will say "stakeholders" while they do mean "shareholders", hoping people will be tricked into thinking their constituents were asked about it. ;)
    • Why do I have a strong suspicion that the biggest stakeholder, the public, won't matter when it comes to decision?

      The replies to your comment thus far are focusing on the semantics of your statement, and it is true that politicians, etc tend to warp words like 'stakeholder' to mean what they want, but I think you are absolutely correct in this.

      The public in a "free" society is supposed to be the largest stakeholder, as they have both the largest numbers (population) and also the most at stake - i.e. compa

    • >Why do I have a strong suspicion that the biggest stakeholder, the public, won't matter when it comes to decision?

      Experience?

    • Re:Stakeholders need? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gr8_phk ( 621180 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @06:32PM (#14494711)
      From the original post: "future action in patent policy to create an EU-wide patent system can take account of stakeholders needs."

      Patents are not supposed to have anything to do with "stakeholders". They need to go back and look at the justification for having patents in the first place. You won't find any reference to "stakeholders needs".

      In the US, the stated purpose is (my words here) to promote dissemination of ideas - you get a limited term monopoly in exchange for disclosing to the public how your invention works. What they have come to be in practice is quite different. Some people would say we need to harmonize the rules to accepted practice, but that doesn't agree with the justification for having patents in the first place. There aren't too many things where a patent actually explains something that can't be figured out by looking at the actual implementation.

      I think I just figured out the problem with our "non-obvious" requirement. You can argue about weather something was obvious before it existed, but the purpose of patents is to encourage disclosure to the public how something works or is made. This implies that it needs to cover something that is not obvious even after the public has access to the invention. A good example would be the recent methods for making diamonds - having one does not tell you how to make one. Another example would be the recipe for Coke, but they like to keep that a trade-secret. By offering Coke a patent, we'd all get to find out how to make it (legally in 20 years) but instead they keep it a secret - which has worked equally well for them without any term limit. When shown a one-click shopping cart on the web, most anyone with a little programming skill and HTML knowhow can replicate it - hence not patentable. Slick new algorithms... Hmmm. Perhaps. Ones that can be figured out easily with a disassembler - no. Basically if you need to read the patent to know how to do something then it's probably patentable based on the original justification for having them. Otherwise not. OK, so I'm dreaming...

      • Think of the patent system as an incentive system.

        The problem is not obviousness but lies in the "object" which gets patent protection.

        In the field of software ideas are not rare, so you do not need this inefficient instrument to incite people to have ideas. Plus the transaction costs imposed on the market. Having software ideas is everyday's business and less complicated and costly than obtaining a patent. So we get the patent-knowledge divide: There are people specialised on making software and people spe

  • Charlie McCreevy (Score:5, Informative)

    by easter1916 ( 452058 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @03:39PM (#14492884) Homepage
    Background: McCreevy was previously Finance Minister in the Irish Government, but fell out of favour with his patrons for his arrogant ways, annoying manner, utter highhandedness and complete inability to listen to his constituents. He's an ardent free-marketeer / economic liberal. He's an annoying man.

    • Re:Charlie McCreevy (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      He's an ardent free-marketeer

      Nope. Patent monopolies are, by definition, ANTI Free market. McCreevy is a corrupt, evil bastard, plain and simple. Someone should shoot him, and McDowell while they're at it.

  • 'future action in patent policy to create an EU-wide patent system can take account of stakeholders needs.'

    What? I don't seem to understand this quote.
    I guess that correct grammar has already been patented by the Grammar Nazis.

    • I guess that correct grammar has already been patented by the Grammar Nazis.

      Makes sense. After all, "Mein Kampf" is still restricted by copyright. We wouldn't want to violate Adolf Hitlers intellectual property, no would we ?

      • Is this actually true? I can't believe that it is ... but that said, it does raise an interesting question -- who does hold the copyright to Third Reich government works? Anyone in particular? Or are they all just considered public domain now? How about the early stuff of Hitler's (e.g. paintings)? It would be rather twisted if someone still had an enforceable copyright on them.

        I know after World War I, part of the postwar settlement was that a bunch of german corporations had to give up patent and trademar
        • I regret to say that the copyright on Mein Kampf is still very much alive. Outside English and Dutch, copyright is owned by the state of Bavaria, until 2015.

          In Germany and I believe also in the Netherlands, the copyright is used entirely to ensure that nobody copies the book.

          This is disputed here and there... other countries get away with publishing translations. I'm not sure by what authority the state has seized copyright.

          Sorry.

  • Translation (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    EU to the people: We're going to keep pushing patents until we get what we want.

    (And you know what, I've seen enough of this crap to believe they're going to get it.)

    • Re:Of course it's not (Score:2, Interesting)

      by PhB95 ( 442518 )
      These people make me sick: They keep pushing law after law on member states, well aware that the citizen don't want them. It happened that finally countries where there once was a large majority in favor of the EU construction, (The Netherlands, France) rejected the proposed EU constitution. And now they do bussiness as usual. We have an election year in 2007 and if this kind of crap does not stop, I will seriously consider voting for some politician seeking to LEAVE THE E.U.no matter what his other propos
  • If at first you don't succeed, try and try again...over and over, sometimes using illegal and/or dirty tricks to achieve your goal.

  • Make it a Europe vs. U.S. issue (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @04:20PM (#14493258)
    If these clowns won't listen, then it's time to play dirty. What the opponents of this need to do is to frame software patents as a power grab by U.S. corporations over the European market, a way for them to ensure that European innovation is stifled so that Europe will always be beholden to U.S. interests. Then portray these EU bureaucrats as stooges of the giant American corporations.

    What this will do is put these guys on the defensive. It changes the issue at hand from, "We need software patents," to, "Wait! I'm not a stooge of the Americans! You aren't listening to my argument!" This may sound like a trivial thing, but it isn't. It changes the entire dynamic from that of these guys pushing ahead with their agenda to them having to explain why they aren't pawns of a foreign country. The ordinary person on the street may not understand what a software patent is, but if you tell them it's being forced on them at the behest of foreign governments and corporations, they won't like it. And before someone chimes in saying that we shouldn't have to play politics this way, that the arguments against software patents are good enough to stand on their own, let me just say this. You're right, but being right won't necessarily win a fight. You also have to be practical, and you have to use every tool at your disposal. There are many times that the side with the right argument loses because it isn't willing to get in there and fight tooth and nail for what it believes in.

    Oh, BTW, in case you're wondering, no, I'm not anti-American. In fact, I am an American, but I happen to believe that our patent system is completely corrupt, and I shudder to think that it's being foisted onto any other parts of the world.
    • What has fact to do with playing dirty?

      The reason TRIPPS was brought to life is exactly that, taking over of American Conglomerates the market and legal systems of small independent countries.
      • Software patents are there to defend short term profits of some big corporations, simple as that.

        The fact that those corporations are mostly based in the US is not surprising but purely incidental.

        So this is not really an America vs Europe thing, and there is no secret plan with the government or the CIA to Americanize the world, it's just the corporations wanting to extend their power to europe after succeeding in the US.

        And, btw, i am not American, and the grandparent's post is the best one i've seen in /
    • Note that most software patents come from? The USA, Japan and Germany, in that order. About 1/3 of all software patents come from the USA, if Japan is added you get about 70% (source: FFII [ffii.org]). The FFII has already made the point that software patents yre detrimental to the European IT industry. Pointing this out to people is a good idea, though. Many people have never heard of the FFII at all.
    • "This may sound like a trivial thing, but it isn't. It changes the entire dynamic from that of these guys pushing ahead with their agenda to them having to explain why they aren't pawns of a foreign country. The ordinary person on the street may not understand what a software patent is, but if you tell them it's being forced on them at the behest of foreign governments and corporations, they won't like it."

      You make an interesting point, but I don't think you're taking into account the difference

    • Re:Make it a Europe vs. U.S. issue (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RexRhino ( 769423 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @06:59PM (#14494977)
      Except the economics of the issue is that Eurpean corporations don't want to reject software patents, and then have the U.S. own all the good software patents (the economy is global, and America is a huge market with incredable political power... so U.S. software patents have a great effect on the world even if Europe doesn't recognize them).

      The movement towards software patents in Europe is not being pushed by American corporations, it is being pushed by European corporations and people who have the very same paranoid anti-American you are trying to promote. European companies think "We are going to get crushed by the Americans if they can use software patents to make money, and we can't... we need to make strong IP laws and get our share of that software patent pie".
      • You know that even if software patents dont exist in Europe that European companies can patent as much as they like in america right?

        Not having software patents in Europe has 0 impact on European ability to play the patent game in America
    • The movement is strong enough and does not need cheap propaganda.

      The article is wrong as it implies a strategy towards software patents but software patents are gone. The dice is cast. It is all about making it bullet-proof that no software patents get granted via case law once the ECJ gets in charge.

      In general MEPs are our friends. You do not buy politicians but you can invest in software patent lobbyism.
  • The EU will continue to bring up the issue of software patents again and again until it's finally put through. We can say no 100 times but say yes once and it's done.

    It's the same with the constitution, they'll continue to try and put it through for the next decade, the population will say no again and again, until they say yes, and then it's done.

    This is how the EU does things.

    It's also why I'm moving to Australia in 3 months. It's a joke.

  • Patent protest in Washington DC (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Micah ( 278 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @05:17PM (#14493949) Homepage Journal
    IMHO ...

    Americans can get involved here by organizing a patent protest in the Capital Mall. Get as many programmers together as possible with as many exhibits of how software patents have harmed innovation as possible. Have a march, get the public's attention.

    Maybe, just maybe, it will get the attention of someone in power in the US (to fix the issue) and/or someone in power in the EU (to warn them of what could happen).

    The biggest problem would be actually getting people there. I, for example, would love to go to such a demonstration, but practically probably could not.

  • Software? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ccarr.com ( 262540 )
    Maybe there's some subtext that I'm missing, but the article seems unduely alarmist. There's nothing in the EU press release or consultation document to indicate that this has anything to do with Software or computer implemented inventions. The question presented seems to be whether there should be European patents at all.

  • what part (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BBird ( 664014 )
    I have to asl the obvious...

    What part of NO do they don't understand?

  • Could we get organised? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by startling ( 717697 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @07:28PM (#14495224)

    I'm sure many of us in the UK have written to our MPs and MEPs, among other things, but I'm not aware of any specific UK organisation coordinating ventures to stop these patent shenanigans.

    Do any other UK slashdotters feel like getting in touch to see what could be achieved collectively? You know: email, website, forum, PR activites, that sort of thing. There's such a lot of strong opinion about this; maybe a concerted campaign could achieve more than individual efforts?
  • EU will have software patent legislation no matter what, just like GWB had his war.

    You can try to educate people who are ignorant. These guys are not even remotely ignorant.
    They are cold, rational, calculating individuals who exactly know what they want and they will get it no matter whan you, me and Poland says or votes.

    I bet a 1,000 dollars (USD) that before this year is out, the legislation would be active in EU.

    Am not claiming it would be voted, passed, etc., Am just saying it would be there, hook or cr
  • As 'everybody knows' :) there are different phases in the codecion procedure that is used to make new European laws. The parliament rejected the commission patent project a first time and emitted a bunch of amendments. BUT the commission neglected totally the amendments submitted by the parliament. So this negative second vote is a response to the total contempt with which the Parliament was treated by the Commission and the Council.

    Thus it does not really means that the majority of the parliament is tota

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close