PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: John_Thazer on June 02, 2005, 10:36:55 pm
-
I been asked to pass this around. Currently there is a bill that is trying to be passed, dealing with how to patent software! This really can affect what people can or cannot make (in terms of software).
More, and full, information on:
EuroLinux (http://www.eurolinux.org/)
Sign the petition:
Sign the petition here! (http://petition.eurolinux.org/)
Please sign this up!
-
For more information on how the lack of patents help everyone, read this: http://www.linuxcommand.org/rantings.php
-
I signed as Joe Polkov.
And as Baran Kozlov.
-
I cant give my opinion because Nada would contradict me but if I were able to give it I would say I already sign the petition and that Im against patents, especially software and chemical ones. But I dont say it I dont want to see a debate here
Russian Vodka?????????? What? you signed for 2 persons? are you kidding?
-
Originally posted by fken
I cant give my opinion because Nada would contradict me
For that matter, I won\'t.
-
I am totally and completely against any extension of patenting. My sig says it all, so I already signed the petition.
For more information on Software Patets (aka \"Patents on Ideas\"), see my sig and this animation (http://wiki.ffii.org/SwpatAnim050418En).
Please only sign the petition once and with your real name, because otherwise you\'ll be voiding it\'s validity, effectively destroying the reputation of us patent-opponents and hurting the cause instead of helping!
The patent system is, even in it\'s conventional domains, increasingly failing to fulfill it\'s goal. That is something that needs to be addressed, too, but first and foremost the expansion of the failing system must be prevented.
-
Originally posted by RussianVodka
And as Baran Kozlov.
LMAO!!! :P
EDIT: I would have to agree with Seytra, on the names. Sign once, and with your real name where possible, if you are using, not real name...choose something...more real gather than russianvodka\'s second choice...:D
-
if you dont want to write your name dont pollute dont write anything. If you write wrong name I think it would destruct the petitions!
-
I\'ll be frank. Software patents obfuscate compatability and create a non-competitive business environment. On that ground I oppose.
Patents on chemicals or genes don\'t make much sense either.
However, some patents (ie: mechanical or electronic device patents) are necessary.
-
If any of you guys ever bothered to invent something, I\'m pretty sure you would be happy that patents exist. But then again, patenting in our world can get quite out of control, where people patent grass or the smell of burnt wood (or whatever...).
\"Yeap, that\'ll be a fiver for surviving that fire there. You breathed in my patented product, so cough it up!\"
-
So what\'s up with Linux? I know it\'s open source, but is it patented? Or does it work of a Unix patent?
-
If patents were limited to geniunely original ideas, they wouldn\'t be a problem.
Unfortunately the standard for original has dropped significantly where patent offices are concerned. A large part of it is the amount of hassle involved in turning down patents (numerous hearings where the applicants lawyers try to overturn the decision) as opposed to just letting them through.
Software patents in particular bother me, it\'s getting easier and easier to accidentally infringe someone elses patents without knowing - and that is not a good thing in any way whatsoever.
-
Originally posted by Kiva
If any of you guys ever bothered to invent something, I\'m pretty sure you would be happy that patents exist. But then again, patenting in our world can get quite out of control, where people patent grass or the smell of burnt wood (or whatever...).
\"Yeap, that\'ll be a fiver for surviving that fire there. You breathed in my patented product, so cough it up!\"
First I would be happy if I had the money required to get a patent. (Even little companies hasnt the money required).
Then patent on program means patents on idea. For example in USA there is a patent on the possibility to add a \"buy\" button on your website. Thats what I heard...
Patents has allowed Creative Labs to force id software to add their EAX sound in thier product thanks to a patent they had on a work which is (moreover) not theirs. Still whats said.
Do you like openoffice? because if patents pass the .doc documents will be patented by MS -> you will be forced to buy MS Office to create a .doc file even if openoffice creators never cheated and re-created the .doc architecture legaly.
Off course when you are a little scientist and when a big company steal your work there is no problem to create a patent and tell you bye bye then...
I know university and french great ingineers schools are known because some teachers create patents on their pupils projects...
In each case patent kill creativity. in each case patents are bad because if you arent rich you become weak (someone rich can have the patent and say you - not officially - thank you after...).
In USA a guy learnt his own DNA was patented.
In European parliament, some politicals said it was a threat for the freedom of expression.
-> program are only logical ideas
example :
-------------------
if something
then something else
-------------------
software patents are the first step before ideas patent.
In european parliament, the defensors of the patents said it was a way to save little companies. The ones who refuse the patents answer : do you know a lot of little companies which are able to pay the price of a patent easily? Off course the answer was no, there isnt.
patents voting of the parliament has been ignored by the commission - even if it was one of the most actively defended/refused law. Then the commission tried to vote it secretly by adding it on the schedule at the very last time to be sure there will be no opponents. Poland was in favour of software patent but Poland prime minister came to say \"you can do that everywhere you want but not in my country\". It has been tried something like 3 or 4 times in others countries (each time prime minister of the country came ..and so one).
The minister council tried to make this law pass.
Soem european parliament members said some companies like MS was very annoying and stressed the parliament member. Some were forced to take holiday (i dunno how to say that... Im sorry my english is very primary one).
In USA, some people took the justice and said patents were a \"crime against the constitution\". Justice is overtaken (too many people are complaining).
Do you know how many softwares linux is representing ? If there were a patent for each linux program it would be an amazing price. Patents will kill every little programmer\'s softwares and every free or opensource softwares: if its free how can you buy a patent? so say good bye to every free program you know (Mozilla, PHP, openoffice, firefox, amsn, gaim, ...). And will Talad be ready to pay between 10000 and 20000 euros for ps ? because one day a guy will create a patent for the use of the crafting in a mmorpg... or anything else...
Off course it looks like something bad... isnt it ?
-
Just one thing, this is all too late.
-
i dont think so.
source : FFII
Dear ***bip*** (all you have to know is fken),
The debate in the European Parliament on software patents is
reaching a critical phase. We expect the vote in the committee
for legal affairs (JURI) to take place on 20 or 21 June, and the
European Parliament second reading vote to be on 6 July.
MEPs realise that there is much at stake and both sides are devoting
a lot of resources to support their case. The companies that remain
silent are simply not being counted.
NOW is the time to act. This is the message to pass on to people
running businesses most at risk from the software-patent threat.
YOUR HELP IS NEEDED
The FFII is organising a conference on 1 June 2005 in Brussels.
We hope to see you there; see below for details.
If you are representing a European enterprise yourself, there
are several more things you can do to help us to prevent software
patents in the EU. If possible, please take all of the following
actions:
* Unless you already did so, please sign the EuroLinux petition
(http://petition.eurolinux.org and the FFII supporter list
(http://aktiv.ffii.org/euparl/en.
* In addition to this online \"signature\", please print out the
Call for Action III (http://patinfo.ffii.org/material/cfa/,
sign it, and fax it to the FFII at +49-201-755440. We are
collecting these signatures in order to attach them to a (paper)
letter to the MEPs, similar to what EICTA did in April (see:
http://swpat.ffii.org/log/05/eictasme04/pro-patent-smes.pdf.
The signatures will not be published anywhere else.
* Please add your company to the \"Economic Majority Against
Software Patents\" list at http://www.economic-majority.com/.
* Please continue to write (paper) letters to your representatives
in the European Parliament explaining, in your own words, why you
are concerned.
* Please visit our conference on 1 June in Brussels (see the
invitation below). Your presence makes a difference for the
MEPs you will meet there.
* Please go to Brussels and explain your concerns to the MEPs.
We can help you to arrange a meeting and, if necessary, to find
a hotel. Please send questions and possible dates for meeting
MEPs to .
We have already arranged and held several meetings, and each one
is very significant because it helps MEPs see how important this
issue is.
* The week of 17-20th May is constituency week for the MEPs, which
means they will be in their home countries. This is an excellent
chance for you to get in contact with them and pay them a visit
without the need for travelling to Brussels.
For basic introduction to the topic, we recommend (in this order):
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/basics/index.html http://patinfo.ffii.org/faq.en.html http://swpat.ffii.org/log/intro/index.en.html
If you are convinced about the urgency of this matter but you have
difficulties communicating this to your business partners or to your
superiors, the following presentation could be useful to you:
http://patinfo.ffii.org/material/ing-it/
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Thanks to the continuous work of the FFII and its supporters, the
MEPs are beginning to understand the problems induced by software
patents. It has become obvious that neither the industry nor the
academic institutions support the Council version of the directive:
* UEAPME, an umbrella organisation representing 11 million
European SMEs employing around 50 million people, finds large
companies misrepresenting SMEs\' stance on software patents.
See: http://wiki.ffii.org/Ueapme050427En
* A German survey of more than 1,000 companies took the German
government by surprise when the vast majority spoke out clearly
against software patents.
See: http://wiki.ffii.org/Ifis050404En
* More recently still, 10,000 to 15,000 students, teachers and
staff at more than 35 Spanish universities protested against
the directive proposed by the Council.
See http://lucha.proinnova.org/for photos and information.
Several MEPs, including the rapporteur Michel Rocard, have submitted
good amendments to the preparatory JURI report on the directive.
Now they need to see their actions legitimised by your support. Your
voice will give them the necessary moral backing to convince their
colleagues, and needs to be heard now more than ever.
INVITATION
The FFII cordially invites you to its
Conference on the proposed Software Patent Directive
on 1st June 2005 in Brussels
in the European Parliament and the Renaissance Hotel.
Please find the preliminary program here:
http://swpat.ffii.org/events/2005/bxl0601/
The conference is co-organized with the Computer & Communications
Industry Association (CCIA) and four European People\'s Party (EPP)
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from different countries.
The conference is free of charge. You can register either by
replying to this email with the form at the bottom filled in,
or by visiting the above web page.
Please help us to defend your business against software patents!
With kind regards,
Erik Josefsson Felipe Wersen
Hartmut Pilch Dr. Peter Gerwinski
Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII)
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION AND SUPPORT
[ ] I will participate in the morning session (Parliament).
[ ] I will participate in the afternoon session (Renaissance Hotel)
[ ] Please contact me to provide help with hotel rooms
(Renaissance Hotel, Maison du Dragon Hotel or Gogh Hostel).
[ ] I am representing a company and I wish our company logo to be
on the program to show support by sending it to em-logos@ffii.org.
(Note that you can do this even without attending the conference!)
[ ] I am representing a company and willing to publish a statement like
http://www.economic-majority.com/testimony/wuensche/,
Please contact me for details.
You are getting this email because you have registered as sadangel
at http://aktiv.ffii.org/.If you think that you got this email
by error, please reply and let us know. In that case, we apologise
for the inconvenience. You also can localise via aktiv.ffii.org
to your place of residence (resulting in e.g. messages being sent
to you in your place\'s language when available).
-
Kiva: Microsoft not invented right click, windows, context menus, DOS,
functions in C or digits (these Arabian guys did). They either stole it or bought
from someone else. Anyway if you want them to patent it, unless you are a
multimillionaire, you are not going to have an Operating System anymore. ;)
Maybe if you\'ll port Amiga Workbench to PC...oh wait I forgot it uses mouse
cursor and windows, DOS....*grins*
But the second issue is - no one of big guys cares about our opinion.
Regards.
-
we dont live in a democracy anymore...
-
Originally posted by Platyna
Kiva: Microsoft not invented right click, windows, context menus, DOS,
functions in C or digits (these Arabian guys did). They either stole it or bought
from someone else. Anyway if you want them to patent it, unless you are a
multimillionaire, you are not going to have an Operating System anymore. ;)
Maybe if you\'ll port Amiga Workbench to PC...oh wait I forgot it uses mouse
cursor and windows, DOS....*grins*
But the second issue is - no one of big guys cares about our opinion.
Regards.
True, they didn\'t. But then again, did they ever patent rightclicking? Did they patent \"windows\" (not the OS - just the term using windows in a program) or context menus? Did they patent C functions? The last one is, of course, hypothetical. You can\'t patent int main(), but once you put together a program with thousands of code lines, you can reserve the right to use and sell this program, so others don\'t steal your work and sell it for you. But then again, isn\'t Microsoft getting forced to share pretty much all of their product informations so other companies can produce competitive products? And aren\'t Microsoft getting sued by every imaginative company, every time they do anything?
I\'m pretty sure if you were head of Microsoft, you\'d have gray hair by the time you were 20. It\'s not always easy to protect what you do and convince others you were the first to do it.
Patenting software isn\'t as bad as some might think, and it doesn\'t have anything to do with patenting thinking (I mean, come on). Like I said, if anyone here actually bothered inventing something, you\'d realize how convenient a patent is. If you do that the easy way by patenting first and then sueing everyone who touches your product, or the hard way by not patenting and letting someone else do it, and then you get sued by them, that\'s entirely your choice. But as long as none of you are in the shoes of the inventors, who are you to say what\'s right or wrong for them to do?
Patents are good as long as they\'re kept on a human level, and seriously, no matter how many internet people you get to sign a piece of paper, noone will ever change anything. Instead you should go for the president job and change things that way. The chances of success are probably higher like that. :)
-
Microsoft has patented alot of things that doesn\'t belong to them and ARE
included in Windows, details are widely available on the Internet - Google
knows. I suggest reading through history of Windows (not this one at the
microsoft.com) list of trials, patents etc. *yawns* I am bored about discussions
about microsoft thievery especially when there are alot of dark and loud cases
that are not anymore forbidden knowledge (hint: Microsoft vs. Xerox at the
beggining). If that resolution will be accepted MS will be for example able to
patent right click, they have already patented drag & drop method, windows
focus on click, alot of functions etc. which were intelectual property of Xerox.
I am not a Linux fanatic. Torvalds himself said that Linux is an operating system
not a religion or philisophy, but I also know, as a person working in IT company
that we can earn alot more when we don\'t have to pay MS for every single
thingie and we can earn even more alot if we will not pay them a cent but
popularize Linux instead, it is a pure calculation, Novell, HP, IBM can tell you that. ;)
So, if that resolution will be accepted, alternative operating systems will die.
(eg. right click is considered an algorithm too, \"Amazon\'s\" one click forms
too).
Anyway, it is not about being against patents in general but being against patents on algorithms, can you imagine a day when somebody will patent
arabian digits or latin alphabet? :D
Regards.
-
I know I\'ll get flamed for my opinion, but is this conversation actually interesting anyone, or achieving anything? If so, please continue. Otherwise... *yawn* :D
-
Hm...this patenting is getting wilder...and wilder...since the subject was Microsoft...did you know that Double-Click action is actually patented by them? Or another example...Amazon...they patented One click buy action! What else will they patent then?
All this dangerous patenting creates, more and more, monopolism in the ICT industry as a whole...
I mean these days, God Himself will probably will get a patent on Human beings....to stop all this cloning...:D
-
Originally posted by Phinehas
I know I\'ll get flamed for my opinion, but is this conversation actually interesting anyone, or achieving anything? If so, please continue. Otherwise... *yawn* :D
personnaly, I think this thread is interesting.
@Kiva: even if I am for the freedom of expression, be carefull: you are a moderator. It mean you can moderate the forum but it means you have to be moderate before everyone else. You are representing the law here so each word you use is important. In my mind, Platyna knows a lot about patents (a lot that you dont know). Then dont contradict her without concentrate hardly on the words you will use. It\'s just an advice not a reproach.
For the one who are in favour of the patents: there are already licensing. Licensing allowed in the past a lot of industries and companies to become rich (even richer than what they had to become : its not normal that all the programmers of a company are able to buy a ferari in only one or two years of works : cf the doom saga). Today a man use an opensource program like gzip, create a gzipper and ask 30? (40$) just for a GUI. Some people lost their soul somewhere and their honesty with.
But these last times, big companies think they dont earn enough of money: they created patents... why? just because patents will force another people to pay royalties for their work. It means that companies want that people pay them but these companies hasnt to do anything anymore. It\'s like your telecom invoices...
If you are individualist, now you have to know anything: if companies have to pay to create a program (because of patents), these companies wont find the money required in a christmas gift: it\'s the one who will buy the software who will have to pay more - and when you will buy doom4, you will pay MS for the right to use its patents, and creative and IBM and (why not) US Postal or MacDonalds (if they created a specific program then they could say a part of doom4 belongs to them even if it has nothing to deal with their activities) ...
Moreover when you will buy a new computer, your computer will cost 300$ and the softwares 600$, maybe 1000$ (its an example). A new release of each software will arrive each new year. So I think you would have to pay for new software... each 4 or 5 years (it\'s honest, isnt it? I mean its exactly what\'s already happen...). So a lot of users wont buy the software... Have you internet? are you using internet? have you an internet provider? If you have one then you have computer. If you have a computer then you have softwares... if you have softwares and are not registered as a legal user then you will have fees. Off course if you are poor, people will be able to do everything they want with you. It\'s already hapenning with the licensing. A lot of people are already outlaw. And its surely written somewhere. But for now it\'s like a chess games for Microsoft. They force you to cooperate slowly. The next step of the MS ideas is called project TCPA / Palladium -> they will be allowed to force computer manufacturers to add black boxex in their computer. Thanks to Windows longhorn, MS will be able to host each details of your privacy (to be sure you arent a hacker off course ;-) or maybe not only for that). I assure you its a real madness!
-
Thank goodness Fedora Core 4 is comming out in two days! Either way, I\'m not switching to longhorn.
I don\'tthink anyone answered my question though, what kind of patants/copywrights do linux systems have?
-
the patents prices are too high and the linux community is against patents... I think there is no linux patent...
or maybe on proprietary linux software... but even ... im not sure because there isnt enough of money to make with linux (noone want to pay and everyone want to participate)
-
Linux does not have any patents at all. However, there has been a study that says that the Linux kernel (not counting any application that is isn any distro!) potentially infringes on 283 patents!
IBM has said it would not use it\'s patents against Linux, but that is not really a binding agreement.
Citing this ZDnet article (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5524680.html):
It is a small but significant measure for a company with major efforts to patent its research, then license those patents. Still, the vast majority of IBM\'s 10,000 software patents in the United States aren\'t being shared so freely.
The move follows that of Linux seller Red Hat, a comparatively small company that objects to software patents but allows unfettered use of its own smaller portfolio in open-source software. And Novell, the second-largest Linux seller, has vowed to use its own patent portfolio to deter and counter legal attacks against open-source software.
So there is a small bit of protection.
Anyway: Kiva, the thing is that:
Patents are meant to protect the inventor because traditionally there is a lot of expense involved in an invention: you need expensive equipment at least. Software, however, can be developed perfectly well with a common household appliance that everyone possesses: a generic-purpose computer. Even if you purchase a commercial development package, you can stay very well below 3000$ in total.
Therefore, there is no investment in software to be protected!
Additionally, if I write a program, I don\'t need to find some law of nature or a creative way to use one: all I do is to translate my intentions on what I want the computer to do into a language that can be understood by the computer:
This is, in fact, the exact same as translating a recipe for cookies from italian to russian.
Therefore, patenting software is patenting pure intructions. Instructions are ideas, because a written set of instructions is a formulated idea. The program you have written is copyrighted, for free and automatically, so noone can simply use or copy it without your consent!
Thus, what does a patent increase in protection? Exactly, it is supposed to keep others from making competing products that do the same job! You patent software, you patent the idea on doing the particular thing, so noone else can ever write anything similar!
Also, we are not talking about really good ideas, or revolutionary concepts like a new compression algorithm: algorithms are mathematics, and as such have been exempt from patenting for a good reason: by disallowing use of algorithms, you disallow the progress of mathematics, because noone will be able to build upon it!
This is exactly what is being done with software: all software is based on things that were \"invented\" before, and improved upon them. By tying up these ideas, there cannot be any progress in software development anymore!
Bill Gates himself said:
Originally stated by Bill Gates in 1991
If people understood how patents would be granted when most of todays ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a standstill today.
Last but not least: doesn\'t it strike you as odd that
- big corporations are in favor of software patents
- small companies and individual programmers are against software patents
- software patents are argued by the promoters (i.e., big companies) to help the small companies and individuals
How can that be? Why do the ones who are supposedly benefitting not want it? Why do the ones who are supposedly losing out want it?
- scientists are against software patents
- lawyers say that programmers should not look at software patents at all because if they infringe the patent, they will have to pay thrice
- promoters of patents say that patents encourage spreading of the knowledge
- patents are deliberately worded unclear, broadly and not concrete and are not comprehensible by anyone except lawyers
How can that be? How can something promote exchange of knowledge if it cannot be understood by those it supposedly is made to communicate anything to? How can it exchange knowledge if the ones who defend it on these grounds themselves say that it should not be used by those it is supposed to help? How can non-scientists insist on that something helps science if scientists say it doesn\'t?
So obviously, One party is lying, and, considering that a patent doesn\'t just cost ~50000$ to get, but also costs several millions to actually enforce, the party with the actual means to pay all these expanses are extremely suspicious of lying. Would they really push hard for legislation that harms them?
As for your claim that none of us who oppose patents have never invented anything: have you? How about the programmers who are supposeldy inventors? Why are they not in favor of software patents?
Also, Microsoft has said it wants to get 3000 patents each year! Do you honestly believe that anyone, regardless how big the company, can invent that many true, real inventions per year?
Edit:
For a glimpse on what methods are being used by the patent-promoters, see this (http://wiki.ffii.org/Trilog0506En). Note that the EU council is made up of the patent offices\' heads, and the European Parliament is the only instance that is voted in by the population, and thus the only one that has any democratic legitimation.
The council tried to pass the Software Patent directive on a meeting of agriculture and fishery, several times! Do you still not smell something fishy there?
-
Maybe a defense proving prior use?
The main focus in the United States for some of the Linux companies to defend against some of the more bogus patents MS tried for and got here, is prior use. I am not as familiar with linking as some here, but it isn\'t hard to find info on it in the net. There are some patents that are legit, but some, such as the one which seems to be patenting tabbed browsing and can also be interpretted in several ways, such as multiple desktops, only got through because you can get a patent without much proof that no one else got it first. Here, you have to prove you used it first if someone else has patented it already. The patent office does absolutely nothing to research or make applicants prove they did it first. You just apply, and get the form... It would be a lot better if there were a public waiting period of over a year, and ANYONE can contest it, and no one gets the patent until there is proof in the event of a contested patent.
In many cases, other companies used things way before MS tried to patent it. General concensus is that no one is going to try to fix the patents, until MS tries to sue someone. Then, they are going to band together and prove prior use and back each other with legal defense funds. I am not sure how well that will work. Prior use is a good idea to look into though, because you can get the patent taken away. Look at the first one for motor vehicles here. Someone had a patent for decades, and had to put the plaque even on Ford cars at first that this other person had the patent on the motor. Until someone went and proved that the guy never intended to nor built a motor, it was all theory, and when he did build one from his design, it didnt go more than a few miles and badly at that.
-
EU isn\'t USA. IIRC the prior use concept isn\'t in use here.
-
If we start to patent technology, more people shall begin to take risks with their ideas as it will be easier to part from the currently used technology. Because right now, it doesn\'t pay to be too creative as if you fail you\'re screwed, and if you succeed, so what it\'ll get copied by everyone anyway.
This is the opinion of a person who has never seen how the world works, yet. : )
-
Seytra sums it up very nicely.
Originally posted by Kiva
Patenting software isn\'t as bad as some might think, and it doesn\'t have anything to do with patenting thinking (I mean, come on).
Yes it does. The only thing you need to create software is your brain. Your work is protected by copyright and nobody can steal it from you.. except using patents. With software patents you can write a program and then get sued for it! You may end up not having rights for your own program!
Like I said, if anyone here actually bothered inventing something, you\'d realize how convenient a patent is. If you do that the easy way by patenting first and then sueing everyone who touches your product, or the hard way by not patenting and letting someone else do it, and then you get sued by them, that\'s entirely your choice.
I\'m a programmer so I\'m directly affected by software patents. Software patents are a threat for me, nothing else. And as long as I\'m not a millionaire there is NO WAY I could patent anything.
-
There will be no software patents in Europe!
European Parliament DID NOT approve The Software Patents Directive! 648 representatives were against it!
:D
LINK (http://lists.ffii.org/pipermail/news/2005-July/000302.html)
RedHat link (http://www.europe.redhat.com/news/article/431.html)
Monterey Herald (http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/business/technology/12065866.htm)
(http://www.archgrove.co.uk/wp-content/euparlvote.png)
-
HOORAY! :D
\"We buried a bad law and did so without flowers\" - Eva Lichtenberger, a member of the parliament from Austria\'s Green party
Finally, we\'ve been waiting for it for so long!
@Wired: La-i-n
-
bah, I\'m slow, nevermind ^^
-
They already tried to push it several times, and they will surely try again.
-
Originally posted by tangerine
They already tried to push it several times, and they will surely try again.
Indeed they have, and will continue to. Someone said in an article: \"There is too much money to be extracted for patent lobbyists to give up and go home\".
Thus, we must remain wary of anything in the area of patents.
The most likely things I see are:
1) The \"community patent\", which, according to software-patent-friendly MEP Toine Manders, can slip in software patents: (http://wiki.ffii.org/Manders050702En)
Originally posted by MEP Toine Manders
This directive concerning software patents can, if necessary, be brought under the umbrella of the Community Patent.
2) The EPO, which may grant SW patents, and judges setting up case-law in it\'s favor.
However, the only way big industries tend to be creative and innovative is in finding ways to buy legislation and extract money, so expect to be unpleasantly surprised.
This, therefore, is only a partial victory. It would have been preferrable if a directive that clearly excludes software and other forms of ideas from patentability would have passed. However, the European Council would never have let anything pass that even remotely excludes software. Thus, the rejection was the best possible result, and I am very relieved at it.
However, we must not ignore the fact that the clear \"no\" only came because the conservative fraction decided to vote against the directive. What\'s problematic about this is that their reason was that thy couldn\'t get as much patentability as they wanted!
Edit:
In this article (http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/05/07/05/1811211.shtml?tid=147&tid=132&tid=27&tid=3) an US patent expert is quoted saying that \"the EU Parliament has been fed a \"steady diet of disinformation.\"\" (by the patent lobbyists).
Also, UK IT lawyer David Harris is quoted saying that \"rich American software companies and their European branch offices \'wine and dine\' politicians and Eurocrats - they employ knowledgeable and sophisticated lobbying.\"
This proves that we are nowhere near saved from patents on ideas.
Also see this article (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050706113609571). According to it, the UK is already trying to get the \"Comminity Patent\" back in motion.