EU Parliament to Vote on New Patent Rules 252
peter_sd writes "The Register has an article discussing the implications to the open source community and small software businesses of the new software patent law to be voted on tomorrow by the EU parliament. According to the article, it is very likely the new patent law will be accepted despite its grave consequences."
What we need... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What we need... (Score:2, Interesting)
creative commons (Score:5, Insightful)
There's little, however, that can be done (in today's corporatist environment) to prevent the granting of idiotic patents. That pretty much means there's nothing to be done about companies "buying markets" unless (or until) there exists an organization that would have an economic interest in defending against such practices.
No, in theory that could be the creative commons itself - i.e. acting as an IP defense fund in the interest of registrants and using the income from settlements and judgements to fund more actions. The problem there is, of course, that if it actually became successful at this then it's quite easy to see how people would then become critical of the org itself, bitching that it was an organization of judicial elite exploiting "free knowledge" to line it's own pockets. Whether or not there was any validity to thius would, of course, depending on the leadership of the organization. But it is a start, and there does exist a good bit of potential there - both for good, and for abuse.
Re:creative commons (Score:4, Insightful)
I cannot agree that the inaction of those who are in a postition to actually do something (most likely because they are polititians who have been bought out by big corporations) means that nothing can be done. Plenty can be done. It's a simple matter that those who can will not.
Re:What we need... (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need is a good site for registering "prior art". Where peoplee in the open source communities (and everyone else with an interest) can submit their ideas along with proof of a working implementation to prevent patents to be applied.
It would double as an open idea bazaar, where people can submit and draw from ideas of others.
Anyone think this could work?
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:What we need... (Score:2, Interesting)
IP holders can use their patents to countersue when a claim is made against them. This immediately puts open developers at a disadvantage... even if there's prior art to defend against previously-developed ideas[1], there is no way to defend against obvious ideas that have been patented.
[1] Even though "ideas" were ostensibly once non-patentable, that's obviously not the case anymore.
You won't win. (Score:5, Insightful)
The current SCO/IBM trials should be a stark warning for how well this will work. You will have lost with the first patent you fail to get. Your enemies will be taking your money to pay their lawyers to steal more or your ideas. That is what SCO is doing, now isn't it? It's not like they developed anything, ever. Is this what you want? In the end, you will be no better than your enemies or you will not exist.
Self preservation is not an ideological argument. If the EU does this, large US companies will crush EU software developers, free software will die and all EU governments will end up running M$. These beurcrats need to do a typical M$ install and push that "I submit" button a few times. There's no two ways about it, dipshits like Bezos will flood their system with junk just like they do the US system. This EU deal with the devil will leave the EU burnt.
It exists: Prior Art DataBase (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nongnu.org/padb/ [nongnu.org]
Development of the database is being worked on at:
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/padb/ [nongnu.org]
and the software used is Free Software, available at:
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/topas/ [nongnu.org]
Lobbying EU MEPs is still the best thing we can do right now, people from any country can do this. I gave an example for what an American can do in a later post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=69331&thresho
Ciaran O'Riordan
Re:It exists: Prior Art DataBase (Score:2)
Why I question this (Score:5, Insightful)
(0) They require CVS. That's awkward. Lots of people have ideas who don't use CVS.
(1) It's website is, by the URL, non-GNU. My worst nightmare would be submitting to this site, and later finding that they patented it. Microsoft would love to buy a site like this. How do I know this won't happen? They don't describe their process; they just say "oh, it's here." That bothers me. Can the FSF verify this site?
(2) the PADB should be sending its ideas to the appropriate developers for possible development. Specifically, coders should be able to sign up for the class of coding they they do, and submitters should be able to direct information to them. But there's a name for this: a journal. At the very least, all ideas in the DB should *also* be published on the web. I should be able to go to a website, and either browse or search.
---Now, what I think the PADB should be doing instead:---
(3) Time-stamping is easy: simply submit a copy of your information to the Library of Congress (US) or any other national library.
(4) Both (2) and (3) can probably be accomplished by publishing a journal would do the trick. Typically, as people subscribe to journals, they also pay a small amount -- or advertisers pay.
(5) As available, the PADB should also research true prior art, to break patents that are strangling free software. Those should be published as well, with a reference.
(6) I have no idea whether this site will do this or not, but the site should keep a database of the inventors. Probably the inventors have more ideas, or have done more work than is published. Therefore, they are an ideal consultant.
Addendum (Score:2)
So the only way I could publish a journal would be if there were enough subscribers and/or advertisers to cover the cost of page layout and publication. Initially, that would mean black and white print, "text ads", minimal layout, sma
Re:It exists: Prior Art DataBase (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It exists: Prior Art DataBase (Score:2)
IANAPL
Re:What we need... (Score:2)
Great Article by RMS (Score:3, Interesting)
Richard Stallman
[Transcript of a talk presented 2002-03-25 at the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, organized by the Foundation for Information Policy Research. This transcript and audio recording by Nicholas Hill, HTML editing and links by Markus Kuhn.]
You might have been familiar with my work on free software. This speech is not about that. This speech is about a way of misusing laws to make software development a dangerous activity. This is
Re:What we need... (Score:2, Interesting)
However, check the country you want to start your lawsuit. UK is 300.000 Pounds, rest of Europe is cheaper, in some countries even 80% cheaper.
Start there, win, continue up to more expensive countries
How to collect the money for patent attorneys and lawsuits to get your patent and enforce it? Set up a foundation/ association and collect money from other idealistic software developpers. And I'm sure there are also patent attorneys around who
Re:What we need... (Score:2)
It is merely a temporary solution.
Oh, puleeeze (Score:2)
Re:Oh, puleeeze (Score:2)
Hey assh*le (Score:3, Informative)
Where are we free to develop? (Score:2)
Re:Where are we free to develop? (Score:5, Interesting)
In particular, the Debian non-us site might have to moved to a country that is not in the European Union (so they can continue to distribute multimedia apps that infringe software patents).
Re:Where are we free to develop? (Score:2)
Re:Where are we free to develop? (Score:3, Interesting)
We (probably) lost this round (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because we were incompetent (Score:5, Insightful)
As the Register article points out, one of the reasons we're going to lose is that we didn't even try to convince them. We shouted, we hurled abuse, we held huge meetings and didn't invite the other side, but we didn't actually contact them with an explanation of why the proposed change was bad. ("Open letters" don't do shit, no matter how well-written they are.)
or not seeing the obvious solutions.. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's all tied together, these and so many other apparently illogical actions on the part of many current governments...
There's a solution, but it involves a more... umm... pro active response on the part of millions of people, all acting in concert with each other, across the EU..and the US....
We will have a few superpowers in name, all run by a handful of multinatio
If Free software is outlawed... (Score:5, Funny)
Vote postponed, time to get organised (Score:5, Informative)
The vote has been postponed until September 1st.
All info at:
http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/plen0626/index.en.h
This means we must have their attention.
Please contact your national FreeSoftware or digital-freedom group to organise an Adopt-an-MEP campaign. If the vote did take place tomorrow, we would lose but with the help of a few concerned citizens, we will win.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Re:Vote postponed, time to get organised (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the article went on to say that despite it being against the people's wishes, it was going to pass. It's what the US wants, and it's what the corps want. It doesn't matter what the people think.
Does anybody have a link to that article?
If that's true, it's extremely dangerous (Score:2)
In such a case, that doesn't mean that the people are without power -- far from it, it means that the people have more power (it isn't reigned in by governmental process), but only with the power modes that are normal to popular voice.
Typically, that's ended up being Russian or French revolution. That's bad; very, very bad.
On the other hand, let us consi
The people's wishes & EU/UK government (Score:3, Informative)
In Europe, both at EU level and in many countries within it, it's quite normal for governments to come down heavily in favour of a particular piece of legislation to begin with, but then to back off rapidly if faced with a backlash of popular opinion. The fact that this has been brought up now doesn't mea
Re:Vote postponed, time to get organised (Score:5, Insightful)
However, for it to actually make the slightest bit of difference the points raised in the parent article must be noted.
Abusing the MEPs is not a good use of time. Neither is trying to sway them using the David-and-Goliath argument.
In a perfect world, RMS would keep his mouth shut. The man does far more damage to the cause than he does good. If someone's willing to lock him in a sound-proof room 'til after the vote, it might be a good idea.
Given that Finland is an EU member, and Linus is a Finn (assuming he hasn't become a US citizen), he would be a very good person to get to speak to MEPs. As a constituent, he has a legitimate voice. As a highly visible, respected figure within the community that will be most affected by this law change, his opinions will carry weight. He is also known as something of a moderate (contrast his relatively muted statements with the vitriol of RMS, for example), and politicians are more likely to listen to moderates than extremists unless the extremist position is amenable to their own.
Re:Vote postponed, time to get organised (Score:5, Insightful)
Knocking RMS is quite popular among armchair generals but he is an inspiration to the people getting real work done on software freedom issues.
His software patents speech makes the issues very easy to understand:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stall
He has also brought the issues to the mass media through an article he and Nick Hill wrote for The Guardian (UK newspaper):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,38
RMS has mobilized large numbers of people in the EU to fight this directive. Without his work, I and many others would not be working on this issue at all.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Re:Vote postponed, time to get organised (Score:3, Interesting)
Motivating the geeks is important, nay essential. But motivating the geeks isn't enough. One must sway the MEPs, and RMS's petulant, vitriolic attacks on IP are not the way to go about it.
Re:Vote postponed, time to get organised (Score:5, Insightful)
He doesn't assume his audience is familiar with everything geeks are, so he builds his case from scratch. He has very good arguments. He gives pertinent real world cases. He explores hypothetical, but very realistic cases to illustrate the possible dangers.
All in all, he's a very good speaker, and I don't get where the idea he's a raving lunatic comes from. Maybe it's because he hammers too much on the GNU/Linux thing, which, I agree is a bit silly. (Personally, I say something to the effect of "systems based on the linux kernel" which avoids the whole issue.)
But I do think he's a good speaker, and he spends a lot of effort to get important points across.
Linus is great, but not interested in the politics of open source, and rightly so. Stallman is, and has a good grasp of all the issues involved, and contrary to what alot of people seem to think he is not a scary zealot at all when you see him in real life.
I've seen him speak (Score:2, Informative)
Then the next speaker came on, an EU patent lawyer, to describe the current system. He pointed out that you can already patent software in the EU, you just have to use the right phrasing. Somewhere in the middle of this, RMS went bersek and started ranting from the audience. People had to persuade him to leave bef
#include <std_problem_with_RMS_post.h> (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with RMS is that he's a wildcard.
He is capable, as you say, of putting together a very coherent argument to support his beliefs, and of presenting it very professionally. This is good.
However, he is also capable of launching into spontaneous rants that are totally one-sided. He will completely ignore the good points of things he disagrees with, while outright exaggerating the damage done
Re:Vote postponed, time to get organised (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to say he cant be goaded, but that's not very relevant to a non-geek audience.
I'd by far prefer RMS talking about these issues rather than Linus Torvalds. Linus is a tech guy from beginning to end, and I havent seen many comments from him
Help from the other side of the pond? (Score:3)
Ciaran O'Riordan, what can Americans do to help?
Re:Help from the other side of the pond? (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be very helpful if you could send emails or faxes to MEPs. Your non-EU citizenship can be used as a positive, i.e.:
"As an American, I see first hand how software patents hurt innovation and competition in a software industry. Start ups find it hard to enter the market when they can be threatened with costly patent lawsuits and investors are nervous about giving funding to a company when they know that a deeper bank account will likely draw the attention of Intellectual Propertly law firms"
There is a listing of all EU MEPs at:
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep5/owa/p_meps2.repa
Good arguments for talking to non-techs can be found at:
(RMS and Nick Hill, longish)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4683640,00
(and a short one from me:)
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/issue/inview.asp
If you only speak english, stick with the UK and Ireland. Many EU citizens are already talking with their MEPs, your emails or faxes would be a great reinforcement.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Re:Help from the other side of the pond? (Score:4, Insightful)
I had a chance to hear some of the American side of the story from Radia Perlman and from what little I've read it seems the RSA patent here in the US hindered adopting standards which used it - something that didn't happen in Europe. Wouldn't this real world situation make for a good argument against software patents?
We have three weeks (Score:2)
But in effect there are only three weeks to go, because for most of that time the MEPs are away on holiday.
To be more precise:
Even then, atte
Petition (Score:5, Informative)
I hope they don't pass the rules (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hope they don't pass the rules (Score:4, Interesting)
You mena the way closing napster shut down all that file trading and development of new file trading apps?
SCO and Microsoft could claim an open source OS like SuSE stole something from their OSes
Whoopdeefucking doo. How is that going to stop open source development? How is that going to prevent organizations from using software they can get anywhere on the internet?
If anything, this absurdly extreme scenario you've constructed would be good for worldwide competition, since it's dead certain countries like China and Ukraine would become even MORE wary of signing onto the (extremist) WTO model of "IP enforcement." The only possible responses to this would then be either to adopt more sensical rules or abdandon all hopes of exploiting license agreements across increasingly large chunks of the globe. Ideally it would even cause a complete collapse of the Berne convention, although that's probably far too grand a dream.
Re:I hope they don't pass the rules (Score:2)
I mean, I think we've avoided almost all patent issues by developing/distributing infringing software in Europe, but I don't think that it'll stop here if software patents become a law.
Instead it's probably only going to hurt the corporations, that now have to take closer watch at what they are using. As for individual developers, I hope there will be thousands and thousands o
The Register Proves again: apathy sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
It is politicians who make the law, and it is politicians who need to be persuaded if the law is to move in the direction that you desire it to. But while they are a peculiar and varied breed, there are three things you can be fairly certain will not hold much sway with them:
1. Ideological argument. Politicians are nothing if not pragmatic. Their very survival is based on seeing which way the wind is blowing and adjusting accordingly
2. Little-man defence. Politicians will not risk upsetting rich and powerful people and companies unless there is a principle at stake: that principle being that the government ultimately decides. Therefore arguing a point on the basis that it will restrict or impair a powerful body is counterproductive
3. Criticism. Politicians do not respond well to criticism. In fact, the more they get, the more stubborn they become. Flattery is the surest route to their heart, and this means making them feel important. Wining and dining, listening, applauding their insight and then putting your point across
1) That means profits over politics. The Open Source movement should have found some weapon to blackmail politicians into not allowing these new patent law changes to pass. For instance: "If you pass these laws these particular (thousands of) businesses will flee Europe and go elsewhere and take hundreds of thousands of jobs with them."
2) Tyranny of the few is still as true now as it has ever been. Hello, feudalism! Er, welcome back. Er, feudalism never really left!
3) Long live sycophantry!
We need less 'irony'ism and apathy, and more hard core fanaticism in this society.
But we need something more than just a plea. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is more a reply to the Register than to Travoltus' post, but did it occur to Kieren McCarthy that blackmailing politicians into action is not the kind of government most people want and that we are trying to exhibit the kind of considered action we want to see more of in our government? I would not consider doing one's homework and presenting a complete case "blackmailing", so perhaps that wasn't the best language for the author to pick.
I have some experience working on political campaigns (two local: one Congressional, one for local city council) and I'm active in my community on a number of other issues, so I'm aware of McCarthy's argument and how to wage it. And it would be valuable to do the research to be able to make that argument. But I think this is one of the weaknesses of the free software and open source movements--we don't mobilize our varied talents well.
Does anyone reading this have the skill needed to address the jobs concern? Or know of anyone who can help? We need help now.
I'm quite familiar with Stallman's excellent speech on the matter of software patents and how it adversely affects free software development. Part of that speech encourages us to consider that patents for one area of endeavor doesn't mean all areas of endeavor should have patents. Has this point been made clear to legislators? Has it been supported with examples of areas where patents would be a big problem (two hypothetical examples off the top of my head: legal argument strategies and surgical techniques--either of which could both lead to people losing their lives due to waiting for the patent holder to choose to represent or operate on them)?
Re:But we need something more than just a plea. (Score:2)
Our governments need to listen to principles more than what is 'pragmatic' (i.e. "profitable for the powers that be"). But then again we also need to re-think our ethics which give all the concern to the people on top at the expense of everyone on the bottom who support the ones up on top.
Re:The Register Proves again: apathy sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
Um... hello? "Ironic" and "apathetic" people don't vote. It's the "hard core fanatics" who are die-hard party loyalists that keep these people in office to begin with.
What we need is less of either of these kinds of people and more truly informed and concerned voters.
Spreading FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spreading FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
The Linux kernel mailing list had long flamewars over patents for realtime Linux due to this. And, IIRC, in one of the MS memos posted by ESR they stated that possible trouble with patents was the most successful message to deter managers from steering towards FS/OSS.
Except that it's not FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
It is, dare I say, ironic that Microsoft hasn't engaged in that activity, but there are plenty of other big companies that have and still are trying to shut down open source projects using patent laws. I'm not even going to bother quoting any, there's so many instances.
The claim that "with patent law allowed,
living under a rock (Score:3, Interesting)
For most of its history, the US software industry developed in the virtual absence of patents. Widespread use of software patents is largely a phenomenon of the late 1990s.
I'm not aware of any case where Microsoft or any other big company is trying to shutdown an Open Source project using patent laws.
People usually don't even start open source software projects that might infringe software patents. If they do, they usually do so in na
Re:Spreading FUD (Score:4, Interesting)
SySVR4 is about to expire but has not yet. This explains their frantic lawsuit phase. Yes the lawsuit with IBM is about an internal agreement between SCO and IBM and not patent or copyright issues but it does give SCO power.
The whole reason why they are suing is because IBM had no choice but to license SySV from USL because they had a patent on it.
Linus himself maybe sued if this case is won or lost because Linux uses SySV. Linus also stated he does not believe in patents which makes a damming case agaisnt him since SCO lawyers can use it as proof of a corporate espianage conspiracy. Unlike the current SCO case which is mostly hogwash a patent lawsuit and injunction to end Linux is certainly favorable.
Anway my point is if software patents did not exist we would not have this mess. They are a threat and yes bussinesses like Unisys do sue for damages when they are abused. SCO is no execption.
I also remember a very old slashdot article which showed 5 patent violations just at slashdot's website. I think the big one is using fonts to display information.
Re:Spreading FUD (Score:2)
From what I recall SCO doesn't own any UNIX patents - they are still property of Novell.
Re:Spreading FUD (Score:2)
Nope. SCO came up with an amendment to the contract showing they owned copyrights. They have not presented any evidence that they own any patents. SCO has not stated publically anywhere that Novell is incorrect in their claim that Novell owns the patents.
http://www.planetanalog.com/pressreleases/prnew s wi re/80620the
specifically states that SCO has a right to protect the IP and has full power to do so
It doesn't matter what any contract says
Re:Spreading FUD (Score:2)
You can only stand up to them (US or Other Software companies) if you are based in a coun
Re:Spreading FUD (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft used patents to kill ASF support in VirtualDub [virtualdub.org].
Re:Spreading FUD (Score:2, Interesting)
Although I agree with your point, that patent expired on June 20, 2003. When it was active, it encouraged more innovation in the form of .PNG files. So perhaps there is a silver lining in the cloudiness of this issue--and that is that Open Source is tough enough to survive this should the worst happen.
Re:Spreading FUD (Score:2)
But in this case it was possible to work around the patented algorithm. It is not always so.
Think about the BT patent on hyperlinking, if it wasn't mostly invalid it would destroy lynx, links, cause problems for Mozilla and any other free browser... there is no way around this one.
However I look at this, I see no net benefit to the humanity at large. And in fac
Welcome to the new (and growing) world order (Score:2, Interesting)
I have coined a phrase for this, the high-tech dark age.
here is what you need to do (Score:2)
If GoodGuy {
Then set it up so that it and anything that could be considered a derivitive is royalty free.
}
ElseIf BadGuy {
demand royalties from anything remotley similiar
}
Else {
Go gat a mocha and wait for the
}
New patent system (Score:2, Interesting)
Ok my the new patent system works like this, you have to apply for the patent before you actually invent it, if the invention exists at all at the time you first place you patent you are denied (this would include if you already have a product on the market and you are just now patenting it). Second your patent is put in holding where anyone else can see it and if someone else produces a working model within the time frame the patent is void.
If the point of patents
Crapflood and The Incredible Machine (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking of patents, one of the most ridiculous software patents I've seen in the US is the interface to the game The Incredible Machine. Nobody can make a game with gizmos used from a gizmo-bar to make things happen.
I think this message is fairly clear; (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know about you guys, but protests aren't working, letters aren't working, e-mails aren't working. Voting is not working, propaganda isn't working. There's only 1 alternative after peacful protest; violent protest and our leaders are too dumb to realize that if they piss enough people off, they are dead meat literally.
So label me a terrorist for conveying the message bitch, I'm getting to the end of my rope and patience.
Re:I think this message is fairly clear; (Score:5, Interesting)
I do have contacted my (Flemish) MEPs and it turns out all Flemish parties but one are against software patents (only the liberals haven't chosen a side yet). Arlene McCarthy is starting to get strong opposition from within her own (socialist) faction... Although I by no means want to suggest the fight is over or won, the article at the Register is spreading a lot of uninformed FUD imho.
It does make some good points, but it's by no means accurate about how a lot of politicians think about this issue, unless only the Belgian factions are against and the representatives from all other European countries are pro, but I doubt that... Most of the times, these factions try to take a common stand.
PS: I'm not politically active (except by writing an email [ugent.be] - in Dutch - to the Flemish MEPs on this issue) or tied to one or other party in any way.
No. Don't advocate violence (Score:2)
It's entirely another thing to advocate violence. Be very careful what you say, therefore. Don't advocate violence.
For one thing, violence is a kind of war as are many others, including terrorism, nuclear war, cold war, insurrection, revolution, and civil unrest. Not one war has ever had a winner. Everyone loses in a war, but some lose more than ot
Congratulations... (Score:2)
You just became the idiot described in the Register article, whose outright evangelism and hyperbole cause the politicians to ignore them and their viewpoint in favour of more reasoned replies.
Re:I think this message is fairly clear; (Score:2)
Money talks (Score:2, Interesting)
Software is typically not locked into a jurisdiction. It's production is not confined to a factory. There is no bricks and mortar as long as the software is not used to run a business with a bricks and mortar element.
If the Internet is fast enough, software can be running on a server far away where no patent
open source governments (Score:2, Interesting)
bs. (Score:2)
OK, this is laughable. Two reasons. 1) Corporations already have the power, and 2) Without patent law, individuals and small companies would have more power over huge corps. Anyone can file a patent, it only costs a few hundred dollars. And believe it or not individuals can
Vote date pushed back? (Score:2)
Can anyone confirm this?
Vote was postponed to September (Score:5, Informative)
A little more time to convince Members of the European Parliament of all parties of the the common sense decision: rejecting patents for software ideas and information processing methods.
We have three weeks (Score:3, Informative)
The truth is, we have about three weeks to go, because for most of the summer the MEPs are away on holiday.
To be more precise:
EU law (Score:2)
Easy solution (Score:5, Interesting)
This would simply use a software licensing term to send a clear message. Want to patent your software? Fine, but you won't get to use it with any open source software.
Everyone is trying to put their damn finger in the dike regarding this stuff. I say we pull our fingers out of the holes and let the place flood. Then we will see how companies like it when they want to use everyone else's work to their financial benefit while not sharing.
You think Amazon and it's "one-click" crap doesn't use open source software to actually implement the idea?
Re:Easy solution (Score:2)
-
Constant battle (Score:2, Interesting)
A pondering/suggestion:
I think it is time to put our money where our mouths are, since it seems that at the present hour, this is the only way to be heard. The saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," seems to be apropos right now.
It's only a hiccup guys (Score:3, Insightful)
Predictions of the demise of computing, or even the demise of European computing, seem a little premature, IMO. Whenever this sort of thing is discussed on /., people respond as if we are talking about the law of the Medes and the Persians, ie once it's passed it can't be modified or recinded. A brief look at EU legislation in any other area shows that this is not the case.
Take farming legislation. At one point, the EU was paying farmers to remove hedges from between fields to allow US-scale farming technology. Lots of people said it was a dumb idea, the EU persisted, the topsoil blew away, and now the EU is paying farmers to put the hedges back. Probably not the best environmental scenario imaginable, but it could have been a lot worse.
On the 35-hour week, one of the cornerstones of EU employment law, countries like the UK never bothered to enforce it, and countries like France who did are now backpeddling like mad before unemployment rises any further.
The EU is not the Beast, it's just not clever enough. It doesn't have much of an ideology, despite France's best efforts to give it one. It's the world's biggest fudge factory. The people who draft the legislation like regulation, but if it hurts national interests those people get stomped on.
IF software patents are approved, and IF they are enforced at national level (in Italy?? Greece???), and IF large companies set out to destroy small companies, the legislation will be changed. The first time a non-French company threatens French jobs through patents enforcement, I would expect the French government to take unilateral action, backed by the majority of their population and the Germans, and simply refuse to budge until the EU caves in, much as they did over BSE (the UK had the law squarely on their side, but what difference did it make?) I saw an article in a national French newspaper six months ago about a powerful French lobby demanding that French computer games be classified as 'art', like films, so that the government can limit and tax US imports, subsidise French computer games, enforce quotas in shops and cybercafes...
So if you guys the other side of the Pond want to see this law withdrawn, lobby a big American company to threaten a French one, and Chirac will do the rest :-)
The same is true for patents in the US, except that the rebound would be faster and harder. Politicians are stupid, but they aren't that stupid.
Some questions... (Score:2)
It was my understanding that originally, Linux was
Re:Some questions... (Score:2)
Re:First Patent!!! (Score:2, Funny)
int j = 0; //EU Software Patent #00000000002
Stay away from my letter.
Re:Good for them (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry if we upset your little picture of the world, but the biggest argument against software patents isn't that we're not allowed to sleep on your couch or to steal your ideas.
If you're clever enough to come up with a new business process (as opposed to manufacturing processes, which patenting was invented for), then you have the right (until your competitors analyse the situation and fight you for market share) to grab as much land as you can.
Patents are intended to protect inventions - as a mat
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Interesting)
1. All computers are Turing-complete. They may be mapped to the natural numbers.
2. From Godel's Theorem, all true theorems in a mathematical system are derivable via an obvious procedure from the axioms of the system.
3. Turing machines are equivalent to the mathematical system describing natural numbers.
4. All computers are therefore mappable to the set of natural numbers, and all processes performable by a particular computer are therefore mapped to a pair of natural numbers.
From the above, all computers, and all programs that terminate, can be mapped to the natural numbers.
A simple enumeration (though it may take some time) would therefore cover all software.
All software is obvious. QED.
Re:Good for them (Score:4, Interesting)
Computers at the very internal level only know if something is on or off. A layer outward shows these patterns can represent numbers. Everything is a number.
People, when they see gui's see text and virtual paperpads ( word processor ), virtual accounting books ( spreadsheets ), text, and cute little graphics. Internally they are just numbers. Most are not even aware of ASCII. Obviously ascii is just a number chart since computers only know numbers and need a way to output and input text. And graphics are just an array of numbers where numerical numbers represent color, darkness, and pixel position for each of the values. All the image formats just compress this to a file but uncompressed the formats are pretty much the same.
The problem is most people writing the laws do not know this and all they hear are lost R&D and jobs due to piracy from industry lobbiests. They consider programing == manufactoring since alot of hard work goes into comming up with idea's and somebody can take them. Also campaign money is a good thing so they can make compromises.
The sad thing is that the EU parliment is not a democracy! They are appointed by memember states. These memember states are elected and influenced by lobbiest. The senators in EU parliment know they can not be unelected so they do not give a shit. I think the EU could be vulnerable to corruption without checks or ballences. Hitler came to power because Germany had a lose set before ww2. He only won 26% of the vote and was appointed by conservative leaders to overthrow the left. Turns out he took over the whole government then country as a result.
Re:Good for them (Score:2, Insightful)
BEEP! Wrong. MEPs ( Members of the European Pariliment) are elected. I think that the election is every 4 or 5 years.
These memember states are elected and influenced by lobbiest. The senators in EU parliment know they can not be unelected so they do not give a shit.
BEEP! Wrong again. What you are thinking of is the European Commission - similar to the US Administration who are also unelected.
There are sever
Re:Good for them (Score:2)
The problem with your proof is that the premise is wrong. Patents protect implementations, not inventions, discoveries, etc.
LZW per se is not patentable. LZW using a computer to compress images is.
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Informative)
No. "Intellectual property" is used generally about exclusive rights to information in some form. See for instance the annex to the EU directive proposal on IP enforcement. It mentions copyright, trademarks, biopatents, denominations of geographical origin, semiconductor topography etc. Oh well, perhaps it's used differently in the US.
Re:the problem of the civilized world (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds scary, huh? But consider this: if the government - that means all those politicians hungry for tax dollars - had to weigh on the one hand lengthening copyright terms and, on the other, lengthening the time until they could exploit this new tax revenue base, which way do you think they will vote?
Ironically, the solution may very well begin with encouraging Mexico to adopt this model. At that point you can bet the Hollywood lobbyists will then be calling for a century of protection in the US "so we can keep up" - but if we (the people) then advance and lobby for the other side of this enforcement - that is, making sure the government has an economic incentive in preserving "the public domain" - then we could well begin to take back some of the territory lost to Disney and its ilk.
Re:the problem of the civilized world (Score:2)
Re:the problem of the civilized world (Score:2)
IOW we become our own IP lobbyists.
It's not the "end of
Re:the problem of the civilized world (Score:2)
That better be a pretty well hidden garage, then. Patent law does not discriminate about how you use the device. If you build something covered by patent X, its infringing. Of course, the patent holder would have to find out about it, but if someone patented a new engine, and then drove by your house and found you using their engine to mow your lawn, they could sue you for i
Troll? (Score:2)
Arising solely out of case law, however, an experimental use exception has been offered as a defense to patent infringement. At this point the experimental use exception can be summarized as offering a defendant an excuse to patent infringement when the use of the patented invention is for the sole purpose of gratifying curiosity or a philosophical taste, or for mere amusement. [piercelaw.edu]
Unless the person in your example has a "profit motive" in mow
EU credibility on the line (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you... there's now a major problem (Score:2)
You mean "Thank you, US" (Score:2, Interesting)
One reason this has come up as an issue, is because the US (via the WTO) have been applying pressure to countries around the world to "reform" their IP systems -- to match the US' own system -- for quite a while.
The TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) treaty, and GATT, are the main methods used to do this. The FFII page on the treaty [ffii.org] notes 'Article 27 has often been construed by patent lawyers to imply that patent claims must be allo
Spreading false rumours is annoying (Score:2)