spinynorman Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 From The Register: The main issue is that the directive is tabled to be passed in a meeting on 25-26 November as an "A Item". This means it will not be discussed further, but will be waved through as is. ... The countries that voted for the directive on 18 May fall short of a qualified majority, based on today's vote allocation. Can Linus & friends stop the EU Council? :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arctic Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 i think so. they have big support not only from open-source users and coders but also e.g. from the german and french government. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthur Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 yup, Munich just switched to Linux, and it's quite important. They just spent a lot on the migration, and I don't think they'd let go of that without a fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aRTee Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 What I would like to know, from a knowledgeable source, is what exactly is discussed and how exactly this can / will hurt the software industry, including the FLOSS community. All I see is 'propaganda' for or against, but no one really seems to know what the pro camp is trying to get through, and what the issues of the contra camp are with these points. As propaganda, I see for instance the examples that are given of things that are now not patentable but that will be patentable; some are so rediculous that they would still never stand up, and others are actually much more specific than the contra camp leads us to believe, hence they wouldn't have any great restrictive effect. Things are not black and white, but in picking my shade of grey I find I have difficulties... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthur Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 (edited) aRTee, those examples are not just patentable. They've already been patented. MP3 is patented, progress bars are patented, and the whole lot of stuff is already patented. The debate here is whether the patents are going to become legally viable. Unisys started charging royalties for the LZF algorithm(for .gif files) years ago, which IMO is ridiculous (but fortunately their 'patent' expires next year) but not everyone paid for it. Making software patents legal would make them legally more able to squeeze money from their invention of a mathematical formula. One good thing came out of it, the invention of PNG graphics. But overall i think software patents are still bad. Microsoft is currently registering 1,000 software patents a year. The Open Source community would never be able to afford that. Edited November 24, 2004 by arthur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theYinYeti Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 Say "NO" to software patents! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkelve Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 What I would like to know, from a knowledgeable source, is what exactly is discussed and how exactly this can / will hurt the software industry, including the FLOSS community.<snip> Things are not black and white, but in picking my shade of grey I find I have difficulties... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Although this is biased, it has good link (recommended reading) on its front page: http://swpat.ffii.org/ Also interesting: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1666755,00.asp Oh, I almost forgot: "No!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 What I would like to know, from a knowledgeable source, is what exactly is discussed and how exactly this can / will hurt the software industry, including the FLOSS community. All I see is 'propaganda' for or against, but no one really seems to know what the pro camp is trying to get through, and what the issues of the contra camp are with these points. As propaganda, I see for instance the examples that are given of things that are now not patentable but that will be patentable; some are so rediculous that they would still never stand up, and others are actually much more specific than the contra camp leads us to believe, hence they wouldn't have any great restrictive effect. Things are not black and white, but in picking my shade of grey I find I have difficulties... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Its a quagmire but I think the easiest way to look at this is that patenting software takes away the authors IP. If this sounds crazy then bear with me.... Copyright is copyright and everyones entitled to copyright of their IP .. pro-patent peple tend to pretend software is unprotected but it is copyrighted... the only problem for them is you must actually write something to copyright it.. you can't copyright someone elses work Patents on the other hand can be bought by anyone rich enough. You don't need to write anything. Imagine I invent a tyre that will last forever... I can patent it and prevent anyone else making that tyre... I can also not even bother to make it myself or even be capable of making it, all I need do is patent a part of the process which is critical to prevent others making it. I can't copyright this because its not written but lets say it was just a chemical formula in the end... I could I guess patent that formula but the point is i don't need to be even capable of making it... it is the IDEA I patent. Imagine being able to patent a book. I write a detective novel and patent the idea of a detective novel. Now noone else can write one but even better if all those previous authors who already have copyrighted detective novels wanna publish them, I own the patent. Hence their copyright is now worth nothing since they can't even legally print their own novel off without paying me for my patent on the idea of a detective story. Now lets imagine the worlds biggest publishers had this ideA. They would patent all genres of novel and factual books. Who would this hurt? Well.... if i was a staff writer I would see little difference except perhaps if I ever wanted to leave... but If I was a free writer, publishing with whoever gives the best deal then I would be stuffed. They would tell me what I can/cannot write etc. I would pay them a royalty on the detective story for my book ... and they would choose what to publish. My copyright would be worth nothing becuase they own the patents... in other words my IP has been stolen. If I am a gifted writer then I can't even write for free... they own all the genres, unless i can find a genre they haven't yet patented... then I have to find the money to patent it myself before I even wirte the novel.... and meanwhile the lawyers who can't write anythig sit there making money from my IP. This is exactly what pro-patent people are asking for, Its a pissing contest with America over who can have the most pro-commerical laws on IP and the aim will be to have a minimum number of companies who are in the sector... just like the current music industry where 95% of recordings are with 5 record co's. The excuse was that patent law in the US allows more therefore we need to be more liberal with what can be patented to compete... whichj is poor logic, if that is our defense what do we expect the US to do if we leapfrog their protectionism? The artists no longer matter and hence programmers will no longer matter, instead they will be 'owned' lock-stock and barrel....just like many music artists today... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkelve Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 I write a detective novel and patent the idea of a detective novel.Now noone else can write one but even better if all those previous authors who already have copyrighted detective novels wanna publish them, I own the patent. Good example. Imagine, for example, Tolkien or his heir tries to patent the idea of "a fictional novel set in a fantasy setting, with characteristics like, ... and characters with... ". Suddenly, not only series that borrow ideas from the genre have to pay up, such the Wheel of Time series, but also PC games who borrow heavily from the LOTR lore and a host of other products as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aRTee Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 Thanks to all responding to my question. I agree it's a quagmire. Arthur, the patent on LZW expired this year in most parts of the world. Gowator, do you believe that MP3 technology should not be patentable? If so, why not? Arthur, those patents are granted, which doesn't mean they are enforceable, they haven't stood up in a court of law. Second, if you read the 'your webshop is patented' patents, read on through what is really claimed, you will see it's not so general. That's another point, Gowator mentions it too: are software patents really patents on ideas? This is a general point that seems not to be openly discussed. As far as I can tell, contrary to what the swpat opposition is telling, THIS IS NOT THE CASE! I have discussed a bit with a patent lawyer of a large (very large) corporation, he's actually not against open source at all, but he expressed clear concern about what the swpat opponents want -- and as a technical person (I'm an electronics designer, MSEE) I clearly saw his point. My problem (read my initial post again) is the shade of grey in this not-at-all-black-and-white-situation that I'm looking for. I have discussed with an in-the-know patent attorney on the PRO side, but just with moderately or largely uninformed people on the ANTI side. As a person with technical background, I know patents are really important, and without them we'd not have lots of cool technical stuff that we happen to have today (dvd or even cd recording to name a few). But let's discuss patents in general. Why are they here? To what purpose (not: how are they / the system (ab)used today by large corporations)? How should the patent system function? Once we get beyond these points about patents in general, we can check what in terms of software could or should not be patentable. I'm looking forward to an interesting discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkelve Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 No, in the current draft it is possible to apply for patents of ideas, or at least of algorithms (like the IsNot patent M$ is trying to apply). The person who *patented it* for M$ thinks it is not a good idea HIMSELF! http://www.panopticoncentral.net/archive/2...11/20/2321.aspx Patents applied to hardware and chemical processes, ... , are a different case altogether. If you want a more expert opinion, as you know, start a thread on Groklaw. Much more knowledgeable people over there. For the IsNot patent issue, see http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2...ry=isnot+patent Besided that, it is the process of filing for a patent and possible litigation that discriminates against smaller companies and risks to paralyze the SME market, with several swords of Damocles hanging over them in the form of possible patent infringement lawsuits or expensive patent licenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 Gowator, do you believe that MP3 technology should not be patentable? If so, why not? excellent example.... covers many grey areas.. The overall answer is no.... because. (all OMHO) 1) It is simply an algorithm for reducing the size of an analogue recorded sound. 2) If we allow this IDEA to be patented then any IDEA can be... however ... a particular CODEC can (and should be copyrighted) ... the best CODEC's will then have value and there isn't particualrly a single best codec since too many unknowns. A hardware player can and should be patented... it is the physical design of this particualr player that is important but the IDEA of a say portable player for playing MP3's can't be. Lets say I make a audio MP3 player specifically designed for in auto use. Does that patent cover me using a handheld MP3 player in my car... or does it itself infringe on in car CD's or even 8-track players? Imagine the idea of incar music was patented... its crazy but this is because it is of a generality not a specific. The same goes for scroll bars, mice et al. If the IDEA of using a mouse were patented by Xeros then nothing else would have ever got done. Go back even further, what if the IDEA of a computer were patented ... So MP3 tracks are copyright.... individual CODEC's have copyright but patenting the idea of an MP3 is crazy because like GIF's it will just lead to PNG's and MP3's to oggs... All this does is fractionate the market and the consumer ultimately pays. Sure ogg is superior but unless my portable player plays it... its useless for me... Hence the patent has to stop at the idea of digital music... because for instance nothing is stopping someone ELSE patenting ogg.. unless Xiph.org actually patent it themselves... i.e. the not-for-profit org needs to PAY to prevent someone else patenting their invention..one they specifically designed to be royalty and patent free!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkelve Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 IMho, AAC (Apple) or ATRAC 3 (Sony) could be patented, but an Open Standard (e.g. suppose Ogg would be one, or suppose the OpenOffice Xml format becomes one) should be exempt from patent claims; and the patents this technology holds should be voided OR those patents should be licensed without restrictions and without cost. De-facto standards like .doc should be sufficiently restricted as well. No matter how strongly I feel about fair use, implications for the economy, etc... this I am certain off: There is no place for patents in an Open Standard! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthur Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 Patents have been important in the growth that the 20th century has experienced. But progress can still be made without patents, since all that "unauthorized imitation" that patents aim to prevent are a part of the business world's "survival of the fittest" principle. The best or luckiest product will win, but a lot of ugly things would happen too. Now although I have to admit this is a grey area, since software patents could prevent microsoft imitating "multiple desktops" and such and such if the patent owner was an Open Source organization or individual... You also say that the specifics in the patents themselves are important - i agree. But legalese is very hard to understand and millions of dollars would be wasted in courts arguing over the wording of patents. Millions of dollars would be wasted in buying and enforcing patents. What for? For a healthier competitive atmosphere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkelve Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 Repeat after me: "The software patenting system as it exists (planned in Europe) now is not going to improve innovation and competition" ;) Wel... that is what I believe :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.