EU software patents come into force on Wednesday

pickarooney

I've been reading a lot of doomsday scenarios about what this will mean for programmers, small companies and open-source software in general. A lot of it seems OTT, but there's no doubt that it will have some negative impacts. I can't quite figure out why the EU would think this is a good idea and have trouble finding much documentation supporting the proposed legislative changes.

Does anyone have any (strong) opinions on this development? In particular people who think it's a positive step and people who think they'll be directly affected, for better or worse, by the move.

There's a lot of information here if you want to know more, although the vast majority of information there is biased against the proposal. I can't help feeling it's a terrible idea, from what I've read, but am open to any contrary viewpoints.

damnyanks

What exactly can you patent? Like can someone patent a design pattern ? A way to add 2 variables ? Or would it only be "components" ?

mneylon

There was an interesting article on the Guardian's site where they drew some interesting parallels between the effects of patents now and the possible effects that such a move would have had on literature.
If you want to find out more have a look at http://www.ifso.ie

Capt'n Midnight

damnyanks wrote:

What exactly can you patent? Like can someone patent a design pattern ? A way to add 2 variables ? Or would it only be "components" ?

Someone tried to patent Double Clicks. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn5072
The making of JPEG's was patented until recently ( viewers were ok - but save as needed royalties )
IIRC IBM still hold a patent on adaptive compression.
80% of the software patents for reg. in the EU are by people outside the EU !

One HUGE problem is that the patent examination process isn't rigerous about half fail when challenged in court , but like Microsofts illegal practises the damage is done to the competition and a fine is a small price to pay to gain a monopoly.

US Patent Office spokesperson Brigid Quinn says: "A US applicant shouldn't have been given a patent unless they have evidence that it is new and obvious. If someone can submit prior art, we will re-examine the patent." Such a submission would cost between $3000 and $8000.

A potential problem for any would-be patent-buster is that if there is any dispute, the case goes to court, which is much more expensive. "Lots of bad patents never get revoked because no one can afford the litigation to refute them," says Philpott. Brown adds: "You would be a brave company to take on Microsoft."

IBM used to patent everthing they could, this was to prevent people copying their hardware the idea being you would have to spend so much time reviewing all the patents to make sure you wern't in breach that it would delay you.

People have recently patented THINKING, FIRE, and A Circular transport facilitatior.

At the moment all software is automatically covered by copyright until 70 years after the authors death or 120 years for unpublished corporate material.

Let's imagine someone patents a the removal of a new type of virus or how to fix a security loophole.... ( A patent last year covered having a hash of the serial number on a $ / € note so that counterfeiting could be detected. - hardly a novel idea as it's standard practise in electronic transfers. )

pickarooney

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Let's imagine someone patents a the removal of a new type of virus or how to fix a security loophole....

i.e. the person who has written the virus? It doesn't bear thinking about. :eek:

damnyanks

Anyone who works in development taken this into serious consideration for developing applications?

SparrowHawk

I heard on the news last night that the legislation had been voted down?
I was have asleep, but I think that was the jist of the story

ambro25

For efficiency of copyright to protect the underlying principle of a software solution, and where a patent could have made a difference for the small guy (but didn't because they didn't have any, so they got shafted) see Navitaire vs Easyjet.

The Directive (in unamended form) does not make obtaining a patent for a piece of code any easier than currently (without the Directive in force).

It simply codifies current patent practive at the European Patent Office, such as has been for the last 15 years or so and developed through Case Law (not patent-infringement case law, only interpretation of the European Patent Convention case law).

So - no Directive = no change to current practice.
Directive (if not amended) = no change to current practice.

For those that can be bothered,and want to know my take on the issue, go over to the IGDA's Forum on this thread (same handle).

ambro25

Well, that's that...

Software Directive canned by 600+ to 10+, end of the story... for now.

And happiness for both sides of the fence

juliuspret

Yeah heard it on the news...Brian Crowley was nearly crying!!!

ambro25

Who's he? (You'll have to excuse me, new to Eire personalities).