EU & US Patent "Syncing" 226
Christian Treczoks writes "Software patents are threatening Europe, too. The EC said "we want software patents to harmonize with the US", but the public - private persons and small to medium businesses - objected. So they made an "Analysis" of the replies.
Effectively, 91% are against patenting software, but, as the majority of the proponents are important business figures, it's a draw. " Mmmm...corporate interests. "Fun".
Propaganda (Score:1)
It was stated on forum before, about how "independent" people believe this report was.
One contributor (jbennetto) says, "The terms "restrictive" and "liberal" themselves are judgemental, and skew the debate"
IMO it is indeed a bit more serious than that.
From the way the entire report is worded, it is obviously biased.
I wonder if they were 'guided' by big business - if you know what I mean
To use those terms as example - they completely switch the meaning of words:
The group that is for a more open and liberal approach - are called 'restrictive'.
The group that is for more closed and restrictive approach - are called 'liberal'.
Quote from report:
"Restrictive Approach - Opposed to most software patents
Liberal Approach - Apply traditional patentability criteria to computer-implemented inventions"
P.S. The authorities know solution to trademark and domain conflict - it is on WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk]
the answer.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Open Source Patents (Score:1)
That's an idea I've thought about, too.
However, the patents should not be licenced for free to everyone, only to those who release their source code under the GPL or other Open Source Licences.
Commercial organizations would have to pay for it - or trade in their patents.
This way, patents could be used to boost Open Source software.
Leeches (Score:5, Interesting)
So those people who are primary to developing software, the engineers, the programmers and the companies that pioneer new software approaches, are all against software patents. In other words, those whose intellectual work will be patented, are against patenting it.
Compared to the primary producers of software, lawyers, lobbyists, bueorocrats and corporate controllers, those who are secondary to the software are in favor of patenting software.
Those who didn't actually make the software want it patented, those who did, don't want it patented. This is a very messed state of affairs when the producers choose to give up these IP protections of what is really their intellectual property, though maybe not in a legal sense, and those who are leeches, who don't actually make it, want these patents. Obviously software patents are not made to help those who do the intellectual work, but the corporate interests. And the sad thing is, the leeches are winning.
Now, I'm not a major fan of Ayn Rand's ubercapitalist ideas, but her assement of the morality of leeches in Atlas Shrugged is pretty accurate, and useful here. The corporations are asking for government welfare to the rich, and that's a bad thing. This isn't the way that value gets added to a system, it's a way those who leech can keep their lower-value systems the standard. No sensible economic or moral philosophy is in favor of this, so why does everyone follow it? The only answer I can think of is greed and stupidity make an excellent team.
Re:Leeches (Score:2)
Yes this, because when you are a programmer the idea on patenting a program seems really stupid, as you always in 99% of the time, tend to use the same tools. After all it's always "loops", "tables", "tables look up", "files" and "trees", and nearly everyting you need is in "The Art of computer programming" by Don. Knuth.
Only people who don't understand what a program is, support the idea of patenting it, those people believe it must be some kind of "black magic" or something.
Re:Leeches (Score:2)
Indeed. If they're going to brush aside the positions of self-identified "Open-Sourcers" they should definitely exclude the opinion of any lawyers, especially those familiar with patent law. Lawyers are good at knowing the laws, helping to craft the laws so they say what they are desired to say and, occasionally, explaining the laws. They are the least qualified people on the planet (at least, merely by virtue of being lawyers) to actually contribute to the direction of public policy on every issue with the exception of the organization of laws and the processes and proceedures of courts, arbiters and the other ways in which the laws are effected. They've no more business commenting on what should and should not be patentable and under what circumstances than they have dictating how bridges should be built or how food should be labled. Just like no one would presume an accountant to be able to run a 100 billion dollar multi-national corporation because he can read its books, no presumption should be made that a lawyer has even a half-assed clue what a country's (or region's) patent policy should be merely because he is able to explain what it happens to be.
Woooo, more patent laws (Score:1)
Priorities (Score:5, Interesting)
We cannot achieve a global concensus on REALLY important things like environmental issues (not that the politicians have ever really tried) and this is the sort of thing that they are working towards?
Ask yourself - does the world really need a global DMCA?
Re:Priorities (Score:1)
Re:Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is a summary of recent US policy advances - and other notable mentions:
Fail to support UN effort to prevent Biological weapons via independent inspection (yet America sees fit to solely enforce the idea in the middle east) - rest of planet supports this effort.
Fail to support UN effort to limit and monitor the trade of Handheld weapons - rest of planet supports this effort.
Fail to support Kyoto protocol *EVEN AFTER* it had been reduced to half effectiveness - rest of planet supports this effort
Extends corporate control of Speech/Thought/Action into the monster known as DMCA. Leads fight via WIPO to have rest of world implement their own version of a law that would have them comply with the WIPO 1996 Copyright Treaty. (See : Understanding WIPO [infoanarchy.org] (down the page a bit)).
Has ridiculously looong copyrights. (see Disney-Bono Term Extensions)
Plan Columbia - a reaction to the mindless war on (some) drugs.
America's Solution to health care is to pass a 'patients bill of rights' which amounts to methods for people to sue one another - never mind universal health care (like Britons and Canucks (and some others) enjoy. Canadians/Britons: Is the present 'health care crisis' a pre-cursor to 'harmonizing' with Americans with regards to health care?? think about it...
Not to mention the archaic first-past-the post political system, Republicrat domination of all politics.
Unbelievable Media Concentration which self-censors in order to support present power-structure/re-enforces mindless consumption/limits public discourse/leads to the present soul-less pandering to the lowest common denominator (Brittany spears, daniel steele, sitcoms-of-all-types, clearchannel, AOL-TimeWarner, RIAA, MPAA)
Tolerance of Anti-Competitive Monopolies (M$)
Threatens world peace with idiotic chest-thumping missile - *miltiary-industrial-complex-political-kickbacks-p orkbarrel-terrorisim-propaganda* *bullshit* defence *bullshit* program.
Unbelievable 'energy policies' that would pump oil in nature reserves all in an effort to avoid a buying petroleum products in the same market as everyone else (read: maintain the public subsidy which enables unbelievable levels of mindless-consumption)
Before the rest of the world decides to model American-policy, they need to determine some priorities and try and evaluate which things are cause-and-effect. Basically, America seems happy to live in a Plutocracy - would you?
Where is the international effort, with this kind of *power* to harmonize Labour Law? Environmental Law? WorkPlace Safety Law? Public Safety Law? Health Care? Education? Why is it that seemingly more and *MORE* ridiculous efforts are being mounted and pushed on an staggering international basis that have no relationship to improving the lives of the Citizens of the Planet? On whose behalf are our politicians acting?
Re:If the US is so horrible lets look at the self (Score:1)
Correction (Score:2, Informative)
First of all, most nations had no intention of ratifying Kyoto until after the planned summit where nations would come to an agreement about how to interpret the treaty and enforce the details. That was supposed to happen in Hague last year but due to disagreement was postponed. But the agreement finally came through in Bonn a few weeks ago and now the governments are indeed preparing for parliamentary ratification. The timetable differs between nations but the EU has said it is aiming for full ratification before a summit next year.
As for "crippling" the economy, this can be debated. Clearly there will be a short term economic hit, but that is the price we -- as in all industrialized nations -- must pay for making a mess of the environment and our own future living conditions. The more we postpone it, the more potential human suffering and long-term economic problems we will face.
Re:Priorities (Score:2)
I hate to point this out, but the DMCA *is* global, and did not originate in the United States. It was passed to comply with the WIPO treaty that the United States and nearly all (all?) European countries have signed, so if European countries don't yet have a DMCA-clone law in their countries, it's only because they haven't yet gotten around to implementing the WIPO treaty.
So it's more accurate to view the DMCA as simply the US-specific portion of the WIPO than to speak of a "global DMCA."
Re:Priorities (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Priorities (Score:2)
Indeed this is probably closer to "imperialism" than "harmonisation". The latter would imply some sort of bilateral negotiation or following of majority consensus.
In this context having the US weaken or abandon software patenting...
The obvious result ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats a regular history. In whatever for on shape (on Comunims, they are Political "Corporations"), the corporations hold the reins. And why should they think they should not ? After all, they are the ones that "elected" the politicians.
Yes, I know, that is quite a negative view to have about our government systems (capitalism, socialism, comunims
Oh yes, of course some Corporations have lost a few times
I'm not holding my breath. These patents will get through, and we will all suffer from it.
Re:The obvious result ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The obvious result ... (Score:1)
Re:The obvious result ... (Score:1)
Re:The obvious result ... (Score:2)
It seems like the ideal government to me. The Swiss constitution is by far the best I've read so far.
The issue here isn't so much how "nice" a constitution reads but that people actually use and enforce it.
As an academic document the US constitution also sounds very "nice". Problem is that enforcement has been so lax that large parts of if have effectivly been ignored for years.
Why not patent software??? (Score:2, Insightful)
the Amazon one-click thing is not bad because it's a software patent, right? it's bad because it's a patent on something that a lot of people here think is too simple to do, or already too common to be patent-worthy. right? the same with the LZW patent. people are more upset about the way Compuserve and Unisys handled the situation, not because LZW compression is somehow unworthy of IP protection. right?
people put thought into developing various processes; wether that process is physical or software-based should not matter, to IP laws.
of course i'm not talking about the moral validity of IP laws here. i'm only saying i see no reason why software should be any different than hardware under the current IP laws.
-c
Software vs Hardware Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Software patents do not follow this model. Software patents don't have to tell someone how to build the software, they just have to stake a claim to a process, how it is achieved is unimportant. Thus, if someone writes a code that, going about it comepletely differently, does what a microsoft program does, they are violating the software patent. This is contrary to the purpose of hardware patents.
A good example of this can be found in the area of pharmecutical patents, which is not the most perfect of patent areas, but still a hardware type patent. Prozac, the popular happy drug is a seratonin reuptake inhibitor, and the company that makes it has until just recently had a patent on their drug. But that didn't prevent Zoloft, Paxil and a host of other drugs that also are seratonin reuptake inhibators also come out on the market, acheiving the same results with a different chemical combination, this can't happen with Software patents. Now that Prozac is coming down off of patent, a host of generic prozac-clones are springing up, if some patented software with closed source came down off patent, they wouldn't be immediatly replicated by a host of generics using the same process to acheive the same result, becuase Software patents don't disclose the workings of the software.
There are more issues than just this one, but this is a primary failing of the system.
What are the criteria.... (Score:2)
- When a program is binary equivalent allthough compiled with a different source and does the same?
- When a program is binary different but compiled from the same source, and does the same?
- When a program is binary different and sourcecode different but does the same?
This is somewhat important for your story and unclear for me. I assume the second option, but I'm not sureRe:Software vs Hardware Patents (Score:2, Insightful)
Another problem with considering software similar to the way hardware is considered is the time and obselcense factor. 20 years from now, current software is not going to be as useful as a cotton gin. Thus we need to limit time on patents to more practical levels, so we, as a society, can benefit from the patenting of software. Also, given that code changes, in updates and in obsolesence (a patent on software written in FORTRAN, while the current version of the software is in C++) causes additional problems that traditional hardware patents don't. Requiring that a company open its code when its patent ends, or when it goes under, or it stops enforcing the patent, etc, would certianly be useful in this respect, but it still doesn't give a constant shoulder for others to stand on. So the logistics of considering software as hardware for any length of time are a real problem. Also, no closed source company would release their code, for fear of piracy and lost revenue.
Thus, we need a different model for software. Perhaps no patents, which would allow for back-engineering, thus allowing others to acheive the same result; this would also allow an entity to profit from their creation for a time, depending on how novel their program is, thus nothing would be gained from claiming to invent the wheel (besides a laugh of scorn). The other option I see is to Open Source all patents, with GPL like restrictions that prevent someone else patenting their code with an extra bell. Neither of these would be favored by companies. The first is the target of the DMCA, the second is the target of Microsoft FUD. I think that the second ought to be adopted, but if it would be economically viable, I don't know.
Weight of anaylsis... (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost 1200 of the 1447 responses came off of an online petition. Online petitions have as much credibility as a /. poll. What if MS sent out a company memo to all of their European employees to respond to this call for comments? Either way, it's astroturfing. (Ironic that this story follows the apology for astrotrufing.)
-sk
Re:Weight of anaylsis... (Score:2)
If that had happened, and the pollers could not detect the trollers, the results would not have been what they were.
IBM belives in the EU system? (Score:2, Interesting)
But then again I could be worng.
EU & US Patent "Syncing" (Score:2)
Re:EU & US Patent "Syncing" (Score:1)
Tell the commision what you think here: (Score:5, Informative)
For myself I think that some sotware patents are just plain silly. What about the amazon one click buy patent, that is just stupid. (Not really differnt from pressing the coke button on a vending machine.)
I think the problem is that the people that looks trough the patent applications in some cases have no clue on what they are reading. Hence a large number of stupid patents slip trough. Did you hear about that Russian compay that managed to patent the use of a regular bottle?
One idea would be to make all patent applications public availabe, that way anyone could send the patent officials their input if they thought the patent was faulty. Only problem with this approch would be if a patent didn't go trough because of some minor detail, and sombody precived this and send in another application. But that would really be a minor problem in contrast to what's happening right now.
Re:Tell the commision what you think here: (Score:2)
It used to be that you could file 'submarine' patents that kept getting corrected for years, and then the patent period expired 17 (?) years after granting. To stop this, now the patent protection is 20 yrs from the time the patent was originally filed, if it ever gets granted. So it would be dumb for someone to file an application fixing typos in someone elses, since the first _application_ wins (not the first one granted)
It won't be the end of the world (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, we're already seeing it in a few cases. RSA's public-key patents are an obvious example. Three years ago a lot of people were livid about the restrictions those patents placed on developing crypto software. Now the patents are over and we have software like OpenSSL which are better than the commercial alternatives. (Granted, development of much of this software started long before the RSA patents expired, but the point is, nobody is worried about these supposedly horrible, disastrous patents any more.)
Obviously 20 years is a long time in the software biz, but the point is, it's not forever, and the situation will improve over time even if the bad guys win.
If Patents are leveraged to kill Free Software (Score:5, Insightful)
You assume Free Software can survive, much less compete, in a world where the basic building blocks for software are patented and locked away for twenty years at a stretch. I am not at all certain this is true, and while a renaissance might become possible in twenty years (when many of us will be nearing retirement), it does not in any way diminish the coming dark ages such as victory for "the bad guys," as you so quaintly put it, might well entail, much less the two-decades of economic destruction such anti-competative monopolies will wreak upon the both so-called "new economoy" and the existing economy alike.
Re:It won't be the end of the world (Score:2)
Judges will be timid and rule on the narrowest technical details possible, so the legal system will never confront the fact that the entire system is horribly broken and resembles, at this point, the medieval guild system more than an engine for economic progress. Nor should the legal system confront this, frankly, it's the job of legislators and the executive branch.
I'm still surprised at how few catcalls of "socialist" have been posted so far in reply to anyone who questions the wisdom of software patents. I suppose those trolls are all out of jobs now and not feeling so cocky that Captain Capitalist will win every battle. Nevertheless, it's still clear that the current patent system is as bad as any socialist excess/oligarchic corruption/medieval guild system as we've seen in quite some time ("we" obviously leaving out the unfortunate folks who live in places that never left such systems). Meanwhile, real capitalism is on a choke chain.
The worst part is that holding back a crucial piece of technology for 20 years can really kill the rate of technological progress exponentially. Sure, I can wait 20 years for your super-magneto-quantum-coffee storage system to hit the market at prices I can afford, but in the meantime, there have been 2 to 10 generations of technology that can't be built upon it for economic reasons; you hold the patent, so all technology based on it grinds to a halt.
Re:It won't be the end of the world (Score:2)
Copyright law and patent law are two different beasts, though they both cover intellectual property. In the case of patent law -- which, keep in mind, also covers physical inventions -- there are economically significant players who stand to lose a lot if patents are extended indefinitely. It's not like copyright law, where the main opponents to extension are librarians, academics, and well-meaning citizens. There would arguably be well-funded corporate opposition to extending patent terms. (I agree there'd also be well-funded support for the idea, but it's not as grossly one-sided as is the case with copyright law.)
US patent terms have changed a lot less frequently than copyright terms, historically speaking. They changed from 14 to 17 years in 1861. They stayed that length for over a hundred years, until a 1994 amendment passed to implement the Uruguay Round of the GATT treaty, which changed the term to 20 years from application date.
There have been plenty of big companies with valuable patents over the years. To my knowledge there has never been a concerted lobbying effort to get patent terms extended; if there has been, it hasn't worked. One reason is that it's much easier for a legislator who isn't versed in IP law to see the social benefit of patent expiration than of copyright expiration. From lug nuts to tumbler locks, you can point to any number of real-world examples and easily get a lawmaker to agree that it would have made no sense for one company to own those technologies till the end of time. It's a much more abstract, fuzzy argument to say that it's good for society if Disney stops owning Mickey Mouse. (Which, I hasten to add, I think it is.)
Time of protection should be variable (Score:2, Insightful)
Things like Amazon's one click method aren't very clever or original and shouldn't receive much (if any protection). However, if someone were to come along and produce a cold-fusion device, this would be a wonderful thing, and the creators work should be protected. In reality, most patents today are just examples of someone winning the engineering race, and giving them a 20 year monopoly isn't fair to those who could engineer the same thing without much effort.
We should be working toward a peer review process to determine what amount of time is fair. I suspect that companies would realize that most of the patents they're getting for ridiculous "inventions" wouldn't be worth the time to file once the process is in place.
Patent protection for important advances is just. Patent protection for simple engineering is unfair to other engineers who could have easily developed the same thing.
Re:Time of protection should be variable (Score:2)
This appears to be the crux of the problem, with patents being granted for "engineering" more than "innovation". This also easily results in overlapping patents and the possibility of a group of patents for what is the same entity covering more than the usual term.
The decision seems already made (Score:5, Informative)
Merely reading the executive summary, it seems that the commission has already sided in favor of software patents. This is probably a combination of the influence of the pro-patent side, the somewhat neutral or negative view of open source advocates, and potentially immature responses on the part of open source and free software advocates. We could definitely learn some lessons on how not to advocate our position in the future.
At the same time the review appears to have a very negative view of the anti-patent side. Opposition is limited to a three or four word summary (at best), and the Eurolinux coalition's work is somewhat summarily dismissed as a "petition" (quotes from original document). And for chrissake's people, when writing to an important review like this, don't resort to childish tactics like "Micro$oft"; it just gives the other side opportunity to point out (possibly correctly, at times) what a childish bunch those open source freaks are.
Overall, I'd like to applaud EuroLinux for organizing the petition. In the grand scheme of things it may not have made that much of a difference, but we do need to keep trying.
-jdm
Re:The decision seems already made (Score:1)
Sometimes I get the feeling that "Open Source Advocates" are really regurgitated TeamOS/2'ers.
Now I like OS/2. I like Linux. I like FreeBSD. But I've run into MANY people who have the TeamOS/2 mentality, "It's the BEST, and you should just know it."
Ever play a game with a guy who always won, and always rubbed it in your face?
Sometime you gotta let the 'badguy' win a few, just to look good to your fans, and maybe win a few more over in the process.
I'm not saying this patent thing is a good thing, but you gotta give a little bit sometimes..
Re:The decision seems already made (Score:2, Informative)
Take a look at the independent consultation run in the UK and its very different conclusions (I would go so far as to say much more sensible). If harmonisation were to be called for, Britain could create a stushio about it and kill it yet.
http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/concl usions.htm
[patent.gov.uk]
Re:The decision seems already made (Score:2)
If you get that from the summary, try skipping to the last two pages. They point out that there are already 20,000 Euro-software patents, and that the commission needs to make us all aware of how wonderful they are.
And what should the EU do? Among other things, "Make a public announcement to the effect that it supports the current EPO practice regarding the granting of patents on computer-implemented inventions." In other words, despite the fact that 91% of the responses oppose them, the "majority" (!) supports them so go ahead.
But there's good news! They do have a proposal to limit patent abuse: "Major players should refrain from ruthlessly exploiting opportunistic patents such as hyperlinks." We can all stop worring now, because the pro-patent committee just laid down the law: don't abuse patents, or else they'll, um... ask you very nicely not to.
And what justification do they have for ignoring opponents? "...the radical nature of their proposals would require substantial negotiation if the Commission were minded to pursue a restrictive policy regarding software patents." In other words, they're already heading down the track, and they have no intention of turning around.
Re:The decision seems already made (Score:4, Interesting)
When these matters come up, we (as a community) should be able to state our case without foaming at the mouth, without resorting to childish namecalling, and without necessarily advocating tearing down the establishment in a violent manner.
Politicians - it's no secret - have a vested interest in keeping corporations happy.
Our task is to frame the discussion not in terms of Big Corporations vs. Open Source Hippies and Academics (as the report seems to), but rather to frame the discussion in terms of what will truly foster innovation, while protecting the legitimate intellectual property of the creators.
Only if we can convince legislators that they are doing what's right for the advancement of society and the economy will we allow them to see past their corporate contributors' interests.
We need the so-called open-source leadership to collate their arguments against software patents, present them in a manner that reflects well on the community, and encourage open-source advocates to use the arguments when communicating with legislators.
I know it sounds like placing a premium on groupthink (which is something that open-source tends not to encourage), but until we get organized about our message with respect to software patents and intellectual property matters, we will continue to be marginalized as crackpots, academics and children.
Software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Software patents (Score:2)
Re:Software patents (Score:1)
An important part of a patent is that you must teach everything about your invention so that a person can understand the entire invention. I'm sure there are patents that include source code, but many more include flow charts.
If the full invention is not described, then somebody screwed up. I suppose the patent could be invalidated if it was ever litigated.
Re:Software patents (Score:1)
After all, couldnt somone else come up with a similar function, but using a different method? THAT is innovation, and that is the kind of innovation that traditional patenting fosters
I'd like to think you're right, but I'm afraid you're not.
Many years ago I talked to a visiting senior IBM researcher about patents, and he (rather proudly) gave some advice on them. "Many people fall into the trap of patenting the thing they invented," he said. "They think that what took all the work and what was new should be patented. No. You should patent the basic, fundamental thing that everyone must do to do any solution to your problem. Then there's no way around it."
It disheartened me then, and it still does now.
Jamie
Ha ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha, ha, oh my. (Score:2)
Your post shows the absurdity of software patents to begin with. They are either a buisness plan or a simple numerical algorithm. Alternate methods to the same ends should always be allowed and encouraged by patents. Alternate methods always exist in software. Software patents are always absurd.
Re:Software patents (Score:2)
>After all, couldnt somone else come up with a
>similar function, but using a different method?
This is the central problem with patents as they are granted. In practice once a patent is granted it's very difficult to come up with a different program that has similar function. Witness the "one clik" patent. So in practice you end up patenting "EVERY" implementation and hence you patent the IDEA ! which is I believe impossible !!
The analysis sounds biased (Score:2, Interesting)
"Hmm - there seems to be a lot of responses against patents. Let's drop the ones from those Open Source nuts... There's still too many. Ok, so now drop all those sent to us indirectly. Yes! Look everyone! A majority of people support patents!"
Another example is in the pie charts showing the proportion of each type of organisation in each group. SME are 16% against and 13% in favor off patents. They say "It is interesting, however, to note that the proportion of SMEs is similar in each case." This gives the impression that SMEs are evenly split. Given that the number of responses against patents dwarfed those in favor, this really means that SMEs were similarly heavily opposed to patents!
There was also the matter of the report categorizing patent opponents as "younger". This makes it easier for people to dismiss the opinions of those opposed to software patents.
expire patents in internet time (Score:3, Interesting)
Patent Laws, have the potential to move us into the high tech version of the dark ages, where science ceases to move forward for fear of persecution from the church...er I mean corporations.
besides writing my congressman, I see civil disobediance as the best way to resist this. I don't have the time or resources to loby congress because I have to make a living and barely do that well. Companies HIRE POEPLE to work on lawmakers FULL TIME. how can this reflect the vote of the people?? please hackers, keep on hacking, break those codecs and protocols wide open and save the future of humanity!!!
IP does the opposite of what it intends (Score:5, Interesting)
And considering I will never be in "fair market" position to sell my software like Microsoft does, how is any patentability helpful to anyone except companies who have large war chests and near-monopolies?
Until the focus of innovation is understood to be Intellectual Process and not Intellectual Property, we will remain in a legal morass under the thumbs of corporate giants.
Re:IP does the opposite of what it intends (Score:1)
Patents are bad for (some) big businesses too (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone is Equal... (Score:3, Insightful)
- George Orwell, Animal Farm.
Re:Everyone is Equal... (Score:5, Interesting)
Restrictive Approach - Opposed to most software patents Members - Students, academics, engineers, start-up companies
Liberal Approach - Apply traditional patentability criteria to computer-implemented inventions Members - Lawyers, established industry players, government agencies
Isn't it interesting that the groups of people which traditionally are responsible for the greatest amount of innovation are almost unanimous against the idea of software patentability. Yet the rhetoric used by the other groups to defend software patents always seems to revolve around "protecting the interests of those who innnovate". Are we really to believe that the segments of the population responsible for the greatest volume of innovation are that clueless as to their own interests and the interests of continued innovation?
Re:Everyone is Equal... (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't in interesting that the groups of people which traditionally are responsible for the funding of the greatest amount of innovation are almost unanimous in wanting to guarantee funding for more research?
Re:Everyone is Equal... (Score:2, Insightful)
One problem with this view is that the premise is flawed: in the US, the federal government, not corporations, are the source of the vast majority of research funding. Corporations often leverage the reuslts of this research into proprietary form, so that, in effect, government research funding oftentimes constititutes a form of "corporate welfare".
( Unless you are using the term "innovation" in the sense commonly attributed to MicroSoft, i.e stealing ideas.)
The government doesn't fund most of research (Score:2)
Re:The government doesn't fund most of research (Score:1)
Also, I by no means believe that all Federally funded research is "corporate welfare". Actually, under the right conditions, I think that funding research is one of the most important functions of government. Under the right conditions, research funding stimulates innovation, creates entire new sectors of the economy, and has the effect of breaking down monopolies that otherwise naturally arise in a capitalist system. By the "right condtions", I mean an economic climate that encourages small business start-ups, and a research policy that mandates the free exchange of ideas and scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, the trend in recent times is towards restricting information flow and encouraging corporate merger and consolidation. Both of these trends are inherently anti-competitive, and under these conditions government funding of research sometimes can be corrupted into a form of corporate welfare.
Finally, I want to address your statement below:
I would agree that the government funds a lot of research, especially in the form of grants to Universities in order advance technologies in certain areas, but this is only a small portion of the research that goes on in this country.
If we look at the broad category of total research and development, you are actually correct in that industry spends more than government:
(Weird Table Warning - Circumvention device for slashdot lameness filter protection. When numbers are lame, only lamers will have numbers)
(Note dollar amounts are not adjusted for inflation)
Year, x, Total R&D, x, Fed Gov, x, Industry.
x, ($1 x 10E9), x, (%), x, (%).
1960, x, 13.711, x, 65.02, x, 32.94.
1980, x, 83.332, x, 36.04, x, 37.13.
1999, x, 247.000, x, 26.66, x, 68.55.
(Additional funding sources are Universities, Non-profits, and Non-federal governments)
(Source: US Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the U.S.:2000 [census.gov] (http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstr
Section 20, Science and Technology [census.gov] (http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/statab/sec20
It is interesting to note that the proportion of total R&D performed by industry has increased dramtically over the past 40 years. It is not that government funding for R&D has decreased (since 1980, at least, in terms of real dollars government funding for R&D has increased by 34%),
rather, that corporate R&D spending has increased even more rapidly than government funding.
However, if we look at funding for basic research (not including product development costs and applied research), we see that the federal government still outspends industry:
(Note dollar amounts are not adjusted for inflation)
Year, x, Total R&D, FedGov, Industry, Univ., Nonprofit, NonFed Gov
x, ($1 x 10E9), (%), x, (%), x, (%) x, (%), x, (%).
1993 x, 28.754, x, 57.1, x, 24.8 x, 7.9 x, 6.9, x, 3.3.
2000 x, 47.903, x, 48.7, x, 33.9 x, 7.7 x, 7.0, x, 2.8.
Proportionally, corporate funding of all basic research is increasing, but is still significantly less than federal funding.
Finally, it is interesting to look at which institutions are receiving the funding for basic research:
(Note dollar amounts are not adjusted for inflation)
Year, x, Total R&D, FedGov, Industry, Univ., Nonprofit.
x, ($1 x 10E9), (%), x, (%), x, (%), x, (%).
1993 x, 28.754, x, 9.12 x,24.1 x, 57.8 x, 9.1.
2000 x, 47.903, x, 7.36 x,33.6 x, 49.0 x, 10.1.
(Source for the previous table: National Science Foundation,
National Patterns of R&D Resources: 2000 Data Update [nsf.gov] table 2A [nsf.gov]
Universities (and to a lesser extent, government labs) have been steadily losing their share of the total. Not surprising, as corporations tend to fund research internally.
Re:Everyone is Equal... (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe the situation is somewhat different at the government labs, such as ORNL, LANL and ARL, where the government may very well retain an interest in resulting patents and copyrights, but I do not know the details for those situations.
Patents => funding => innovation (Score:2)
Look at the record. How much of software innovation was pre-, say, -1985? Wasn't it pitiful how no one invented assembly language, compilers, recursion, graphics routines, &c., &c., until such ideas were protected not just by copyright, but by patent? Didn't it suppress the inventiveness of thousands of programmers, until they felt free, knowing they could finally receive just compensation for their skull-sweat?
Of course it did! Just plot the number of software patents against a timeline, and look at that exponential curve! The graph shows that once things were patentable, ideas sprang up on every keyboard, and have been coming up faster and faster ever since.
<sigh> And programming used to be so much fun...
Re:Patents => funding => innovation (Score:2, Insightful)
The C compiler was a major leap forward in computing, but was it developed by with a patent? No, it was developed to allow some guy to write an operating system kernel. The freedom of the language, and the way it was NOT protected made it to a major movement beside it's orginal intention.
You judge software development and patents, but actually did you ever do any software development, or do you earn you money at the patent office?
In example compare you writing a letter with me writting a program, can you imagine how it feels like you know you can't start you letter in example with "Dear Ladies and Gentlemen" because that phrase is patented by someone? Or you have to investigate every sentence you've written that it's special grammar is not patented. It's just like me writing an procedure and in example if recursion would have been patented have to think: hey I may not call the procedure with the same name, since this is patented recursion.
Why are it the lawyers, and the managers of big ones who think to know how softwaredevelopment goes?
Omigawd... (Score:2)
We need to organize (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that while the "industry leaders" are organized to fight for their own interests, those of us that work for these "leaders" are not organized. Rather than spouting off as individuals, if we joined together and used our collective economic power, we can turn the tables. We are the ones that create and run the computers and software that this is all about, and if we join together, we can shut it all down.
Yeah, I know a lot of managers will flame me for talking union [iww.org], but it is our only hope.
They own %97 of the world wealth (Score:2)
I believe we need to elect smart politicians like American John McCain who can stand up to the system and try to change it. Many politicians hate greedy lobbiests but have no choice but to use them. Since lobbiests funds are increasing sky high, politicians are really concerned because every law they want to write or change will someone get in the way of a contributor. Many like John McCain are fustrated like hell and want to say enough is enough.
It should be turned around (Score:3, Interesting)
If Europe is Foolish Enough to Follow the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it. Which country has been bending over backwards handing out as many patents on software, business models, and the like as possible, as quickly as possible, and what percentage of those patents have been going to American firms such as Microsoft, Amazon, Dolby, and Adobe? The vast, vast majority.
Should Europe recognize American software patents virtually every European software house will find itself in violation of US software patents of one sort or another virtually overnight. If France, Germany, or the UK think they have a tough time competing against the likes of Microsoft now, just wait until the European Commission gives them this big club to whack them over the head with.
Europe currently enjoys a huge competative advantage over the US in not having its software industry tied up in litigation and government sponsored monopolies the way ours is. This has enabled Europe to rapidly advance from a relatively "backward" position with respect to the US in software to relative parity, and could be leveraged to outstrip us dramatically in the future. It would be profoundly stupid of the European governments to give such an advantage away, particularly to someone as powerful, and as self-absorbed, as the United States.
Re:If Europe is Foolish Enough to Follow the USA (Score:1)
Furthermore, most European software vendors would like to sell there wares in the States, and to do so they must license the patents anyway.
"No, there is one other." (Score:2)
My only remaining hope is that the USA's recently enhanced bad habit of telling the rest of the world that it isn't going to go along with the plan, will cause some backlash in other countries, which may then punt on software patents just as a way of telling the USA where to stick it.
Alas, I'm sure the home-grown robber-baron wannabes will outweigh any such anti-imperial sentiments.
What happened to this story? (Score:2)
Its for your own protection.. (Score:3, Funny)
..Oh, and that virus was protected by international copyright law. By spreading the virus without charge, you may run into some legal problems.
Re:Its for your own protection.. (Score:2)
Actually, this reminds me of something someone brought up on Bugtraq.
Consider that now virus scanners will have to look "inside" a PDF file to see if there is a virus there. But what if, da-dum, the PDF is encrypted?
Let's, erm... assume that PDF's super-secure-don't-worry-about-a-thing encryption could be (gasp!) broken. Then the good thing to do would be for the virus scanners to break the encryption and look for viruses inside. But of courrse, as certain poeple have discovered, it's not considered a good thing to decrypt PDFs, unless you are using offical nice-and-expensive Adobe software, even if the purpose for doing so it totally legal.
So basically Adobe has created a legally and technologically protected virus transmission scheme, that nobody can scan for.
At least it only works in the full Acrobat versions.
Patents are childish (Score:3, Insightful)
he told my I could not use that trick because he was the one who 'invented' it.
offcourse this resulted in a fight in which I kicked his ass (I am 2 years olders *evil grin*)
Not having patents is childish. (Score:2)
The reason we have patents is because it takes time and effort to do the research to come up with a new idea, and people who come up with these good new ideas deserve to be rewarded for their efforts.
Now it's definitely a good point to make that the current patent system in the US is broken, but to go to the opposite extreme would only break things differently -- it's the "I can make you forget about that headache by breaking your arm" strategy.
Re:Not having patents is childish. (Score:2)
A much better example would be if I studied hard for an exam, and you were peeking over my shoulder at my answers because you didn't do the studying.
Patent law as it stands even bans independent reinvention. The more accurate analogy would be if we both studied hard for an exam, and I wrote the same answer you did, and you had lawyers break my arm becasue you wrote it first.
If patents were about copying other people's work, independent reinvention would be a defense. No, patents are about legal monopolies.
--G
Re:Not having patents is childish. (Score:2)
Re:Not having patents is childish. (Score:2)
Someone shouldn't be allowed to patent "A mouse-killing device", but should be allowed to patent "A device to kill mice". The first monopolizes all mouse-killing devices while the second only patents a specific device, leaving room for other devices that kill mice."
You are exactly right, but not looking at the largest picture.
A corrupt congress should not have been able to subvert the patent process so quickly and broadly. Offices of the government should be able to run themselves and be resistant to change. Congress redirecting proceeds from patents granted implies that the value of interfering with patent office proceedures outweighed the risks to the officials that did that.
Working on the pricipal that more laws means gradually more corruption we should look at changing the type of value the patent office offers to patent holders. Further regulation of proceedure will only raise the legal cost of dealing with patented ideas/inventions by requiring even more legal ability to get anything done.
Handing out monopolies is a mediocre reward. It interferes with the market, and is too tempting target for manipulation by those with no virtue.
Conversely, rather than reducing the value of more patents to those of evil intention, we can look at methods of limiting the incentive for being in congress at all for those easily subject to corruption. Campain finance reform would be a good place to start.
As for the EU "syncronizing" to our maddness, I think they aren't serious and just kissing some Bushy butt. "Who is the bigger fool? The fool? or the fool who follows him?"
Re:Not having patents is childish. (Score:2)
This sort of reasoning sounds very much like "the mythical man-month"
As well as leading to the idea of patents as "corporate welfare".
What they are ment to protect is "innovation", which can just as easily be the result of some individual sitting in the bath...
Non-Adobe-Crapobat Text (Score:2, Redundant)
Final Report by PbT Consultants
Under contract number PRS/2000/A0-7002/E/98
THE RESULTS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
CONSULTATION EXERCISE
ON
THE PATENTABILITY OF COMPUTER IMPLEMENTED
INVENTIONS
PbT Consultants Ltd
Ramswin House
Lombard Street
Orston
Notts NG13 9NG
UK
(?+44 1949 851519
stewdav@attglobal.net
Mobile +44 7767 355223
0. Executive Summary
Introduction
On 19 October 2000, the European Commission, DG Internal Market, launched a consultation on the subject, "The Patentability of computer-implemented inventions". The aim of the consultation was to seek the views of interested parties, the public at large and Member States in order to help the European Commission formulate a policy that strikes the right balance between promoting innovation through the possibility of obtaining patents for computer implemented inventions and ensuring adequate competition in the market place.
DG Internal Market produced and made available on its web site a consultation paper that invited comments by 15 December 2000 on the preferred scope and economic impact of harmonisation in the area of computer implemented inventions. The paper contained a number of proposed "Key Elements" for a harmonised approach to the patentability of computer-implemented inventions in the European Community.
The Response
A total of 1447 responses were received, amounting to around 2500 pages of text. The largest single element in the response was a "petition" organised by the Eurolinux Alliance who had requested responses to be sent to themselves for forwarding to the Commission. Almost 1200 such responses were forwarded along with the response from the Alliance itself. Eurolinux is an alliance of over 200 commercial software publishers and European non profit associations with the goal to promote and protect the use of Open Standards, Open Competition and Open Source Software such as Linux. Responses were received from individuals and organisations in all EU and EEA member states apart from Liechtenstein , various CEEC countries, the US, Australia and South Africa.
The Scope of Harmonisation
The consultation paper asked the following questions:
- Should harmonisation take place on the basis of the elements contained in this document? Or:
- Should a more restrictive approach be adopted? Or, conversely:
- Should more liberal conditions coming closer to the practice in the United States of America prevail in the future?
Almost all of the responses fell into one of the following two distinct groups:
Restrictive Approach - Opposed to most software patents Members Students, academics, engineers, start-up companies Concerns Threats to the open-source movement and SMEs, lack of patenting resource and expertise, fear of litigation, negative impact on standards for interoperability
Proposals Severely restrict the patentability of software Limit infringement liability for "open-source" software Reject all business method patents
Liberal Approach - Apply traditional patentability criteria to computer-implemented inventions Members Lawyers, established industry players, government agencies, Concerns Protection of development investment, equality with the US, opening up of global markets
Proposals Harmonise the application of European Patent Office practice Apply patentability criteria to software that are slightly more liberal than those proposed in the Commission consultation paper Take extreme care with patenting of business methods
It was clear that the group opposed to software patents (91%) numerically dominated the response. A large proportion of this group was explicitly from the "Open Source" movement including the Eurolinux "petition". 54% of responses that were sent directly to the Commission and were not from explicit "Open Source" respondents, supported software related patents.
If account is taken of the economic muscle and number of organisations represented by responses from industry and other associations it can be argued that there is an "economic" majority in favour of patents on computer-implemented inventions.
On the other hand, those opposed to software patents would claim that due to the size and fragility of their organisations, they require support. They would also claim that it is only the "open-source" movement, e.g. Linux, that can effectively take on the "Micro$oft"s of this world.
Ultimately, the weighting of the two points of view is a political matter.
The Impact of Harmonisation
The consultation paper asked for comments on the impact of the respondents' preferred scope of harmonisation under the following headings:
Innovation in software and underlying knowledge and techniques
All but the most radical of respondents agreed that innovation was fostered by patents in other areas of technology. However, those opposed to software patents claimed that software technology was sufficiently different to justify a different approach. Both the nature of the technology itself, for example, the incremental nature of the development process and the existence of a supposedly unique business model, i.e. open-source, were cited as key differentiators of the technology.
Impact on SMEs
Opinions were divided on whether the impact of software related patents was negative or positive on SMEs. Little hard evidence was provided of business failures or patenting triumphs, apart from Stac v Microsoft where an SME successfully sued Microsoft for infringement of a software patent.
If Donald Knuth believed in software patents... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If Donald Knuth believed in software patents... (Score:2, Funny)
Well, _that_ will stop microsoft.
Hmmmm... (Score:2)
How to screw yourself (Score:3, Interesting)
From our research we conclude:
There is no evidence that European independent software developers have been unduly affected by the patent positions of large companies or indeed of other software developers. (We return to this point below when discussing the position in the USA.)
European independent software developers are making disproportionately little use of the patenting possibilities open to them compared with the use made by large companies and by US SME and even independent software developers.
There is increasing but still relatively low use by European independent software developers of patents in raising finance or in licensing i.e. in getting an invention through to being an innovation of benefit e.g. to consumers.
There is considerable evidence of concern by European independent software developers about the potential effects of patents on the development of computer program related inventions.
If you don't protect yourself with available laws, who do you think is going to?
Dancin Santa
Unfortunately patenting things costs money. (Score:4, Insightful)
Individuals and small companies don't have those luxuries.
Wrong wrong wrong (Score:2)
Back when I was young and naive the company I worked for would put in patent applications for me and I was proud of it. I was principle inventor on 3 patents and a contributor on several others, and these were definitely not among the best of the ideas I have had
These were not things I would have patented myself, partly because these inventions were mostly pretty obvious to someone with the right facts at their disposal, but mostly because it was not a sensible economic bet.
Each full patent application costs several thousand dollars of patent attorney fees, several days of talking to the patent attorneys and explaining the ideas to them so they can translate it into inpenetrable legal jumble.
For someone with enough funds it makes sense to take out 100 of these if there is a good chance that one of them might eventually be worth several million dollars. However, even the useful patents are worth money if you can spare several hundred thousand dollars to defend them in a patent suit.
I have easily had 100 patents worth of software related ideas which would be patentable under the pathetic standards of USPTO. If I had enough funds, and ignored the moral issues, it would make sense for me to patent them. But it wouldn't make sense unless I had several hundred thousand dollars to spare.
Someone has to say it... (Score:3, Funny)
I'm going to patent relational databases .... (Score:2, Funny)
from the rewriting-those-from-the-messages dept. (Score:2)
meh... not so hot.... how about:
from the new-world-order dept.
from the corporate-puppet-governments dept.
from the consumer-rights-what-consumer-rights dept.
from the act-now-learn-later dept.
The dept. line (Score:2)
(Let's see if anybody else here understands what I'm talking about, or calls their palm a 'pilot' out of old-timerness.)
probably won't matter anyway... (Score:4, Informative)
the official info is here [wto.org]
a good example of how TRIPs can be a Bad Thing is here [twnside.org.sg]
dense analysis in small font size is here [delhi.nic.in]
don't like how any of that sounds? fight it. come to kanaskis g8 2002. info here [activist.ca]
Software patents could be ok... (Score:2)
One thing that would break the current string of bad patents would be to submit something like googles database as a "researched prior art" reference. Once its listed in one patent application, then it can be used to research prior art on others. The problem is how to get google to submit a paten on something and include a reference to 1e9 web pages.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Software is a DEVICE (Score:1)
Any piece of software is a device to process data.
Surely a patent for a device should contain details on the processing it performs, rather than just saying "this thing does stuff".
Re:Software is a DEVICE (Score:1)
No it isn't. A device can't be copied without the expenditure of resources which are themselves property. Software can be copied at minimal cost, or even kept in one's brain. It can be broadcast through speach. It can be broadcast over the air waves.
Surely a patent for a device should contain details on the processing it performs, rather than just saying "this thing does stuff".
The difference is that software IS the description of the details on the processing it performs.
Property is something that there is a finite amount of (land, ore, etc.) While property can be created (cars, houses), it is created from other property. Copies of software does not require the usage of other property.
Re:Just another step... (Score:1)
Re:plus la change (Score:1)
in fact i didn't mention _my_ ideas at all
you might want to study the many meaningful civilisations and their means of production/distribution
capitalism will collapse like all other systems because that's what systems do
Re:plus la change (Score:1)
You do know what socialism is do you ?
Re:Ok, which one is better? (Score:1)
Re:Time for (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Time for (Score:2)
Take what you get for responses and send it off to your papers along with your opinion on why their stand, or lack thereof, is a good or bad thing.