Business Software Alliance Writes European Regulations? 149
Holger Blasum writes: "The European Commission's proposal for a directive on software patents making software patentable in Europe is announced today (the commission's proposal still will have to pass council and parliament). MSWord's "Author" field suggests that it comes straight from the BSA's director of public policy. See the Eurolinux press release for a brief summary, more details can be found at the FFII website. Or, if you
prefer French, zdnet.fr has some coverage too." The EC's site has several webpages about the proposal: a main page, FAQ, and the official copy of the proposal. Comparing the proposal-as-released with the draft obtained by Eurolinux, many sections are identical, some sections are nearly identical and a few sections have been completely rewritten.
What was there before? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does anyone know what sort of protections were in place for software developpers previously? If nothing, this will definitely cause some major upheaval in the business of software in Europe! More monopolies, more globalization of the American democracy-but-with-oligaries paradox.
Anyone who is in Europe now have some insight?
Re:What was there before? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly the same as for, say a magazine article which you might write.
That means, in effect that nobody else could legally copy your code, unless you allowed them to, however, somebody else could write a program that did the same as yours, but using their own code.
IMO this is a very healthy state of affairs for the software industry, because it means that rival applications have to compete on price/features/stability/ease of use, etc. rather than somebody just inventing an algorithm and patenting it and locking everyone else out.
Re:What was there before? (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know about the rest of the Europe, but in Finland you don't even have to sign the rights away for _software_: the employer automatically owns all software you write. This is sick, BSA has had their will once again. Other copyrightable immaterial works are owned by the author unless he gives the rights away. Everything that is patentable is also automatically the employer's if case it is somehow related to a field the company practices -- even if it is not related to _your_ work. Sick.
Re:What was there before? (Score:2)
I do know for a fact that universities did (do?) not automatically get ownership of software students (or professors for that matter) wrote... and some bureaucrats/economists thought that was bad. I don't think that has changed since then (in 1998 or so), fortunately.
Re:What was there before? (Score:1)
I don't know about the rest of the Europe, but in Finland you don't even have to sign the rights away for _software_: the employer automatically owns all software you write. This is sick, BSA has had their will once again. Other copyrightable immaterial works are owned by the author unless he gives the rights away. Everything that is patentable is also automatically the employer's if case it is somehow related to a field the company practices -- even if it is not related to _your_ work. Sick.
For a comparandum, under US law (IANAL) a work is considered a work for hire (and therefore copyrightable or patentable by the author/inventor's employer rather than by the author/inventor) if 1.) the work was created as part of the author/inventor's normal job duties, or 2.) the employer and the author/inventor have an agreement assigning to the employer all the author/inventor's rights in works relevant to the employer's business.
Re:What was there before? (Score:1)
Of course, that doesnt mean that ridicilous patents should be awarded but there has to be protection or else why invent?!
Signing your life away (Score:2)
This means that any law aimed at increasing the scope and power of copyrights and patents ends up supporting the corporation against the individual.
Engineers as employees lose their intellectual property by virtue of being employees and moreso by signing blanket nondisclosure/noncompetition/IP theft contracts, and are prohibited from using their IP in future projects with different companies. This reduces the value of the engineer when applying for the next job (or asking for a raise).
Independent engineers are much more likely to face a lawsuit if the copyright holder is a corporation. If they infringe upon another human's copright, the issue is more likely to be resolved between the two individuals.
I have been lucky enough to have landed most of my jobs in situations where I had enough clout to make the changes I wanted to make to such agreements, but it has not and will not always be that way.
My father lost a number of patents to such agreements at a time when engineers had very little clout. He never saw a dime beyond his paycheck for inventions which made his companies real money. Furthermore, he got no recognition for his work (actually, I think his name is somewhere on the patent application - whoopee!).
It would be nice if patents and copyrights could only be held by individuals (of course, I have no idea what the actual ramifications of that would be), but the companies that own the government would never let us have that much control.
Re:What was there before? (Score:3, Informative)
Of course there's patents, but 'til now there are (in law) none for software. Actually, you could get software patented, but only if that's tied directly to hardware (ex. software controlling your dishwasher)
Several months ago the EUPO started giving software patents, which is not (yet) covered by law.
Only positive thing: they seem really intend on not going the way of the US according patents for totally obvious stuff (like the amazon one-click).
Re:What was there before? (Score:5, Interesting)
Prepare for rant:
Software patents are evil.
If software patents had existed 20 years ago, the concept of the spreadsheet would have patented, the concept of a word processor would have been patented, the concept of a database would have been patented.
Software patents do not encourage creativity.
Software patents do not encourage the sharing of novel ideas.
Software patents stiffle comptetion.
Software patents make work for lawyers.
Software patents will kill this industry.
Re:What was there before? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Moderators? (Score:2)
Lighten up bub. I'm sure the mods will do what's appropriate.
Re:What was there before? (Score:1)
Re:What was there before? (Score:3, Informative)
Now, there is some discussion about whether EPO rules actually forbid software patents or simply make it very difficult. Some of their more obfusticated rules seem to imply that with enough effort you can patent software by describing an invention of some kind that just happens to be implemented in software.
My take on this is that software patents are possible if you have the money to throw around. It follows that larger corporations (don't we love to hate those guys) will have their main patents in place before the game is opened up.
I have the phone number for the EPO somewhere. Leuke mensen, als je Nederlands spreekt.
Re:What was there before? (Score:1)
Re:What was there before? (Score:2)
Re:What was there before? (Score:1)
Re:What was there before? (Score:1)
Except, of course, for the fact that BT is applying for the patent in the US and not here in the UK.
Re:What was there before? (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, a friend of mine is patenting his application in the UK using exactly this method.
He was adviced to do so by lawyers, so they are quite certain that the software is patentable.
The usual workaround: (Score:2)
However, you can build a hardware device that
implements the algorithm, and patent the machine.
AFAIK the patent will then cover the algorithm, too.
Re:The usual workaround: (Score:3, Interesting)
What gets me about this is the convience that the EU is bringing in patents.
Consider the following:
Although this group numerically dominated (90%) the response, the major sectoral bodies representing the information and communication technology industries, as well as many of the Member States, all supported the approach put forward by the discussion paper.
Yeah lets say you asked my Grandmorther if patents are good or not? She would say yes they are good, without understanding the ramifications. Damm convient if you ask me.
This smells like large corporation pressure. And the leaders of the world wonder why there are violent protests throughout the world whenever they get together?
Re:The usual workaround: (Score:2)
As a result of that fiction, though, software patents usually start with the words "A device, consisting of a computer and associated software," even though they really only care about the software.
Re:What was there before? (Score:3, Funny)
Well, I live in France, I don't know of that counts. Since we have no software patents nobody is doing any research and development. /. with a Abacus.
We do our calculations on ABACUS systems (you know with sliding balls). We also have no modern telephones, televisions, VCR or the latest cars, since all those require software to work.
You should know how hard it is to read
We are all wishing we were living in America, the land of the free (and brave).
Re:What was there before? (Score:2)
IANAL, but my studies as a CS engineer (whee, doesn't that sound grand *g*) included law courses. We did talk about patents.
Over here, in Some Random Euro Country, software is patentable, but ONLY as part of a bigger system that requires that piece of software in order to work. Ie, I guess, you could patent a computer + its OS, should it qualify for patenting at all (no prior art, non-obvious invention, etc), but you can't patent the OS alone. (I know it's not a good example, but I hope you get the idea.)
Outside that, well, no, ideas are NOT patentable (first line in my course actually), and while software implementation is protected by copyright laws, the idea of it isn't patentable. And it's good that way.
Hope this helps...
Hold your horses. (Score:5, Informative)
Just sign the petition if you haven't done this
petition agains European software patents [eurolinux.org]
Darn Europeans (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Darn Europeans (Score:1)
As documented in that Austin Power's movie, there is no "world" to dominate, only corporations. Conquer those and you control the government.
Atleast until the magnetic pulse wipes it out.
Re:Darn Europeans (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Darn Europeans (Score:1)
Re:Darn Europeans (Score:2)
You put a genuine smile on my face. Thanks for the perspective. ;-)
Here's some cultural sharing. Over half of the laws that effect any given citizen of an European Union nation are European Union laws. We - de facto - already have a United States of Europe. Despite this, the European Parliament receives almost no coverage in the mainstream British press. Instead, we remain firmly focussed on internal petty political struggles.
We ocassionally get a shlock piece on corruption in Europe, but invariable focussing on the role that the Italians/French/Spanish/Germans/insert other country played. Good old fashioned xenophobia at its best, in both senses. We ignore the fact that we're ruled by Europe, and when we can't ignore it, we blame any problems on The Other Guy.
Is this analogous to the US? I know there's still a degree of state pride and independence, but it's very extreme in Britain. I, and almost everyone I know, consider myself Scottish (/Welsh/English), then British, then European, in that order. I imagine that's much like considering yourself a Texan first, then a Southerner, then a citizen of the USA, even though all the really important decisions that effect you (like spending a zillion dollars on an aggressive defence policy) are made at the Federal level.
Re:Darn Europeans (Score:1)
Here's a Quarter... (Score:2)
I guess I should have included a link like this [enronownsthegop.com]. Didn't think a clue-by-four would be necessary with
Ironic Logo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ironic Logo (Score:1)
Re:Ironic Logo (Score:3, Interesting)
There are actually two versions of Statue of Liberty, one in Paris and one in NY. The one in Paris is smaller (and less well known). I guess it was done by Eiffel to show the friendship between the two countries (don't know where he got that from ;-), and the historical connections between the two young republics.
Re:Ironic Logo (Score:1)
Re:Ironic Logo (Score:2)
Re:Ironic Logo (Score:3, Informative)
I see lots of ignorance about this subject, so let me quote the Statue of Liberty definition from Wikipedia [wikipedia.com]:
I hope this will help a little.EU Patent Office etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
A couple of months ago I attended a conference on EU IP law as applying to the IT business. The EU Patent Office director was there himself, plus business representants and government officials.
Among other points, that EUPO director admitted to giving out software patents without any legal basis whatsoever.
Also, these officialls were quite obviously loaded very pro-patents. Noone questioned the 20 year duration (hell, thats 3-4 whole generations in IT), and my question about that was answered in quite a ridiculous way: "well if that seems too long for you, you can just drop your patent by not paying the fees any more...".
These guys also were smart enough to ask how many people were pro-patents, but not anti-patent - which of course I had to ask afterwards - the obvious 50/50 result (these were almost all lawyers and practically no techies) was then called "well about 1/3 against only".
Next chance I get to talk to the minister, I'll sure try to express the Free Software point of view. But since I'm from the smallest EU member country, I doubt that will have much weight, even if I can help to convince the higher-ups...
Nice screenshot of our so-called democratic union. (Score:5, Informative)
Where did you find that word document? (NT) (Score:2)
Non-Government Organziation (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Non-Government Organziation (Score:1, Interesting)
You are, of course, correct. But I was referring (speculating) as to what this could lead to in the future.
To make one other point, the power of suggestion can become indistinguishable from real authority. The Supreme Court, for instance, has very limited powers under the constitution, but has created for itself (with judicial review) huge power. In essense, their suggestive power (as their decisions are technically subject to Congressional approval, tacit or otherwise) has become authoritative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Non-Government Organziation (Score:2)
(-1, Naive)
A suggestion is simply a kindly worded threat. Imagine the BSA: "Patent software." Europe: "No" BSA: "Okay, time to find out how many pirated copies of Office you're using
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder who this will benifit (Score:3, Interesting)
"Isn't software different to other technologies in that patents can be used to block legitimate independent innovation?
The Commission has seen little evidence that this has been a problem in practice in the present environment. This would be the case only if the scope of protection granted by patents were extended to software as such and, for instance, blocked the use of an algorithmic idea in other
technical fields from the one in which a patent is granted. Since the proposed Directive would not extend the scope of what can be patented, nor the scope of the protection granted by a patent, there should be nothing to fear on this front"
microsoft seems to spring to mind.
"Would the proposed Directive restrict the interoperability of computer programs?"
"..These exceptions include acts performed for the purposes of studying the ideas and principles underlying a program and the reproduction or translation of code if necessary for the achievement of the interoperability of an independently-created computer program. It is also specified that the making of a back-up copy by a lawful user cannot be prevented. Such provisions are necessary in the context of copyright law because copyright confers the absolute right to prevent the making of copies of a protected work. All the acts mentioned involve making copies and would therefore infringe in the absence of any exception."
This part seems to have implications for ebooks among other things, am I allowed make backups of the digital books I own, if I have to circumvent some copy protection to do it ?
"Why would claims to computer programs on their own not be permitted under the proposed Directive?
In recent decisions, patents have under certain conditions been allowed which contain claims for computer programs on their own, for example on a disk or even as a signal transmitted over the internet. In the course of consultations, fears were expressed that if enforced, patents including such claims may be used to prevent "reverse engineering" and other activities considered legitimate in respect of computer programs already protected under copyright law. Moreover, such claims could be said to be contrary to the EPC, which does not allow patents for computer programs "as such". In response to these concerns, the Commission has decided not to follow the direction taken by case law in this important respect. Accordingly, the proposal would not allow claims of this type to be considered valid."
It would seem that I can legitamtely make backups according to this, this also seems to have implications for the windows xp licence among other things.
Re:I wonder who this will benifit (Score:2)
Re:I wonder who this will benifit (Score:1)
Alas (Score:5, Interesting)
Just when it looks like the US might be realizing it's gone overboard with copyright and patent law, now here's a proposal to have the EU copy everything that's gone wrong with US IP law.
I thought originally patents were supposed to cover mechanisms. In the loose sense of the word, I suppose an algorithm is a mechanism, but *not* like Eli Whitney and the cotton gin, for crying out loud! In early landmark cases like Apple vs. Franklin [internetlegal.com] (1983; Apple sued Franklin Computer for copying the ROM's on the Apple II+ directly to make a clone), the courts applied *copyright law*, not *patent law*. (Apparently you can only get a patent on generic ROM chips, not on ROM chips programmed a specific way.) The court used the (at the time) new Copyright Act of 1976 (which IMHO was much more reasonable than the DMCA is now!) to frame their decision. Unfortunately, the Lotus 123 case (Lotus vs. Microsoft), the Pentium name trademark case, and the Apple vs. Microsoft case, the courts significantly eroded copyright's ability to provide meaningful protection to software. So I think that's why companies have turned to software patents, because legally speaking, they're much more intractable. (Although there was obviously prior art [unisys.com] for ripping off people through patents, e.g. LZW compression [unisys.com] which *wasn't even original* (it was a derivative of the earlier LZ compression), yet was awarded a software patent.
Anyway, this is unfortunate, but it doesn't surprise me that the BSA would be pushing software patents. After all, they're the same people who estimate "sales lost to piracy" by counting the number of PC's sold without Windows and Office and ASSUMING that everyone having one of those PC's (a) really *is* running Windows and Office, they just pirated it, (b) would have paid for it to begin with. Plus they send threatening letters to companies telling them that "the BSA police might come knocking on their door," while simultaneously telling disgruntled employees to turn in their employers. Nothing like a little backstabbing to make our lives easier, eh. Oh well, the world is full of scumbags. Just my $0.02.
---
Windows 2000/XP stable? safe? secure? 5 lines of simple C code say otherwise! [zappadoodle.com]
Re:Alas (Score:1)
I haven't heard of that one. Could you be thinking of Lotus vs. Borland? Borland lost in court, but won the appeal.
Re:Alas (Score:1)
---
Windows 2000/XP stable? safe? secure? 5 lines of simple C code say otherwise! [zappadoodle.com]
Europe playing catchup - badly (Score:3, Interesting)
Weird, but it looks like, according to this legislation, I could as it's "in the field of technology".
Europe has relied on some pretty good Intellectual property and fair use laws.
Companies were protected by applying for patents on core technologies in their products, for instance the ever popular "Dyson" cyclonic vacuum cleaner. It doesn't mean nobody else can build a cyclonic vacuum cleaner, they just have to do so using thier own design of parts.
Unfortunately, European Ministers aren't used to digital technology. Britain is, scarily enough, one of the most advanced countries in terms of digital communications technology - and we can't even get a bloody *DSL line to most of the country! This means that Europe is well behind on incorporating Digital content and technology into it's legislation.
The big companies themselves are generously offering advice and support to politicians who are out of their depth.
When the "Civil Rights" or "Hacker" communities start to pick technical holes in your arguments, if you can say "Well this resspected coalition of Major Digital Dudes says I'm right" then you look a lot better in front of your peers.
The EU is trying to force through a version of the DMCA (I feel a great disturbance in the force, as if thousands of
more on that at http://uk.eurorights.org/
This proposal really only paves the way for this bill, by saying that copyright laws should be considered applicable to software. Once that's been accepted, the bigger and more difficult to swallow, bill will go down a bit easier now that you've already swallowed some of it.
It's nothing to worry about on it's own, except it may let me copyright just about any arbitrary function. When the big one hits, then see teh nasty things I'll be able to do to you if you use "my" Hello World app!
Chris.
Somebody Patent Spam Please!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Europe playing catchup - badly (Score:5, Insightful)
You wouldnt patent a specific way of copying paper, you'd patent 'copying paper', wether done by hand, by photocopier, by taking a photo of the paper or by typesetting it and printing it several times.
Patents no longer cover specific methods of doing things, they cover every way of achieving a specific goal, something never intended by the idea of patenting in the first place.
EU, Inc. (Score:1)
Evil idea for messing with the BSA (Score:5, Funny)
Now, I don't know about you, but I find a lot of this stuff in my desk drawer. Why, several people have made copies of cdroms crammed full of various programs and offered it to me for only the price of a blank CD!
The astute reader will have already caught my drift by now and realized that with Linux and the GPL (and all the other OSI licenses) you don't ever have to say sorry to the BSA. So why not taunt them? Report [bsa.org] yourself today!
Actually, before someone jumps up and says something, let me point out that I don't think that reporting yourself to the BSA is really a good idea. It's like walking up to a 300 pound thug and saying something nasty about his mama. But we can dream, can't we?
:Peter
Re:Evil idea for messing with the BSA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Evil idea for messing with the BSA (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny thing is, someone I know who did this, but using a slightly different technique.
He worked as a developer for a semi-large company, about 1500 employees, give or take. His company was planning on migrating from their 95 environment for end users (NT 4 for devs) to 2000 environment for the Devs, and further down the road, XP for the users. He had been trying to push Linux there for some time, but the VPs and CIOs weren't listening. It was a Microsoft shop, and was to stay that way. (Despite them using Linux on their servers) So what did he do?
He reported his company to the BSA.
Now, his company was not doing anything illegal AT ALL. Due to a mixup with a VP, they actually had a ton of EXTRA licenses (in the 500 range) from MS for their workstations; they were beyond legal (if thats possible!! <g>) But the BSA didn't care. They came in to investigate, and even when presented with all the licenses, harassed my friend's company repeatedly. Despite finding nothing illegal, they threatened litigation on more than one occasion (barratry, anyone?), and insisted on several sweeps of their office. (they almost did get fined when they found a copy of SQL Server on a machine that no one could account for. Turns out it was from their MSDN subscription, so it was legit. I digress...)
Anyway, what was the end result of all of this? The VPs & CIOs in IT had such a bad taste in their mouth from the BSA/Microsoft, that they actually heard him out, and began looking at alternatives. His company is planning a full move to Linux later this year (it's a mixed environment right now, all the developers are already migrated).
Re:Evil idea for messing with the BSA (Score:1)
Hmm, now where's that manual for M$ Office? WinXP? I guess all Microsoft products are pirated.
Re:Evil idea for messing with the BSA (Score:2)
Re:Evil idea for messing with the BSA (Score:1)
There's protection, and then there's "protection". As in, why not just pony up some licensing fees so that we don't bring your business to a halt for a couple weeks?
If they were just protecting starving coders that would be OK with me. But extortion tactics are not.
Europe, always copying the US... (Score:4, Interesting)
Business writes the laws and gives them to Congress for rubber stamp approval. The idea is that the affected businesses understand the issues better than Congress and can work out fair systems on their own.
-c
Unlicensed copying (Score:2)
Too bad we Americans didn't think to patent legislative stupidity...
Re:Europe, always copying the US... (Score:1)
Other underhanded BSA tactics (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't take my word for it. Instead read this article [motherjones.com] from a couple years ago in Mother Jones [motherjones.com] magazine. It talks about how BSA offices end up pushing licenses for MS products even on companies that weren't illegally using them, but in fact were using other (competing) products.
For fairness, here is a link [motherjones.com] to a follow up letters column that disputes some of the facts in the article.
Quite an eye-opener.
Love those features... (Score:3, Insightful)
I love the convenience of M$ Office. It is so wonderful that I named my children after the components..."Quit painting the cat, Excel!!!" "Hey, Outlook, you don't look so good."
Actually, the "Author" field can be meaningless. I've edited files that other people started, and I don't get any credit. The meta-data in M$ Word just isn't very consistent over the life of the document.
Re:Love those features... (Score:2)
Patents and Copyrights (Score:5, Interesting)
Jon
Patents in public domain (Score:1)
No. Once the patent goes into the public domain, you're not forced to "turn over" your copyrighted implementation. Instead, it's simply as though you never had a patent. Your program's copyright remains in effect for as long as it normally would, but now other people can make their own versions without violating your patent (just as they would have been able to had you never filed a patent.)
A patent covers the general mechanisms that make your program function, while copyright covers your actual implementation (the source code or the executable). Having a patent on the idea simply gives you additional protection that nobody else will be able to write their own program that does the same thing as yours (or at least, not the patented bits.)
Re:Patents in public domain (Score:1)
Should a condition of copyright protection of a computer program be to put the source in escrow? (so that when the copyright runs out, it truly will fall into the public domain).
Jon,
think on these things...
Re:Patents and Copyrights (Score:2)
The patent protects what it does. The copyright protects how it does it. You don't have to disclose the source to get the patent, merely describe what it's supposed to do.
You could, for example, patent a self healing filesystem. Not just a journalling system or a RAID cluster, I'm thinking of a generic system that makes background backups of commonly used areas, looks for bad areas, and repairs them with a best guess of what data should be in them, all without interaction. That's probably new enough to count. I don't know how I'd do it, but if I decribe what I'd want it to do in enough detail, and pay my 10,000 euros, then I get a mortal lock on any poor bastard who does implement this and tries to sell it (or even give it away!) in Europe in the next 20 years.
RMS on software patents in Europe (Score:2, Informative)
Patent Horror Gallery (Score:2, Interesting)
From their assorted examples [ffii.org], my favorite is a patent on a Method and apparatus for path name format conversion. [ffii.org] Filed by Sun Microsystems perhaps as a way to annoy Microsoft, it's a method of converting Windows 95 filenames to Windows NT filenames. These guys crack me up.
French Homesite (Score:1, Informative)
Copy protection null and void? (Score:2)
It is also specified that the making of a back-up copy by a lawful user cannot be prevented.
According to this, wouldn't all of the copy prevention schemes be out the window? If it's unlawful for the companies to make a backup of my , that would make things like SafeDisc a thing of the past...
Unless it's argued that you can make backup copies, but they don't have to work (Which flies in the face of rational logic.. Then again, this is the law we're talking about).
Companies writing laws (Score:1)
Why not have lawmakers write the laws? Make them craft it by hand so they don't intrinsically benefit one company or organization but so that they benefit the people that elected the lawmakers in the first place.
Scandal (Score:1)
How do we know this is true? (Score:1)
Anyway, what is to stop me from receiving a copy of this draft and changing the "Author" field in Word? until we get multiple verifiable copies of this thing (that we know couldn't have been tampered with by someone who is Anti-patent). This could be a scam, no?
What would be better is if the draft were written by someone at the EU who was using a pirated version of Word that he got from the BSA guy. (Not that he doesn't have oodles of MS software for free...)
Tomas
"public" consultation (Score:1)
The consultation produced 1447 responses, the overwhelming majority by e-mail. An analysis of these responses is available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indp
Many of the responses supporting a more restrictive approach than at present, with fewer patents being granted, were transmitted through an open forum set up by the "Eurolinux Alliance", a group of companies and other entities supporting the development of open source software such as Linux. Although this group numerically dominated (90%) the response, the major sectoral bodies representing the information and communication technology industries, as well as many of the Member States, all supported the approach put forward by the discussion paper. Some responses argued for eligibility for patents to be widened in line with the practice in the US.
To me this translates as : "Let's just take the 10% of responses that agree with us (us being the EU), and ignore the other 90%, because those people are just hackers/crackers, who didn't even try to bribe us" Why the hell would you have a call for public comments only to ignore 90% of it?
Also, the consulting firm they hired to analyse the comments [eu.int] doen't seem to think much of the open-source movement either. Funny thing is the firm doesn't even have a website. I wonder what were the criteria to hire them.
What should I patent? (Score:1)
Who to contact (Score:3, Interesting)
Some countries such as France have given public statements that a move to allowe software patents will not be approved without clear demonstration of the economic advantages (which there isn't), so there's plenty of reason to think this directive can be stopped, just like the previous Commission initiative to 'harmonize' in favour of greater patentability.
Re:Who to contact (Score:2)
Still, the directive isn't actually as bad as it's made to look like.
It doesn't allow patenting software "as such", although it's very ambiguous as to what constitutes an advancement in a field of technology that can be achieved by a computer-implemented innovation where the implementation is a programmable computer (...) or software implementing the process that contributes to the advancement in the field of technology..
Talk about recursive definitions.
Oh yes, in my letter I also requested that the documents be made available in language that a person skilled in the art of software development can understand without need for additional expertise in legal matters. Never going to happen, but at least I did complain about it. Not to mention that I complained about the very bad Finnish translation.. It was horrible text - I had to read both the Finnish and English versions to understand the Finnish translation.
However, I'd suggest anyone interested to really read the directive with explanations about the articles. The most interesting parts were comparisons to US and Japan and the targets set relative to the current situation in Europe, and current situation in US.
Re:Who to contact (Score:2)
What is needed is not to legalize the existing EPO practice of ignoring the explicit exclusion of software in Article 52(2), but rather to make the EPO's practice conform to what the law says.
We know from past experience that the EPO will take the most pro-patentability interpretation possible of any set of rules. Not allowing software 'as such' to be patented is a meaningless exclusion, since the EPO has already formulated its own definition under which all computer programs are considered to be 'software not as such'.
Software should be patentable (Score:2)
No, the problem with the US patent system is not the patentability of software; it's the patenting of stuff without a proper search of the prior art, the patenting of stuff that is obvious but happens to have no prior art because it's a new field, and the patenting of the trivial last step when the bulk of the work has been done by someone else.
In fact, these problems are true in other areas of endeavour too. It's not just software people who complain about the US patent system.
Not that I trust the EU patent office to avoid these mistakes, mind you.
Not very bright, are you? (Score:2)
Please read my comments on this:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=28274&cid=303
Re:Software should be patentable (Score:2)
One of the major problems in the US, and I suspect the EU will have this problem as well, is a lack of patent inspectors who know enough about the details of esoteric technical fields -- e.g., software. It's not a high-paying job, and there aren't enough of them, with the result that there are very, very few patent inspectors with both the time and the knowledge to determine whether a patent application for something like "one-click" or "hyperlink" makes any sense at all in terms of idea vs. implementation, prior art, etc.
Re:Software should be patentable (Score:1)
It's prima facie obvious: SW patents are a farce (Score:5, Insightful)
They are, in short, nothing other than a naked gift to large companies, with no demonstrable or even plausible public benefit. They are a versatile weapon, with which Microsoft, and a few others, can bludgeon their competitors and enemies.
I was shocked to see the EU contemplating them... but apparently things aren't so different from one hemisphere to the other.
Re:It's prima facie obvious: SW patents are a farc (Score:2)
Funnily enough, I've always been inclined to believe that that "naked gifts" of the roofied cheerleader variety played a big part in the corporate-government relationship.
It's phrased to be funny, but it's actually nauseating. Our "democratic processes" (US and EU) allow us to choose between one corrupt politician, another corrupt politician, or (if we're lucky) some honest people that never get chosen because we feel that we have to vote tactically to keep out whoever we view as the most corrupt of the two main candidates. And not voting is painted as being undemocratic (or it's illegal, as in Australia).
Thanks all the same, but I'll vote when I have a single transferable vote, 100% proportional representation, or a "none of the above" option. Voting for the lesser of two evils is not an option that I'm prepared to accept.
Re:It's prima facie obvious: SW patents are a farc (Score:2)
I am a young programmer writing free software in my free time as a hobby. Obviously, I don't search the whole patent base before writing every line of my code. I write something which happens to be patented. I release my program under GPL. My program is used by ten millions of people. The patent holder sues me, because ten millions copies of my program use his patented idea, which he can license to me for 10 cents per copy. Would I go to jail because I don't have million bucks? And I don't think the public opinion would see it as evil corporation suing kids inconvenient for their monopoly, it would be rather seen as evil hacker pirate anarchist punks versus good honest tax-paying corporation hiring thousands of employees.
How would such situation look like in the United States today? Does it mean that people who don't have fortune for lawyers, for searching the patent base every day, for legal defense and for potential licensing fees, should not even start programming because it can be to dangerous? Or should they emigrate to East Europe and South America, seeking freedom?
People seem to not understand that copyrights are enough for protecting software. It's like Van Halen patenting the tapping [rockguitarschool.com] technique, because he thinks that copyright is not enough to protect is "intellectual property". He no longer needs to be good at it, because now he'll be the only one permitted to use that technique. Unfortunately people don't understand software and can believe in bullshit in which they would never believe if it was in the field of music. And believe me, Van Halen's solo from his first album was much more innovative than LZW, not to say about one-click and other farce.
Even if the patents will be given only to truely innovative ideas it's still to dengerous for me to write free software.
What's in a name ? (Score:1)
Arrogance + ignorance ?
How long... (Score:2)
...do you suppose it will be before software vendors eliminate the use of scripting in products because to allow an end user to write their own extensions to the software will inevitably run afoul of some patented idea. I'm just waiting for someone to patent the concept of automatically updating cells in a spreadsheet. (Actually, I'll be surprised if that hasn't already been patented.) Then every business on the planet that attempts to run a spreadsheet with formulas will owe someone a royalty. Won't that be nice.
Some things aren't that bad... (Score:1)
It might not be as bad if the EPO can be brought to heel. However as much effort as possible should be put into this to make legislators understand the negative points of the legislation from our point of view. Myabe then they can reassess the impact of this (proposeds) legisation and can either scrap or amend it accordingly.
News at 11 (Score:2)
BRB, after these messages on Gun Control by Remington, and Freedom of speech by China.
-
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul. - George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
Lobbyist preparing texts for EU rubberstamping (Score:3, Informative)
So a director of BSA has prepared the text that the eurocrats will rubberstamp after the required amount of backroom deals. Shock, horror.
Yaaawn.
Well, maybe this is new for some naive readers here, but it's unfortunately very common in Brussels. Here is how the lobbying process works in the EU. Now before you flame me with self-righteous indignation, let me disclaim:
First, the context: once, I was sent to provide pre-sale tech expertise for an IT project that was discussed with France's representatives in Brussels. I was baffled about the politics of this project. So the sales engineer gave me a crash course in Brussels politics before seeing the customer. Her knowledge was apparently accurate, since she was quite successful in this market.
There are (or were, at this time) about 25,000 bureaucrats in Brussels. Surprisingly, a similar number of people are working for various consulting and PR cabinets around Brussels. These persons are paid by various corporations or affluent SIGs (special interest groups) to prepare and execure PR campaigns with a public and a bureaucratic facet. The latter is mandatory: You have to convince bureaucrats that they need to do something that will just happen to advance your agenda. The former (public aspect) is an optional media communication plan, complete with astroturfing (fake letters to the editor of major newspapers, etc.) where the goal is to convince EU lawmakers that the public is concerned about an issue.
More than 90% of the Commission's decisions are directives, not laws. These directives are supposed to be strictly technical decisions (e.g., standardizing the sizes of condoms and the labelling of banana, I kid you not). But some decisions pushed into directives are really dictatorial and are so broad they should require major laws with the requisite discussions. Directives are not supposed to be earth-shattering decision, but the EU processes are so opaque and so ill-defined that, in practice, you can make directives about abything. Once a directive has been published (without any debate or feedback), it has to be applied by the member countries, or else. There is no easy way out once a directive has been published.
That's why a good lobbying campaign should end up with the publishing of a directive.
Let's take a not-so-imaginary example. Let's say you are a big agro-food business. Your stance so far was to push for high-margin, high quality products, and you were supporting a law requiring chocolate to contain no fat matter other than expensive cocoa butter, like Lindt or French chocolote. But you've just acquired the largest industrial chocolate company in Europe. It spews forth huge amounts of a cheap, browish crap with less than 10% cocoa, in which cocoa butter is replaced with peanuts oil and lard. Even Americans would find disgusting. But it's very profitable. So you need to reverse your stance.
Now, the eurocrats are not going to accept money from PR agencies. They are not that dumb. So a good PR agency will walk in the offices of the Directorate in charge of food and will tell the manager, "Hey, we are organizing a training session about the chocolate industry in the Bahamas. It's one hour a day for 5 days. Here are invitations, hotel reservations and airplane tickets for you and 20 of your most important coworkers. See you there." It's not a boondoggle, it's a technical vitality training session. Who would object? And it doesn't cost anything.
Of course, if you want these training sessions to keep coming, you should do these companies a small favor from time to time. So you accept the documents they give you and turn it into a directive. As an added bonus, the document is already pre-written in the awful form required by the eurocratic process.
That's how it works, folks. So I am not surprised that BSA is submitting a text for rubberstamping by the Commissars.
Actually... (Score:2)
Michael
Good in theory, bad in practice... (Score:2, Insightful)
Patents are often broad and trivial:
I mean, "one click shopping" for crying out loud!
Patents protect Big Corps more than startups and individuals. This renders the entire concept of patents useless. Supposedly, the meaning of pathents is to protect innovators from 800pound (soon to be 400kg, unfortunately) gorillas.
The combination of obvious, overly broad patents and increased Big Corp influens will obviously not favor innovation, since the Big Corps can patent everything and it's uncle no matter how trivial it is (they have the money to do so) and just sit back on their asses and collect money from other peoples work.
And trying to fight a Big Corp in court is next to useless if you are not a Big Corp yourself. More money generally beats less money...
This is not how things should be.
Stop this madness!
Re:Good in theory, bad in practice... (Score:1)
Re:Good in theory, bad in practice... (Score:2)
It just became a lot harder to justify patent reform imo.