Petition against EU software patents 57
ZeroTolerance writes "The FFII has set up a letter to the EU competition commisioner about the proposal for the introduction of a software patenting system similar to that in the US. Read more about it at swpat.ffii.org (in German)
And sign the petition here (in English; German, French, Italian and Esperanto versions also available) " Trust me. You folks don't want the US style patents. Unless you have a silly lawsuit fetish.
Re:The US Patent Law is interesting... (Score:1)
Don't bet on that fact even if it is in your contract, as it may be null and void. Most states don't allow employment contracts to take all ideas, only those which are 1)developed on company time or with company resources, or 2)developed on personal time, but which may be useful to the company. This is more or less what mine said. Of course, IANAL and I know nothing of the specific laws of your state, so check with one in the know.
Lawsuit Fetishes (Score:1)
Ok, so we make the patent office research every patent before issusing a patent. What happens? Well, the US government starts spending huge amounts of money in order to research patents and delays the time to patent by months, years or decades (yes, more than 5 patents a year are filed in the US) resulting in lost money by everyone involved.
In the current system, a patent is issued to a person. If someone else violates the patent, the person who originally patented the item may sue, however if the person who violated the patent has ample proof that the patent is invalid, then they will win the lawsuit.
The people who are paying for these lawsuits are private citizens or corporations, not the US people as it should be.
The same thing basically happens when a law is passed by the executive branch of the government. The executive branch's job is not to make sure laws passed are constitutional, that is why we have 3 branches of government.
I find it rediculous when people bitch and complain about how the US government is corrupt when an unconstituional law is passed (like the CDA) because people do not fully understand how the government works.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
--
Re:The US Patent Law is interesting... (Score:1)
If a contract contains a "the boss may brutally kill you anytime he darn-well feels like it" clause, it wouldn't stand up if taken to task... just because you sign it, doesn't make it legal.
Maybe I should have chosen a more sensible example, but you get the idea... Like, in Australia, the old "We reserve the right to inspect all bags on leaving the store" sign in stores isn't worth the card it's printed on, and a store detective cannot make you stop (They class that as "arresting" you) at checkouts etc(now, whether this is right or wrong, who knows, but that's law)
Re:The US Patent Law is interesting... (Score:1)
Cursor patent (Score:1)
Defendant's rights (Score:1)
In the current system, a patent is issued to a person. If someone else violates the patent, the person who originally patented the item may sue, however if the person who violated the patent has ample proof that the patent is invalid, then they will win the lawsuit.
This is the wrong part -- the defendant is PRESUMED GUILTY and has to prove his innocence while plaintiff doesn't have to present any proof except the fact that he at some point sent patent application, and it was approved (and there was no sufficient proof necessary to get a patent).
If there was a proof requested initially to issue a patent, that proof could be used in the lawsuit to validate the plaintiff's claim, however since there is no sufficient proof (patents are issued without necessary research), and lawsuit is handled like there is one implied by the patent application, it's a violation of defendant's rights.
Re:US is to blame (Score:1)
Re:Lawsuit Fetishes (Score:1)
By the way, it is the job of all branches of government to obey the constitution. Everyone swears an oath to that effect. The SC is just the airbag system of our govenment. A last desperate hope when Congress steers us off the road, and the Excecutive guns the gas.
Re:Lawsuit Fetishes (Score:1)
Well this isn't quite correct. As I understand it, if it is blatently obvious that the person who patented something disreguarded prior work, the judge will not issue an injunction against a product to stop it from shipping. This was the case with the whole Sony emulator issue where Sony sued for patent infringement but the judge saw the case was weak.
As far as the branches of the government is concerned, the legislative branch nor the executive branch do much more than take a quick look at the law when creating and passing bills. It is the job of the judicial branch to make sure the laws are just.
Then again, I'm not a lawyer, this is all information I gathered from school years back.
--
European politicians... (Score:1)
In Denmark, many politicians are "cand.polit.", which means they have an academic degree in Political Science. Some have degrees in Social Science or in Economics.
France is similar, except that most of them come from the same school. I don't know about the rest of Europe, but I suspect it is the same.
There are some exceptions, our Minister of Economics is a public school teacher, and the Minister of Agriculture is a mailman.
Re:US is to blame (Score:1)
thing:
EU - "Umm, we don't want to import this beef. We've had it tested and it's hazardous to our
health."
US - "You insult my hono(u)r! I kill you!"
EU - "No, really, it's poisonous. We'll take any
beef but this, no questions asked."
US - "If you mock my beef you mock my family! I
kill you!"
The US govt is scared shitless of Europe
developing a comparable software industry. One
reason for the M$ trial is that the quality of
their product has dropped so low that it's viable
target. Any move to ignore US patents would
probably move up the whole invasion of Europe
thing by at least a decade (joke!).
K.
-
How come there's an "open source" entry in the
Re:The US Patent Law is interesting... (Score:1)
I did.
US-style patents (Score:1)
Re:US-style patents (Score:1)
Meanwhile, we could improve our trade balances and reduce our software patent problems by exporting some Lawyers!
Re:patent law needs to be rethought (Score:1)
The only result I have seen from patents is holding back a market.
Remember the car? There was a patent on the car. Mr Ford wanted to make the car available to everyone. But the car patent royality payments did not allow it. Mr Ford found a loophole and made the car industry what it is.
Remember the windsurfer? A company called Windsurfer created it. They did nothing with their patent and did not invest in their idea. Other companies realizing that Windsurfer would do nothing with their patent, decided to invest in that market. As a result Windsurfing became popular. Then Windsurfer in the last two years of the patent demanded "back payments". Many companies went under. What did Windsurfer do with the money? Nothing they retired from the industry.
Sorry as I see it patents are for those that want to make tons of money at the expense of the consumer. You want a monopoly, look at what patents do. Patents promote old style static thinking. Patents fragment standards since if one person hold a patent to the standard all others have problems.
How do you reward companies that invest in the technologies? Simple if the company is inventive and nimble and offers the technology and services at the best price then it will win. Look at how far we have gotten in software.
emails and phones and names, oh my (Score:1)
patent law needs to be rethought (Score:2)
Patents themselves can bring monopolies, and such, and cause buisness to go out out of business or change there business practices. Cyrix is an example of this where it could not compter with Intel and AMD. The current patent laws in the US do not allow for patenting of software persay, but do permit the patenting of a software method if the claims speficy that there is hardware involved. This then gives the patent owner a 20 year (up to 20) 'hold' on the market. Since technology changes so much after 20 years the market for that product may be obsolete, especially in the software industry, and computer industry.
Patents on software is a VERY bad thing. A large company with a software patent prevents anyone else in useing that tech for 20 years without the permission of the patent holder. A good example of this is NES and there patented technology. They are now saying that emulators are against the law and violating there patents.
1) Patents should only hold for a few years, like 2 to 5 years not 20.
2) Patents should NOT be given on methods, algorythms, software, but ONLY on hardware. Physical hardware as patents were intended over 100 years ago. ( I think they have been out there that long).
We as a species will hopefully grow, and the need for patents and money will disappear as we evolve.
Badly written letter (Score:1)
--
Re:emails and phones and names, oh my (Score:1)
Re:Sure we want patents (Score:1)
sensefull thing, but nowerdays they
perverted totaly! They never improved
innovation and they never will!
Today, most patents lay in the hands of big
companies - that is not what they were
intented to. The most innovative companies
are the small once - and they often can't
afford to raise a patent.
Is software realy that different from
natural algorithms that it is worth to
make it protectable? Don't think so.
At least, Software is that diffuse, that
nearly nobody can say wether a violation
happend or not. Do you think, our judges
(which are of course excelent jurists, but
no computer scientists) are smart enough
to do that job in the right way?
Ok, the result is that many people
have much work by quarreling about
what few peoble have created.
That is a good way to combat against
the joblessness.
But is that realy that what we want?
just my two 0.02 euro
An easy solution (Score:1)
How's this idea:
Make patents like the royalties musicians
receive from airplay of their songs. Musicians
can't control who plays them or when, but if their
music is good they see a healthy return for years
to come. At the same time, since the royalty is
small and fixed, radio stations can afford it,
and lawyers are eliminated (mostly) from the
whole issue (radio stations pay a fixed amount
each year according to their size, and a large
national group handles who receives what portion
of that money according to airplay statistics).
Software could be similar, not allowing anyone
to block others from using a technology, and not
allowing anyone to overprice licensing fees (a
prime example of where this is needed even more
in the U.S. is in medicines: companies charge
such exhorbitant amounts for new medicines that
only a handful can use them, while opening up the
playing field would give inventors the same
earnings yet allow the consumer to benefit). The
only tricky part would be determining a
reasonable price to charge companies.
Will something sensible like this happen? Of
course not. Why? Because, if Europe is anything
like the U.S., the politicians are.... lawyers!
The US Patent Law is interesting... (Score:4)
-Stryemer
We are the music makers,
and we are the dreamers of the dream.
Re:An easy solution (Score:1)
Re:The US Patent Law is interesting... (Score:1)
First-to-invent is a actually a rather bad idea. It sounds like its fairer to small inventors, but in practice it isn't.
The only way to prove you're first to invent (if someone else filed first) is to go to court. Hence first-to-invent ends up meaning whoever can last longest in a court battle. Even if you have good evidence that you did invent it first (and that's going to be difficult) you still have to get the cash together for a court challenge.
Under first-to-file, the small guy has at least a fighting chance to get to the patent office first.
IANAL, YMMV, standard disclaimers apply.
US wants Europe to have software patents (Score:1)
Does anyone know what the extent of these benefits to the US are estimated to be?
My thoughts on patents (Score:2)
So, we need a way to distinguish the cheap, stupid patents from the good stuff. Here's my idea; it's pretty rough around the edges, but I think the concept is sound:
First of all, any citizen of the appropriate country can object to any patent on grounds of obviousness. There is no cost to object, but it must be done in writing, via plain old mail. An objection must include a brief rationalization, and the objector's qualifications.
Then, once there are some number of objections (say 100), the applicant must demonstrate non-obviousness. To do this, the patent office provides a list of 100 or so (willing) experts in the field, who claim no prior knowledge of the application.
The applicant chooses two teams of five from this list, and they are sequestered (at the applicant's expense), for a few weeks.
These experts are then told the nature of the problem the company is trying to solve, and given access to any published materials that existed before the patent's file date (e.g., books and journals OK, but no net connection).
Their challenge is to devise as many workable solutions to the problem as possible in their 2-3 week isolation period. If any of these is substantially identical to the solution proposed in the patent application, then it's rejected.
I really like this idea, because it would eliminate moronic things like the XOR cursor and that load-balancing CGI thing. Really good advancements in the state of the art, like RSA's crypto patents, would endure.
This is intended mostly for software patents, since it's hard to affordably finance a project team for something like developing a new engine or CPU. With simulation getting better and better, however, it may be possible to apply the concept to other fields.
The downside is that patent filing would be (potentially) more expensive. It's already prohibitively costly for most individuals, though, and the upside for corporations would be partial immunity from frivilous challenges to the patent (if granted). A proof of non-obviousness, audited and blessed by the patent office, is a powerful piece of evidence in a lawsuit challenging the self-evidence of your innovation.
cheers,
mike
Re:The US Patent Law is interesting... (Score:1)
Re:patent law needs to be rethought (Score:2)
IIRC, companies with patents are required to make their designs available for use by others upon payment of a licensing fee. So if you patent something, you can't just sit on it and prevent others from using it. After all, the design is public knowledge - you can look it up at the Patent Office. This way everybody gets to use the new technology you've created, but you still get remunerated for your R&D work. I'm not sure if there are any limits on the actual licensing fees you can charge, so this might be a stumbling block, but I think there is some sort of limit on those fees.
Re:The US Patent Law is interesting... (Score:1)