EU's Unitary Software Patent Challenged At the Belgian Constitutional Court 42
zoobab writes The Unitary Patent for Europe is being challenged at the Belgian Constitutional Court. One of the plaintiffs, Benjamin Henrion, is a fifteen-year campaigner against software patents in Europe. He says: "The Unitary Patent is the third major attempt to legalize software patents in Europe. The captive European Patent Court will become the Eastern District of Texas when it comes to software patent disputes in Europe. As happened in America, the concentration of power will force up legal costs, punish small European companies, and benefit large patent holders."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Patent trolls are only part of the problem, yes they do go after big companies with big pockets where possible but those big companies also keep massive "war chests" of patents to attack other companies both big and small to keep competition out of the market. Just look at the smartphone patent wars between Nokia, Motorola, Microsoft & Apple. Patents as a whole need a major rethink, yes they do serve a purpose but only when they deal with a unique idea and are granted for a limited time only (IE not a
Re: (Score:2)
I believe much of the EU employs a "loser pays" legal system, which goes a long way toward eliminating litigious trolling, in addition to encouraging quality lawyers to work on consignment for little guys with a good case.
Of course that doesn't actually do much to help a small software business whose flagship product has just had an injunction slapped on it until MegaCorp's team of crack lawyers has dragged your company through the slow wheels of "justice".
Re: (Score:1)
Mr Jobs threatened Palm with "patent litigation" if they would not submit to non-poaching agreement. Hello.
Dying big companies, too (Score:2)
The vast majority of patent trolls are typically very small entities that like to sue BIG companies for one obvious reason: Big companies have deep pockets.
It's not just patent trolls.
When a big technology company is in trouble, one thing they may do to try to stay alive is go through their portfolio of patents and sue everybody doing anything related to them. This is in the hope that they can pull in enough cash to stay alive a few more months, by finding actual infringement on discovery, or just provokin
Re:Dying big companies, too - clarifying typo (Score:2)
Companies - at least in the US - try to keep their engineers from looking at other patents, because knowing you're infringing triples the damage awards.
I hate the keyboard and trackpad on this Toshiba Satellite S75. (It's just as bad as the ones on the Lenovo Z710, too.) Overly-wide, ultra-thin, chicklets, with no clearance for fingernails. Brush the trackpad while typing and half a sentence is highlighted and instantly overwritten by the next keystroke, making it disappear. Typos up the wazoo. In near
Nothing to do with software patents (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, as a result of those individual country fees, hardly anyone files for patent protection in, say, Luxembourg, or Albania, or Latvia, because the markets aren't big enough to justify several thousand in fees per country (except in pharma, where they can just charge thousands of dollars per dose of medicine and get the costs back easily). In fact, generally, high tech inventors only get protection in the UK, France, and Germany.
As a result of not having patent protection in those other countries, companies also don't invest in those other countries... You're not going to open a manufacturing plant in, say, Portugal, even if the labor is really cheap, if you have no patent protection there and your competitor can simply open a plant across the street and spy through your windows. Nor are you really going to focus marketing efforts in those countries, if your competitor can simply buy the product and reverse engineer it. So, you end up with 1st world Europe in UK/FR/DE, and 2nd (or 3rd) world Europe everywhere else.
The Unitary Patent, on the other hand, is an actual European Patent. Rather than nationalizing in each individual country, you get a single European Patent that is enforceable everywhere in Europe. It doesn't make software patents legal - and in fact, software patenting is explicitly not allowed in Europe already, and this doesn't change anything about it - it just makes the filing and fees more straightforward, while extending protection into those other countries.
The other thing it does - and Slashdot should like this - is that it creates a Unified Patent Court that hears cases on infringement and validity of European patents. And it's not just one old fart in a black robe who doesn't use email and 12 idiots who had the day off from work, it's actually panels of three specialist judges who only hear patent cases and have appropriate scientific or engineering backgrounds (there's a mechanical division, a chemical division, and an electrical division).
Now, there is some opposition to the Unitary Patent, but it's not "zomg, this legalizes software!" Instead, it's coming from companies in those countries that no one bothers getting a patent in that actually are doing reverse engineering of competitor's products. And yeah, they should be upset, because this would force them to come up with their own inventions rather than just stealing everyone else's.
Disclaimer: I am a U.S. patent attorney, I'm not your attorney, this is not legal advice, etc.
Re:Nothing to do with software patents (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, but other experts then me says the opposite:
http://epla.ffii.org/quotes
Re:Nothing to do with software patents (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but other experts then me says the opposite:
http://epla.ffii.org/quotes
Notice that none of those are actually complaining about the establishment of a unitary court or patent, nor are they saying that this legalizes software patents, which it doesn't. Instead, they say that this could "restart the debate" over software patents. In fact, if you only read the fear-mongering, bolded "software patents are fully enforceable across Europe" in the second quote, you might miss the fact that it's saying that pro-software patent groups want that result, not that it actually exists now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is like reading theology from a religious zealot.
Your premise that building on others' discoveries is "stealing" is patent nonsense, and reverse engineering is a workaround to a problem - not a sin.
You know full fucking well that it'd be easier to further the reach of patents once they are harmonised across the EU, and much harder to eliminate such laws once successfully lobbied for. Since you are a patent lawyer I shall assume you are not stupid, which means you are simply dishonest out of conflict of
Re:Nothing to do with software patents (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, there's no conflict of interest here. His interests are very clear. Patent attorneys make their money from patent disputes. The Unitary Patent is fantastic news for such people. It gives them larger clients willing to pay higher prices for pan-EU monopolies.
Re:Nothing to do with software patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Software patents are explicitly not allowed in US either. It was the US patent court that after it was established as being outside the normal courts that unilaterally decided to allow software patents. That is what people are afraid will happen in Europe.
Re:Nothing to do with software patents (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it's what people are afraid of, since the patent industry has been very clearly fighting for this for decades now. Their apologists will deny it, as usual. The EPO however is not so shy: http://www.epo.org/news-issues... [epo.org] lists software patents above biotech in their topics of interest with respect to the Unitary Patent.
Anyone who claims the Unitary Patent is about reducing costs and somehow "protecting innovation" is a troll, a liar, extraordinarily ignorant, and/or a paid lobbyist. This isn't magic. We've been watching this for more than a decade. I personally spent two years doing nothing else than studying the patent system and learning its motives.
The patent system is sociopathic, corrupt, and built on lies and the capture of politics by vested interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Software patents are explicitly not allowed in US either.
That's true, which is why there aren't any enforceable patents on software, nor are any being issued now. There are patents on machines that implement software, but not on the software itself.
It was the US patent court that after it was established as being outside the normal courts that unilaterally decided to allow software patents.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The "US patent court"? You mean the Appeal Board at the USPTO? And no, it wasn't anything "outside the normal courts" - it was the Supreme Court in Diamond v. Diehr that said that inventions aren't excluded from patentability merely because they use software. And the PTAB wa
Re: (Score:1)
This is BS. Noone has to spy on you to find out how your patented product works, because that is supposed to be explained in the patent. And a patent will also not protect you from reverse engineering. So why not invest in a cheap labor country, when you have explained the howto in your patent anyway and you don't seem to want to patent in that country for some reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Informative? Really mods? When a PATENT ATTORNEY uses outright FUD like comparing patents to trade secrets while outright ignoring the description for the fucking thing is IN THE PATENT?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't make software patents legal - and in fact, software patenting is explicitly not allowed in Europe already, and this doesn't change anything about it
Formally, it doesn't. In practice, just as the European Patent Office creatively reinterpreted the European Patent Convention (EPC) over the years and as the US C.A.F.C. kept broadening software patentability (until the Supreme Court reigned it in a bit again — and yes, I know they started it in the first place), it is unlikely that a an incrowd of patent people will forever be very stringent regarding interpreting the boundaries of patentability (hammers, nails and all that).
And since the Unified Pat
Make a federal case out of it - learn this term (Score:2, Insightful)
This is an early warning sign of encroaching European federalism. Your grand children will think of themselves as Europeans, pay homage to that government, and turn to it for legislation rather than France, or Germany, or Luxumburg, the New York, California, and Rhode Island of Europe.
What state do you live in? "I live in United Kingdom!"
Re: (Score:3)
This is an early warning sign of encroaching European federalism.
Does that mean we're going to get national health care and free travel to neighboring countries without showing papers? Sounds cool
Re:Make a federal case out of it - learn this term (Score:5, Interesting)
I already think of myself as European. I'm Dutch as well, by the way. There are many more who think the same. There are also quite some people who do not. European integration is already at work for at least half a century. With mixed results, I have to admit... but one thing it did do right; 1945 was the last year there was an active war between European nations (there has been quite an ugly civil war (Yugoslavia) and Russia doesn't seem to play nice, recently. But France, Germany and the U.K. seem to have lost their imperial aspirations). Let's hope people are smart enough to see the benefits and be wary of things that should be better - and keep voting accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, being Flemish myself, I resent all European parties which are anti-Europe (Vlaams Blok, Geert Wilders, French Front National). Having read a whole lot on the history of WW1 and WW2, my take on matters is that anti-European parties are in reality pro-war parties.
Re:Translations should still be required (Score:5, Informative)
For the swedish case, it is even worse, as Sweden already ratified, and the only language of the regional court will be english only. Meaning that a swedish company accused in court will have to hire a translator. And patents will only be available in english of course, translations in swedish will be made "non-legally binding" bu the unipat.
Re:Translations should still be required (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Translations should still be required (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole point of the patent system is to tax the market.
It's that simple. All the rest is smoke and mirrors. We filed our appeal in Belgium because we know, in Flanders, how language can be used as a political tool. Here, the use of French, English, and German, suppresses dissent and appeal. It is already extraordinarily expensive to defend against a patent suit. The larger the court, the more it costs. I showed in 2007 using the EPO's own figures that specialized courts cost 4x more than courts that deal in all matters including patents.
This adds to an extraordinary burden on those trying to make products, and a downhill fight for patent owners. You think the Microsoft tax on Android is exceptional or unique? No, it's the Future According the the Patent System. The cost of production falls to zero, and the cost of licensing fills the gap, and the price to the market remains flat.
Language is a weapon, in this case.
Re: (Score:1)
"Where are films made? Not the EU."
Film 4 (multiple Oscar winners), Studio Canal and plenty of others would disagree.
Software for computers, as such. (Score:2)
The Euro patent legislation specifically bans software patents "as such". But the EPO has interpreted "as such" to means only "pure software" that does does not run on a computer is unpatentable. Once it runs on a computer, it is no longer "as such" and therefor patenable.
Does not make sense, but who cares if you are the judge, jury and executioner. Unified patent is pure evilness.