Let's fight for our freedom! No software patents!

[ze0nyx]

Under the influence of the patent system and big industry lobbyists, the European Union is on the verge of making a huge mistake: to pass a law that would legalize software patents. If that happens, you will pay dearly. Europe's software industry will fall victim to unscrupulous extortioners. A cartel of large corporations will crush smaller competitors. Consequently, we will all pay more money for less good and less secure software. You personally, your household, your company, your government, all of us.
You'll know when you get the bill. When someone breaks into your computer, reads your E-mails, and steals the password of your bank account. When your computer crashes every day. When spam doesn't stop. When prices go up and companies shut down. When people lose their jobs.
The Software Patent Directive by the European Council of Ministers will introduce US-style Software Patents in the EU. On 6 July, the European Parliament will have the last chance to prevent this. To do so, 367 of the 732 members must appear and vote “NO”.
For more information see:
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com
http://noepatents.eu.org
Discussion welcome.

[evo]

They will go ahead, and you and whoever decides to join in - no matter the numbers involved will not make the slightest difference, whether you like it or not.

It is somewhat a similar situation like ID cards that are going to be introduced in the UK.

[ze0nyx]

They will go ahead, and you and whoever decides to join in - no matter the numbers involved will not make the slightest difference, whether you like it or not.Why won't it make difference? Let's say I convince a member of the euro parliament to vote "no". if several people succeed in doing so, the mission is completed, isn't it? AFAIK according to statistics the difference of the number of the people who'll vote no and yes are near. Some 20-30 people more will do.

[bazz]

I'm curious.. ;)

If you were to develop a brilliant piece of software, which (because it was so good), you wanted to ensure no one else stole and used to make money; wouldn't it be better to protect it? I wouldn't like to think that it could be nicked and then used by the 'thief', to make him loads of money at my exploitation.

discuss :)

In any event I reckon the legislation will go through because it is intended to bring the EU in line with the US. I suppose this is a particular example of having good and bad on both sides of the argument. side point... in concreto I know of a guy who designed a piece of medical hardware. He went to a businessman to see if he should patent it before selling it for a very modest amount. The apparent advice was not to. What happened next? The guy who advised him not to, patented it and made over 100m GBP!! The inventor got nothing. :mad:

Patents are used to protect your work. Nothing to do with making money

Bazz

[jkd]

You write a brilliant piece of software, no one can steal it. You patent "Displaying recommendations based on user-history" (like Amazon), then you're being an *ss. Specifics yes, overarching ambiguous ideas, no. Common sense, really.

[Ben@WEBProp]

There is a dangerous side to patenting software too. Imagine if Norton had patented Virus Protection Software, or if IE was able to patent the web-browser! We would all be SOL due to everyone learning how to hack the one universal program, and that is just no good.

Ok, lets say EU does introduce software patenting. Which jurisdiction presides: US or EU? An american and a european both develop software near the same time...could be anything revolutionary. Who gets the credit/profits/recognition? Also, what stops someone in Brazil (the 1334zor capital of world h4x0ring) or some other non-caring-about-patents country from developing copy programs that are better (ex: firefox in brazil, ie in eu and america)?

[jkd]

There is a dangerous side to patenting software too. Imagine if Norton had patented Virus Protection Software, or if IE was able to patent the web-browser! We would all be SOL due to everyone learning how to hack the one universal program, and that is just no good.

Web browsing is vague concept, not a program. And you'd have prior art via lynx, mosaic, and netscape in the example you listed.

[Ben@WEBProp]

Web browsing is vague concept, not a program. And you'd have prior art via lynx, mosaic, and netscape in the example you listed.

Oh, I'm not saying it would happen, I'm just kinda making hypothetical examples. But "Displaying recommendations based on user-history (like Amazon)" is also a concept, and not a program, but they seemed to patent that...

[oracleguy]

It is definetly an interesting topic, especially considering that when computing was really starting think pre-Apple One days, people shared information readily, thats how in 30 years we were able to go from a massive room sized, slow computer, to having a 400MHz processor in a PDA that fits in your hand with a gigabyte of storage. Sharing information is what led to Apple coming about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_computer_club) for example.

[jkd]

Oh, I'm not saying it would happen, I'm just kinda making hypothetical examples. But "Displaying recommendations based on user-history (like Amazon)" is also a concept, and not a program, but they seemed to patent that...

And I'm completely against that.

[bazz]

"Displaying recommendations based on user-history (like Amazon)" is that a line they use, just like, "Carlsb*rg, probably the best lager in the W*orld"?

If so, I think that is slightly different. That would then be a registered trade mark and covered in different law and some of them, I agree, are really sad.

I like the analogy of the virus software companies mentioned above. I reckon we'll find that they shall start to patent parts of their programs, when the legislation comes in. And the upside of that might well be that - because they can't copy each other - they will have to make their software stand out: be better: do more to protect us. And if so, wouldn't this then mean that by building in more features, we would then get better a/v software and see the creation of more jobs for coders?

I suppose there always has to be a flip-side.

my 2pence/0.0353c/.0296 euro :D


PS, what does SOL mean?? That's a new one for me.

[ze0nyx]

"Displaying recommendations based on user-history (like Amazon)" is that a line they use, just like, "Carlsb*rg, probably the best lager in the W*orld"?

If so, I think that is slightly different. That would then be a registered trade mark and covered in different law and some of them, I agree, are really sad.No, not this way. It's like saying "Nobody can make his site display recommendations based on user history, no matter the way he does it.".I like the analogy of the virus software companies mentioned above. I reckon we'll find that they shall start to patent parts of their programs, when the legislation comes in. And the upside of that might well be that - because they can't copy each other - they will have to make their software stand out: be better: do more to protect us. And if so, wouldn't this then mean that by building in more features, we would then get better a/v software and see the creation of more jobs for coders?

I suppose there always has to be a flip-side.I don't think so. Imagine this. Norton patents the concept of "auto-updating antivirus definitions". Nobody else can add this feature to his software anymore. And if he has already done so before the patentation, he automatically becomes a criminal. Cool, huh?

I really don't think this scenario would increase the possibility for your dreamed "they'd do more to protect us".

[Antoniohawk]

Moving this over to Geek News and Humour...

[bazz]

Imagine this. Norton patents the concept of "auto-updating antivirus definitions". Nobody else can add this feature to his software anymore. And if he has already done so before the patentation, he automatically becomes a criminal. Cool, huh?
I really don't think this scenario would increase the possibility for your dreamed "they'd do more to protect us".

Valid point I think. But then there's the legislation about anti-competition or is it anti-trust? yep, I may have been dreaming but I think this is for real.... one group who would make millions from it is the lawyers.

heh heh, Antoniohawk. I'll try to work out if I'm funny or a geek :) no need to reply :D

Bazz

[ze0nyx]

But then there's the legislation about anti-competition or is it anti-trust?I can't really say I understood all of this, but probably it's due to my extremely weak English =/ . But if I get you right, here's what I think - Software patents literally destroy competition in practice, although they are not intended to do so.one group who would make millions from it is the lawyers.Exactly. Here's what is this whole madness about:
a]you work in the patent office
b]you make more types of things patentable without caring what the consequences will be
c]you grant more patents and get more money

These people really don't seem to understand what this is going to bring to all of us. Including the very them.

BTW I'm not sure if everyone really understand the purpose of this thread. My goal is to try to
1. Inform people why software patents are bad and why we should fight against their legalization in the EU
2. Organize a resistance

Well, I suppose I sound somewhat funny, but we haven't got much time left [less than a week!!!] and I'm giving my best to save the stuff I *need*, i.e. open-source software.

[bazz]

Don't panic!! Patent law has applied for a long time in other environments and without it, business development and evolution would not be so quick.

Patents don't stifle competition. They actually stimulate enterprise because the inventor is rewarded by not having his work stolen and used for profit by someone else. What I think your getting wound up about is what people do after patenting in order to maximise their return. And that is a completely different issue.

Of course, he can license use of it, something which we should already be aware of in the IT world of software.

And licensing will enable the previously mentioned concern about updatability to virus software to be seen in a better context. It can still happen across the board in different softwares but the guy who patented it will be licensing it to all the software AV companies.

As I said before, patenting is only a system to protect one's work. If they make money from it, then (in my view), good luck to them. To me what matters is what they do with such large amounts of money. Re-investment in the businessworld to help the beginners to flourish might sound too idealistic but, it's what I would do if I had the chance.

Bazz

[ze0nyx]

Don't panic!! Patent law has applied for a long time in other environments and without it, business development and evolution would not be so quick. Patents don't stifle competition. They actually stimulate enterprise because the inventor is rewarded by not having his work stolen and used for profit by someone else. What I think your getting wound up about is what people do after patenting in order to maximise their return. And that is a completely different issue.

Of course, he can license use of it, something which we should already be aware of in the IT world of software.

And licensing will enable the previously mentioned concern about updatability to virus software to be seen in a better context. It can still happen across the board in different softwares but the guy who patented it will be licensing it to all the software AV companies.

As I said before, patenting is only a system to protect one's work. If they make money from it, then (in my view), good luck to them. To me what matters is what they do with such large amounts of money. Re-investment in the businessworld to help the beginners to flourish might sound too idealistic but, it's what I would do if I had the chance.

BazzSoftware developers are perfectly protected without patents. Everyone who writes a computer program automatically owns the copyright in it. It's copyright law that made Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and the entire software industry so very big. It's the same legal concept that also protects books, music, movies, paintings, even architecture.
Many of the world's richest people owe their wealth to copyright law. Some examples are: Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer (Microsoft); Larry Ellison (Oracle); Hasso Plattner and the other founders of SAP; Paul McCartney (Beatles); JK Rowling (Harry Potter).
If copyright is all that authors and publishers need, why do some additionally ask for patents? Because they have bad intentions that they try to conceal:
1. The patent professionals want more money and influence. Copyright is free, so you don't need patent offices and lawyers to obtain it. Those potentially make money on writing and processing patent applications, and on patent litigations. A fast-growing branch of the "patent mafia" specializes on squeezing money out of the innocent by alleging patent violations.
2. Some large corporations want a powerful weapon against small but innovative competitors, or against open-source software. What they dislike about copyright is that it only helps against criminals. They want a legal instrument with which they can harm honest people.
We still have the chance to prevent this! We must exercise our democratic rights. There are politicians that purposely support those bad intentions.

[shmoove]

The problem with the patent system, especially in the US, is that the people giving the patents have no clue on the topic of the patents. They just grant them way too easily. The patent office just figures they'll award the patent, and if the "invention" isn't really patent-worthy it will be overthrown by the courts. This gives all the power to the big money people that can afford these lengthy court battles, and completely screws over the little guy.

Microsoft was recently granted a patent on "transforming programming objects into XML". If the patent clerks even bothered to interview any freshman studying CS, he could have pointed them to a ton of prior art. "Transforming programming objects into XML files" is the main thing people have been doing with XML since it exists.

So the problem isn't the patent system per se, it's the incompetence of the patent clerks.

shmoove

[Kurashu]

No, not this way. It's like saying "Nobody can make his site display recommendations based on user history, no matter the way he does it.".I don't think so. Imagine this. Norton patents the concept of "auto-updating antivirus definitions". Nobody else can add this feature to his software anymore. And if he has already done so before the patentation, he automatically becomes a criminal. Cool, huh?

No ex post facto laws, at least in the US and several other countries. You can't punished for something that is illegal now but was not when you committed it. That is the jist of it, some countries bend it a little like France where you can have modern laws used to reduce your sentence that you were punished for under harsher laws.

[shmoove]

That's beside the point IMHO. The point is that "display recommendations based on user history" should not be patentable. Maybe a specific implementation (which will already be protected by copyright), but not the concept.

shmoove

[scroots]

so what they are proposing to do is let you patent ideas or methods e.g. remebering last viewed items, and other new concepts people produce.

Currently you can only copyright physical things e.g. you can copyright your code, if someone achieves the same output via a different means its not breach of copyright.

What they are proposing to do is all you to patent an output or concept so no one else can use the idea, another example is amazons one click ordering. No other US company is allowed to let people order items with just one click because of amazon and the law in the us.

Its all getting stupid and silly.

scroots

[shmoove]

I wonder when did Amazon patent that 1 click shopping thing. Because I used to work for a company (DealTime.com, now called Shopping.com) that had implemented that a really long time ago (pre-2000). Did the patent office bother to look for prior art? I doubt it.

shmoove

[bazz]

I dont know enough about the patents office staff and the searches that they do (are supposed to do), but, in schmoove's post, immediately prior to this one, he nicely brings me back to my initial point. Patenting is about proptecting your idea and not, about making money.

If we were to rely only on copyright etc to determine who got the idea first, then we would have what we alrady do... a clear mess, where argument could lead to court but for the big guns to scare the little guy. Patenting can repair this inequality.

As I see it, patenting will after a period of upset and confusion actually make the system better because the new applications will be compared only with previous patents. As said earlier by scroots (2 posts above), copyrighted code has the inherent flaw that the same result can be achieved in another or even the same language without breaching copyright. Patents are the only way to protect your idea/ouput/resultant product. I would suggest that copyrighting is only sufficient to protect the actual 'words' of your code.

As for objecting to patent law and trying to motivate a lobby group, I just question the reasons of the originator of this thread who I think was ze0nyx.

Much worse, I think, to leave the system as it is, where the 'small' guy who has thought something up - stumbled across it- however he/she did it, has it appropriated by the bigger guy and has then no ability to take the issue to law because the financial costs prevent it.

Imagine a ball game where you could make a score anywhere on the field. The fitter/bigger/stronger, person would always win. Then think about the same game where 'goal-posts' have been added to the rules. Now the game is much more balanced in favour of the underdog.

As I see it the present turmoil, which I suspect is/was the trigger for this thread, is little different - in principle - from the change in a countries' political structure. A Time of turmoil usually metamorphoses into something better. I'm not getting into politics here but, the priciple is established in Ireland and other previously, politically-messy-and-violent countries.
They're better now, the balance is more even, if not totally perfect and they wouldn't go back to how it was before; given the choice. Let's hope that that principle prevails in the other areas where that principle could apply. ;)

Bazz

[enumerator]

http://www.radioisboring.com/files/praxinoscope.jpg :)

[dannyhayes]

What is this actually about lol :thumbsup:

[enumerator]

Re: foundations of software architecture (http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/yak/2003-03/msg00103.html#nid01)...

[ze0nyx]

bazz, the war of fate is over. We have achieved victory. The directive has been rejected. I see your point and this used to be my opinion, too. But in the first of the links I've posted you can see exactly why you're wrong. (no offense)
kewl cartoon, enumerator :thumbsup:

[bazz]

got a link to post?

[ze0nyx]

got a link to post?You mean a link to a place where you can see by yourself what has happened? Sure. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/06/eu_bins_swpat/