On 14 Jan 2003 at 1:42, xdrudis@tinet.org wrote:
I've learnt not to believe everything a MEP says. I don't mean they're wrong. I mean they often don't realise how wrong the directive is. On the other hand, it is a bit of human nature: the MEP wants the less possible amount of work to do (it's not only laziness, it also gives more chances to "succeed"), and the constituent wants the MEP do as much work as necessary. The problem is making them understand what they think that incresases chances os succeeding is increasing chances of something which is no success at all.
As much as we may want a complete overhaul of the EU parliamentary system and indeed democracy, I think it's unproductive in this particular context.
I state once again that software patents will exist in some form. There is no point arguing that we're not mandated to, or that they can be averted. Being unrealistic is the single best way to bring down the worst possible form of software patent upon us.
Far better IMHO is to mitigate the negative effects of a done deal. That is what we should aim for.
Yes. However, I've considerably improved by background understanding of the theory of patents, how they work wrt classical economic theory, and why under that same theory US-style patents have the opposite effect.
Don't believe every MEP has the same model, though. Anyway, I think I was assuming your proposals were more concrete or you had more familiarity with the directive than you had. My mistake. I understand you're spending quite a lot of time in this, and of course reading the directive is your first prioritu, but after that, I'd be thankful if you could read
http://patents.caliu.info/aboutMcCarthyConsiderations.html
and maybe references, since some of the arguments pro-swpat MEPs put forward are already discussed there.
Actually, the final directive which I've read through twice now is the last of my reading on the matter. I have read so many analyses and drafts of amendments of the directive that it's been good to read finally what the hell they've all been talking about.
The first thing which struck me is "why is this proposed legislation so vague?". Vague legislation is automatically bad legislation. If I had tried proposing a motion like that at student council at university, it would have been struck down immediately as unratifiable.
I think everyone here can agree that book-style copyright is totally inappropriate for software too. In fact, all IP law for anything representable inside a computer needs completely rewriting.
No. I don't think book style copyright is inapropiate to software in principle, only recent copyright extensions and fundamentalism is inapropiate/dangerous, but should we go into the details?.
You should read the FSF's words on the matter. I don't believe in the crap about all knowledge should automatically be the free property of all mankind - but I do believe it should become so after the creator has been adequately rewarded for their hard work.
The new ability of technology to let me share most copyrighted work with millions of others without paying a penny means that existing copyright law is unenforceable. This effect will grow until there will no longer be any realistic financial reward for writing a book or song, filming a movie or making a television series. And most certainly not for writing some computer software except as a pure services role like military contracts. The profit margin on those are rapidly decreasing too as more off the shelf components become available.
That time is coming. The day someone writes a cheap peer-to-peer fully encrypted and completely untrackable file sharing system with integrated anti-spy measures, the death bell will truly have knelled. I estimate no more than five years away.
The day they put in prison the authors and a few exemplary users, seize the communication companies, etc. your wonderful technology comes to nothing. This is wishful thinking. Freedom must be understood and demanded by everyone, not achieved by magical means. Come on, they're already charging against people for having smartcard programmers or simply high DSL traffic at home.
They can only imprison a tiny fraction of those who "break the law". If what you say works, then they would have stopped recreational drug use decades ago. Since its use still increases, clearly you are the one with wishful thinking.
You cannot stop innate human behaviour. No one has ever succeeded and I doubt they ever will.
Shouldn't I comment that on a public list? I'm sure it's public information.
No. I didn't mean you shouldn't. I mean you might not want to, but since you do, then you evidently want to. It's perfectly ok to talk abut conversations with other people as long as the other people don't mind. No problem here. There is always a possibility than a MEP will feel more confident defending an amendment if he or she has some "surprise factor" and/or if she or he is seen as the direct drafter.
I got a strong sense that she was looking for guidance as what to do.
Now I finally have the proposed directive, I can finally be specific wrt revisions. I'll give it a first reading tonight before bed.
Fine.
The first highly important one is the requirement for a working example of the patented software in source form (as suggested by the two committees lower down). We must push for that beyond all other amendments.
The second highly important one is the amendment (also suggested lower down) which leaves open for radical changes if evidence of abuse is presented after three years. Immediately after ratification the FSF Europe should open a registrar on the web where the public can enter abuses of the software patent system. Or even better, another directive amendment could mandate the EU to do this for us.
The third highly important amendment is needing to set what precisely involves an inventive step. I would make it high ie; "a substantial advance over the status quo". I would also have the directive mandate the setting up of an independent board of software experts to validate this substantial advance over the status quo as the EPO itself clearly doesn't bother. This would save substantial litigation costs to EU SME's, thus saving the EU economy hundreds of millions of euro (and only costing very little for the independent board in comparison).
Since the scope of the directive prevents altering EPO rules, one is prevented from being more radical. We need the EPO to be incorporated into the EU structure because it is not accountable as it stands and that seems silly to me. Since that seems politically unacceptable, the independent board looks a good idea to me - first steps in replacing the EPO.
Cheers, Niall
Niall Douglas s_fsfeurope2@nedprod.com wrote:
As much as we may want a complete overhaul of the EU parliamentary system and indeed democracy, I think it's unproductive in this particular context.
It is happening anyway, but not in time for this.
I state once again that software patents will exist in some form. There is no point arguing that we're not mandated to, or that they can be averted. Being unrealistic is the single best way to bring down the worst possible form of software patent upon us.
Being defeatist is the single best way to ensure that we get a form of software patents. Devil and the deep blue sea. Given this, I'm arguing that "These are crap because X, Y, Z but please at least don't let them do A, B, C."
Core is that I regard programs as a branch of mathematics, discoveries not inventive acts.
I also look forward to patenting electronic documents, etc, if they really screw it up.
[...]
The first thing which struck me is "why is this proposed legislation so vague?". Vague legislation is automatically bad legislation.
And yet, we are often told that one reason for this is to reduce the ambiguity in the current system.
[...]
The third highly important amendment is needing to set what precisely involves an inventive step. I would make it high ie; "a substantial advance over the status quo".
Is this not fixed already? I thought you said you couldn't change EPO rules. Immovability of this has been suggested as one reason why we must have them voted down.
On 15 Aug 2003 at 19:26, MJ Ray wrote:
Being defeatist is the single best way to ensure that we get a form of software patents. Devil and the deep blue sea. Given this, I'm arguing that "These are crap because X, Y, Z but please at least don't let them do A, B, C."
I think we already have software patents. The directive claims to clarify the situation so it too acknowledges that they already are in effect here. It's just that no one can really say /how/ they are in effect yet which is what the directive is supposed to sort out.
Core is that I regard programs as a branch of mathematics, discoveries not inventive acts.
Programs aren't mathematics because they are eternally useful ie; do something without the involvement of a human. Therefore they should reside in a totally unique category from either mathematics or anything else. DNA sequences however would fit right where computer programs go.
I also look forward to patenting electronic documents, etc, if they really screw it up.
It's why we need the "forum to register abuses" amendment. Then you could patent your document, and register a complaint against yourself for doing so :)
And yet, we are often told that one reason for this is to reduce the ambiguity in the current system.
Too many cooks spoil the broth.
[...]
The third highly important amendment is needing to set what precisely involves an inventive step. I would make it high ie; "a substantial advance over the status quo".
Is this not fixed already? I thought you said you couldn't change EPO rules. Immovability of this has been suggested as one reason why we must have them voted down.
EPO rules on paper are quite high. In practice, those rules appear to be almost unenforced. This is probably why most MEP's are mistaken in thinking that the EPO is a responsible patent office.
I don't see why an amendment couldn't mandate all EPO software patents to have to run through a board of say ten independently selected experts in software. Problem would be, who pays?
This can be argued in that the hundreds of millions of euro saved by SME's in legal costs in not having to take software patent infringements to court are well worth paying a few hundred thousand in board fees annually.
Cheers, Niall
Niall Douglas s_fsfeurope2@nedprod.com wrote:
Programs aren't mathematics because they are eternally useful ie; do something without the involvement of a human. [...]
Mathematics is eternally useful and directs things that happen without human intervention. All programs are is a description of some mathematical relationship which is stored in a computer somehow. Feeding the same relationship to two different computers may have totally different results. In a way, it is the computer that is inventive, even though people often regard the program as the smart bit. Not all smart things are inventions. Some are discoveries. Describing our discoveries in the right language is what coders do.
OT: movies are economically unsustainable at the moment anyway, propped up by current legislation. This may have helped early on, but is not healthy. Movie makers beg for more and more law and tax breaks.
On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 19:11, Niall Douglas wrote:
I state once again that software patents will exist in some form. There is no point arguing that we're not mandated to, or that they can be averted. Being unrealistic is the single best way to bring down the worst possible form of software patent upon us.
You're a defensive position, that will less possibilities to have any of the effects you hope.
We do not need software patents, they have already been rejected in the past, and we can continue to do so.
Please note that we are not speaking of generic patents were software is involved but where the core is an advancement in physics forces knowledge, we are against pure software patents (aka patents over ideas).
Far better IMHO is to mitigate the negative effects of a done deal. That is what we should aim for.
Well unfortunately, some system have effects that cannot be mitigated, the software patent system is such a system.
The first thing which struck me is "why is this proposed legislation so vague?". Vague legislation is automatically bad legislation. If I had tried proposing a motion like that at student council at university, it would have been struck down immediately as unratifiable.
Because they need legal loopholes, so that they can legally patent just anything, and they need many, so that a few amendments (2-3) are not enough to fix the mess. It is a well thought plan, they are not incompetent.
The new ability of technology to let me share most copyrighted work with millions of others without paying a penny means that existing copyright law is unenforceable.
Well laws that try to go against nature tend to be so ... unenforceable.
This effect will grow until there will no longer be any realistic financial reward for writing a book or song, filming a movie or making a television series. And most certainly not for writing some computer software except as a pure services role like military contracts. The profit margin on those are rapidly decreasing too as more off the shelf components become available.
Please! Human history is a proof that people wrote books and made songs long before any form of copyright existed. The fact that technology obsoletes a way of doing things does not mean that things will not exist anymore, only that they will be done/used in a different way. We are in a transition period.
You cannot stop innate human behaviour. No one has ever succeeded and I doubt they ever will.
Here I agree.
The first highly important one is the requirement for a working example of the patented software in source form (as suggested by the two committees lower down). We must push for that beyond all other amendments.
the source code does not grant anything. the problem of the patents on software is that they patent an idea not a source code (and the source code is often just banal). Patenting a specific source code is the same as a costly copyright system, and they do not want that, they want a way to stop competition. An the monopoly a patent grant on an idea is just that.
The second highly important one is the amendment (also suggested lower down) which leaves open for radical changes if evidence of abuse is presented after three years. Immediately after ratification the FSF Europe should open a registrar on the web where the public can enter abuses of the software patent system. Or even better, another directive amendment could mandate the EU to do this for us.
Yeah, sure, let the commission judge it's own creation, you'll be sure they will tell all the bad of their own work ...
The third highly important amendment is needing to set what precisely involves an inventive step. I would make it high ie; "a substantial advance over the status quo".
And what is an advance over the status quo? Do you have a clear objective definition, not a subjective definition ?
I would also have the directive mandate the setting up of an independent board of software experts to validate this substantial advance over the status quo as the EPO itself clearly doesn't bother.
How do you select that board of experts? Why should these expert be interested in doing such a boring job?
This would save substantial litigation costs to EU SME's, thus saving the EU economy hundreds of millions of euro (and only costing very little for the independent board in comparison).
Litigation is only the last of the bad effects of a patent system.
- You still have the everyday legal cost of a team of patent attorney that advice you so that you do not step by mistake onto another one patent.
- You still have to spend a lot of money trying to patent something, and hope it will be worth the money you put in, and hope they will be useful at least as a defensive portfolio.
- You still have to address the parasites phenomena.
- You still need to address the fact that big companies have big portfolios of patents and will have an unpaired advantage over SMEs (read: they will be able to kill any SME whenever they want).
Note the SMEs does not have enough money to invest in such things (I do not even consider the free lance programmer, they will extinguish soon).
Since the scope of the directive prevents altering EPO rules, one is prevented from being more radical. We need the EPO to be incorporated into the EU structure because it is not accountable as it stands and that seems silly to me. Since that seems politically unacceptable, the independent board looks a good idea to me - first steps in replacing the EPO.
The fact that the EPO get incorporated in the EU bureaucracy does not grant nothing.
Simo.
On 15 Aug 2003 at 23:13, Simo Sorce wrote:
Far better IMHO is to mitigate the negative effects of a done deal. That is what we should aim for.
Well unfortunately, some system have effects that cannot be mitigated, the software patent system is such a system.
eg; the amendment "Member States shall ensure that wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or network so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement" has a BIG implication for operating systems such as Linux or MacOS X. Or indeed any non-Windows OS. Without it Microsoft could patent their windows media formats and Linux could not legally read them.
I call this a substantial mitigation of negative effect. I can't see how anyone wouldn't.
This effect will grow until there will no longer be any realistic financial reward for writing a book or song, filming a movie or making a television series. And most certainly not for writing some computer software except as a pure services role like military contracts. The profit margin on those are rapidly decreasing too as more off the shelf components become available.
Please! Human history is a proof that people wrote books and made songs long before any form of copyright existed. The fact that technology obsoletes a way of doing things does not mean that things will not exist anymore, only that they will be done/used in a different way. We are in a transition period.
I didn't say people would stop writing books. I did say the financial reward would stop. That doesn't really matter to continued production of new books and songs, but it sure does for movies.
The first highly important one is the requirement for a working example of the patented software in source form (as suggested by the two committees lower down). We must push for that beyond all other amendments.
the source code does not grant anything. the problem of the patents on software is that they patent an idea not a source code (and the source code is often just banal). Patenting a specific source code is the same as a costly copyright system, and they do not want that, they want a way to stop competition. An the monopoly a patent grant on an idea is just that.
Yes I completely agree. However, as I said, we're mitigating bad effects here.
That amendment would substantially prevent the "patent land-grab" companies such as IBM are so fond of. They patent thousands of promising areas every year and yet develop only a few. Effectively they are using patents to PREVENT innovation, not encourage it.
If they would have to provide a reference implementation, land grabbing is much, much harder simply because software writing is almost the entire cost of making software.
I would also have the directive mandate the setting up of an independent board of software experts to validate this substantial advance over the status quo as the EPO itself clearly doesn't bother.
How do you select that board of experts?
In the same way the EPO *should* already be selecting experts. It clearly is not bothering and the EU should force it to.
Why should these expert be interested in doing such a boring job?
Because they're paid to.
Litigation is only the last of the bad effects of a patent system.
- You still have the everyday legal cost of a team of patent attorney
that advice you so that you do not step by mistake onto another one patent.
- You still have to spend a lot of money trying to patent something,
and hope it will be worth the money you put in, and hope they will be useful at least as a defensive portfolio.
You still have to address the parasites phenomena.
You still need to address the fact that big companies have big
portfolios of patents and will have an unpaired advantage over SMEs (read: they will be able to kill any SME whenever they want).
Note the SMEs does not have enough money to invest in such things (I do not even consider the free lance programmer, they will extinguish soon).
I completely agree. The directive really should say "all patenting of ideas behind software shall be illegal now and forever more".
However, we are mitigating the worst effects here. As I've previously said, software patents are a done deal - now we can only debate the details.
Since the scope of the directive prevents altering EPO rules, one is prevented from being more radical. We need the EPO to be incorporated into the EU structure because it is not accountable as it stands and that seems silly to me. Since that seems politically unacceptable, the independent board looks a good idea to me - first steps in replacing the EPO.
The fact that the EPO get incorporated in the EU bureaucracy does not grant nothing.
Hopefully some form of validating that a patent is actually original and not just plagerising some idea in common use for the last five years.
I should add that every single email or letter I write to MEP's starts with two paragraphs saying that all software patents should be banned period. It then goes on to suggest ameliorations.
Cheers, Niall
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 00:11, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 15 Aug 2003 at 23:13, Simo Sorce wrote:
Far better IMHO is to mitigate the negative effects of a done deal. That is what we should aim for.
Well unfortunately, some system have effects that cannot be mitigated, the software patent system is such a system.
eg; the amendment "Member States shall ensure that wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or network so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement" has a BIG implication for operating systems such as Linux or MacOS X. Or indeed any non-Windows OS. Without it Microsoft could patent their windows media formats and Linux could not legally read them.
conversion, not use ... IMHO they are fundamentally different.
I call this a substantial mitigation of negative effect. I can't see how anyone wouldn't.
ok, after you have converted your data, you can't still ran the application, because the process of showing the data is patented and you need a license that the owner is not willing to grant you!
I didn't say people would stop writing books. I did say the financial reward would stop. That doesn't really matter to continued production of new books and songs, but it sure does for movies.
I'm not sure reward will stop, or to use better wording, the reward you get may be of a different type. We are inflated of bad writings, songs, an movies anyway, a bit of selection does not make bad ;-) Still we are speaking of patents not copyright, I would like to stop mixing the 2 arguments, they are unrelated.
That amendment would substantially prevent the "patent land-grab" companies such as IBM are so fond of. They patent thousands of promising areas every year and yet develop only a few. Effectively they are using patents to PREVENT innovation, not encourage it.
that would not solve much, most of the idea they patent, will simply be realized in prototypes by summer students and then patented.
If they would have to provide a reference implementation, land grabbing is much, much harder simply because software writing is almost the entire cost of making software.
yes, but remember software cost a lot less if you do not need to make it actually run well nor debug it long. Are you going to also ask for the source code provided being of first class quality?
How do you select that board of experts?
In the same way the EPO *should* already be selecting experts. It clearly is not bothering and the EU should force it to.
I was asking how do you select it, not who should force selection. Mine was a practical question.
Why should these expert be interested in doing such a boring job?
Because they're paid to.
Most talented people will refuse even a good amount of money if they are forced to stop what they really like to do. I think you'll end up with low quality "experts" that are interested only in money, that's not in the interest of a patenting system that gain more money the more patents get passed.
Any way the directive is not going to specify how the EPO will act. So this is just speculation, not useful to solve the problem right now.
I completely agree. The directive really should say "all patenting of ideas behind software shall be illegal now and forever more".
That's exactly what we are trying to do. The rejection of this directive would be perfect to get what you say.
However, we are mitigating the worst effects here. As I've previously said, software patents are a done deal - now we can only debate the details.
You can say it, like the pro-swpat like to say it, it is just untrue. Software patents are not a done deal, we should stop them there.
Your proposed mitigations are palliatives and does not mitigate any of the really bad effects, I'm sorry.
Simo.
El Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 06:11:42PM +0100, Niall Douglas deia:
On 14 Jan 2003 at 1:42, xdrudis@tinet.org wrote:
I think I was assuming your proposals were more concrete or you had more familiarity with the directive than you had. My mistake. I understand you're spending quite a lot of time in this, and of course reading the directive is your first prioritu, but after that, I'd be thankful if you could read
http://patents.caliu.info/aboutMcCarthyConsiderations.html
and maybe references, since some of the arguments pro-swpat MEPs put forward are already discussed there.
Actually, the final directive which I've read through twice now is the last of my reading on the matter. I have read so many analyses and drafts of amendments of the directive that it's been good to read finally what the hell they've all been talking about.
I can understand, but then please understand I won't be able to explain things better by email that in that webpage, so I may drop some answers.
The first thing which struck me is "why is this proposed legislation so vague?". Vague legislation is automatically bad legislation. If I had tried proposing a motion like that at student council at university, it would have been struck down immediately as unratifiable.
This is indeed a good argument. Youcan use it to ask for rejection (or maybe to justify FFII mini-counterproposal)
You should read the FSF's words on the matter. I don't believe in the crap about all knowledge should automatically be the free property of all mankind - but I do believe it should become so after the creator has been adequately rewarded for their hard work.
The endless copyright term extension is of course nonsensical and dangerous, agreed.
They can only imprison a tiny fraction of those who "break the law". If what you say works, then they would have stopped recreational drug use decades ago. Since its use still increases, clearly you are the one with wishful thinking.
I don't want to have to use my computer only in the toilet or some corner of the park. I dream of having a legal job as a software programmer until I retire. In the case of drugs, they have not only ilegalised, they have convinced most people that they are harmful and depravated. That's what happens with laws, specially laws on virtual things. An old adage when "legisla, que algo queda" (legislate, that something will ever remain).
Btw, maybe I don't read the news, but do you see near the day that so many people taking illegal drugs get to change the law and allow its consumption?.
The first highly important one is the requirement for a working example of the patented software in source form (as suggested by the two committees lower down). We must push for that beyond all other amendments.
I agree it's useful but it's not my main pririty. IT would require an implementation to be made before patenting, but it wouldn't stop software patents (unless you want to restrict the scope to the given implementation, and then that's again expensive short copyright by any other name).
The second highly important one is the amendment (also suggested lower down) which leaves open for radical changes if evidence of abuse is presented after three years. Immediately after ratification the FSF Europe should open a registrar on the web where the public can enter abuses of the software patent system. Or even better, another directive amendment could mandate the EU to do this for us.
I don't trust: - the Commission ability to recognize problems (having seen their ability to recognize concerns from interested parties) - the possibility of much difference in 3 years, when many patents take 5 years to grant. - any real possibility for a change after so many patents have been granted under a law which allows that grants.
The third highly important amendment is needing to set what precisely involves an inventive step. I would make it high ie; "a substantial advance over the status quo". I would also have the directive mandate the setting up of an independent board of software experts to validate this substantial advance over the status quo as the EPO itself clearly doesn't bother. This would save substantial litigation costs to EU SME's, thus saving the EU economy hundreds of millions of euro (and only costing very little for the independent board in comparison).
Undefined, ambigous...
Since the scope of the directive prevents altering EPO rules, one is prevented from being more radical. We need the EPO to be incorporated into the EU structure because it is not accountable as it stands and that seems silly to me. Since that seems politically unacceptable, the independent board looks a good idea to me - first steps in replacing the EPO.
One can be correct quite more usefully without any radical departure from the EPC (without any departure at all, in fact).