EU Software Patent War Ignites Again 168
pieterh writes "ZDNet UK has a detailed article on the heating-up of the software patent debate in Europe. A new motion before the European Parliament calls for a harmonised patent court (EPLA) that would be able to enforce software patents across Europe. This comes just 15 months after the EP rejected the infamous Computer Implemented Inventions directive." From the article: "Patents on software are formally disallowed under the European patent system, but are routinely granted by the European patent office, according to critics. They are currently difficult to enforce in many EU member states, something critics say would be changed by the failed software patent directive, and now by the EPLA. Software patents are generally considered to add to the legal costs of large enterprises, as well as creating a hostile legal environment for smaller software businesses and open source projects."
international issues (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, if patent office A says that something is obvious, but patent office B in another nation claims that it isn't (and subsequently grants the patent, potentially to another company) what are the possible ramifications and remedies? Or is a company expected to request patents by all offices? Or once a patent is declared invalid in one jurisdiction is anyone else (in another nation) allowed to apply for it?
What I just asked could be complete non-sense, but it is something that I am curious about.
Re:Nostalgia... (Score:3, Interesting)
The mission statement of the copyright act under which I grew up:
"The main object to be desired in expanding copyright protection accorded to music has been to give the composer an adequate return for the value of his composition, and it has been a serious and difficult task to combine the protection of the composer with the protection of the public, and to so frame an act that it would accomplish the double purpose of securing to the composer an adequate return for all use made of his composition and at the same time prevent the formation of oppressive monopolies, which might be founded upon the very rights granted to the composer for the purpose of protecting his interests"
The term was 28 years renewable, giving a maximum of a 56 year monopoly, double the previous time limit. Who knew that I would one day be looking back at those footprints in the woods with nostalgia for a time when copyrights might last more than a century longer and cover every laundry list and office memo?
KFG
Do as we say, not as we do... (Score:2, Interesting)
If the EPO is not liable, then senior EPO staff or examiners must be personally liable because these (invalid) software patents are not issuing themselves. Perhaps that mister McCreevy (who is not a Microsoft sock-puppet) could contribute his personal wealth and spare time to the defense of the liable party.
If the EPO are not liable for their actions then why would a private company or individual be liable for patent infringement?
Re:Hostile to small business? (Score:2, Interesting)
See Lenz's take on the paper: http://k.lenz.name/LB/?p=10 [lenz.name] -
And Kinsella's (in comments): http://271patent.blogspot.com/2006/09/have-patent
Wow, what a strong argument for patents: they have not harmed the software industry that much!
Hard to enforce. Fortunately (Score:4, Interesting)
And that's anything but free market!
Re:Why SMALL businesses reject software patents (Score:1, Interesting)
In any case, time-to-market is what most software businesses consider as the key issue. Copying the ideas in somebody else's piece of software is very rarely worthwhile or practicable when all you have to study is the compiled executable file because it requires working out the algorithms and only the most obvious ideas can be quickly reverse-engineered into copy algorithms that can be implemented in new software. Software patents would stop the copying of ideas only in one direction between large and small software businesses - from large to small.
As for your interest in this debate, you do not completely hide what you do. You are an American patent lawyer earning not much less than a million dollars a year from patent litigation. You clearly have a massive vested interest in this debate which is why you are trying to argue that a foreign entity, the European Union, should introduce software patents which would harm European SMALL businesses but which would benefit the largest companies in the world, many of which are your current or future clients.