EU software patent process restarted

[Urban Ranger]

Thanks to Poland's heroic efforts of stopping the European Council from sneaking software patent legislation through the backdoor, the process has retarted:

It's true. JURI has voted to restart the procedure regarding software patents. From scratch. I heard it first from an email, and now Heise has it up online. Here is the FFII press release. Jan Wildeboer tells me that by invoking Rule 55 of the Rules of Parliament, JURI is now asking for a completely new directive. He says the proposed directive on so-called "computer-implemented inventions" was under heavy fire from the beginning of the intense meeting. By throwing away almost all amendments of the Parliament, the Council tried to push through a "compromise" that was not ultimately accepted, making a restart the only viable way left.

Groklaw

This is excellent news. I hope they will eventually scrap the entire idea of software patents.

[Jaakko]

[Asher]

Oops...

http://wiki.ffii.org/index.cgi?Pap050206En

The Euro PAP web service of the Polish Press Agency (PAP) writes that the draft directive "on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions" (software patent directive) is likely to be adopted on the 17 February meeting of the Council of Ministers of Finance, because Poland will no longer block the vote.

On February 2nd, the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (JURI) decided with a large majority to ask the Commission for a renewed referral of the Software Patent Directive. However, the Commission is not obliged to comply to the Parliament's request and the Presidency may still schedule the vote on the Directive on one of the next Council meetings.

Here is a summary of the Euro PAP's original article (in Polish):

On February 4th, 2005, Euro PAP (euro.pap.com.pl) announced in the article
entitled "Patent Directive Likely Not to Return to 1st Reading but Revision
Still Possible" that, according to the EU Presidency, the vote on the Draft
of the Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions will
be scheduled on the 17 February 2005 meeting of the Council of Ministers of
Finance. Euro PAP also wrote, basing on unnamed sources in the European
Commission, that before the Council meets, the Commission will not reply to
the European Parliament's request to restart the procedure, because it is
waiting for the reaction of the member states when the Council will be
adopting the Directive. According to Polish diplomatic sources, this time
Poland will support the Draft. However, the Directive may still be revised
during the 2nd reading in the European Parliament.

Poland has been facing increasing diplomatic pressure from the Council of Ministers to say yes to a directive which it does not support. Polish Coreper diplomats have in the past already many times announced that Poland would not resist any longer. On the day of the JURI meeting, Commissioner Charlie McCreevy announced in his speech that he had received "written assurances concerning the re-instatement of the issue on the forthcoming EU Council meeting". The article by Euro PAP further strengthens these rumors.

The two previous delays in the adoption of the Draft made it possible for the JURI to make the request to the Commission to restart the procedure. The official reason given by Poland for delaying the vote in both of these cases was that Poland was working on a statement that would present Poland's reservations to the current content of the Directive.

The Polish government has however given instructions to its diplomats that they should support any other country's initiatives for delay or revision (B-item) of the agreement which, as everybody knows, Poland does not and did not support. So far it is not clear whether any other government will come to help.

If the Directive is adopted on the EU Council, the Commission may avoid answering the Parliament's request for renewed referral and hope/pressure for a failure of the restart motion.

Since I knew UR would not post this himself.

[Ari Rahikkala]

However, the Commission is not obliged to comply to the Parliament's request and the Presidency may still schedule the vote on the Directive on one of the next Council meetings.

Long live democracy in Europe!

[optimus2861]

Why is that funny, Asher? Software patents don't work -- I know you work for IBM and they've got truckloads of them -- they are a significant obstacle and major legal concern for numerous small players in the software field. A very large proportion of software patents are utter garbage: my current favourite bad example is the Microsoft patent on an administrative process which describes the *nix world's "sudo" functionality to a T. It absolutely never should've been granted. A patent-infringement case can easily run into the millions of dollars in legal fees. The worst part of it is, that the system discourages you from even looking for patents you might be infringing on, as you get hit for triple damages if you know about the infringement!

Even setting aside the viability of software patents, the idea that the EU commission can ram this directive down the throat of the EU parliament in the face of this opposition speaks volumes about a truly ****ed-up EU government system (they even tried to pass this thing at a meeting of Agriculture Ministers, for pete's sake). Poland must be getting leaned on awfully hard by one of the other players.

Everything about this process stinks no matter what way you look at it.

[Asher]

I think that software patents are pretty necessary to have a viable industry around software, and they are great in theory. The current implementation in the US is borked, they need more resources and further checking, and stricter standards.

It was funny because of the collective cheers of "We won!" and all the hyperboles surrounding the original story, and now they crashed back down to Earth...those same people are strangely silent and not posting this update.

[Dinner]

Software patents remind me of the Seldon patient from the first decade of the 20th century. For those of you who don't know George B. Selden filed the first US patent for a combustion-powered automobile in 1879. Automobiles had already been built in Germany but no one had bothered to file a patent so Seldon quickly made a car and patented the idea of a self propelled vehicle. Seldon then went on to demand anyone who made or sold a self propelled vehicle (even if it used steam or electric power instead of internal combustion) pay him for his patent.

Of course none of those other cars had anything to do with Seldon or his primitive car nor did Seldon invent the idea of a wheeled self propelled vehicle but despite the dubiousness of the patent Seldon kept winning court cases. This patent retarded the growth of the automobile industry by two to three decades in the US and it wasn't until Henry Ford finally spent millions of dollars in 1911 (Ford filled his case in 1903 but the Supreme Court didn't settle it until 1911) that automakers stopped having to pay Seldon money for squatting on this patent.

Patents are good if they protect genuine innovations but all to often software patents look like some one trying to patent the word "is" and then demanding every publisher pay a royalty when ever they use the word "is" in a sentence. That's not useful and it retards growth in the industry.

[Asher]

Oerdin: You need to differenciate between being able to patent software algorithms your company spent millions researching, and a pathetic US Patent Office that is overworked and approves just about everything.

Software patents are necessary and viable, but are being diluted by poor US Patent Office standards.

[Dinner]

I agree that genuine innovations and clear finished products (like say MS Word) should allowed to be patented but not the theoretical "if, than" statements most software uses. Yes, you're right as usual the patent office is behaving stupidly but Republicans tend to losen rules while in office thus letting more dubious patents through then say Clinton or Carter did. Clearly the US government needs clearer guidelines to be set to prevent abuse but those guidelines need to protect finished products not building blocks which are the language of software.

[Asher]

Whoa there...

I don't think "clear finished products" like MS Word should be patented at all. I think they should be copyrighted, for sure, but not patented.

A patent to me is, say, a new compression algorithm that's 10% better than anything out there.

Or a new way to run parametric queries in a database with additional performance.

These are mostly innovations made by lots of R&D effort on behalf of the company, organization, or individual.

There is no point in patenting entire finished products like MS Word -- that's the point of a copyright.

Patents exist to protect innovative methods and ideas, not products.

I think you have a fundamental misconception on the purpose of patents.

[Dinner]

Ok, you're right. I misused the word.

[Hot Mustard]

Oerdin's point still stands though - if the patent relates to something tangible in the marketplace that you're actively selling (not just some crap car you built but never sold), then fine. Otherwise it is theoretical - vaporware.

Imagine if sci-fi writers went out and patented everything they conceived...

[Jaakko]

I wonder when Linux will be illegal contraband that's downloaded only by FILTHY PIRATE CRIMINALS.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Since I knew UR would not post this himself.

Why post about a non-issue that hasn't occurred yet?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Why post about a non-issue that hasn't occurred yet?

Because you did when you made this thread?