|
|
| EU Commission Wants Patents. Yes. Again. |
 |
|
Monday, January 16 2006 @ 10:50 AM EST
|
Here we go again. After a rather clear indication that most people in the EU do not want software patents, the EU is ignoring that and asking how best to implement them. The question isn't framed as, do you or don't you want them. It's framed as how best to move forward to get them. Oh, and they'd like to hear from "all interested stakeholders." Thanks to Cristian Miceli's article, and Ben Klemens' new book, "Math You Can't Use", there is plenty of valuable information to add to the conversation. Talk about timing. Read on for the press release with all the gory details.
******************************
Internal Market: Commission asks industry and other stakeholders for their views on future patent policy
The European Commission has launched a public consultation on how future action in patent policy to create an EU-wide system of protection can best take account of stakeholders' needs. While the Community Patent remains a priority, the Commission is also seeking views on what measures could be taken in the near future to improve the patent system in Europe. All interested stakeholders, including industry and individuals, are encouraged to reply. The closing date is 31 March 2006.
Internal Market and Services Commissioner Charlie McCreevy said: "Good intellectual property rules are essential: by stimulating innovation and leading to the successful development of new products, they help to generate growth and jobs. We want to maximise these benefits in Europe by making the single market for patents a reality. This is why I am asking businesses and individuals alike to give me their views on how we should move forward to achieve this. Meanwhile we will of course continue to strive for the Community Patent, which remains central to our policy."
The Commission is committed to boosting the competitiveness of EU industry and improving the framework conditions in which it operates. To this end, industrial property, which includes patents, has been identified as one of the seven major cross-sectoral policy initiatives in the Commission's new industrial policy put forward on 5 October 2005 (IP/05/1225). As part of its commitment to Better Regulation, the Commission has launched this consultation to ensure that any new proposals in the area of EU patents policy reflect stakeholders' needs.
The consultation focuses on three major issues: the Community patent; how the current patent system in Europe could be improved; and possible areas for harmonisation. The Commission is also seeking views on what action could be taken while work on the Community patent is continuing, in particular within the framework of the existing European patent system, or by bringing national patent systems more closely in line with each other through either approximation of laws or mutual recognition of national patents. The legal framework for jurisdiction over patent disputes is an area of significant interest in this context.
The feedback obtained from stakeholders will form the basis of a hearing, which the Commission intends to organise in Brussels on 13 June 2006.
The questionnaire is available at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/
indprop/patent/consultation_en.htm
More information on the EU's industrial property policy is available at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/
indprop/index_en.htm
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Naich on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 11:04 AM EST |
Oh foo. Sorry. Wasn't logged in. Please delete the other post and accept my
apologies for being a cretin.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- How to implement software patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 11:18 AM EST
- How to implement software patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 11:21 AM EST
- Fairness - Authored by: Bill R on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 11:57 AM EST
- Fairness - Authored by: John Hasler on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 06:51 PM EST
- Fairness - Authored by: Bill R on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 07:45 PM EST
- Fairness - Authored by: John Hasler on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 08:17 PM EST
- Fairness - Authored by: Bill R on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 10:34 PM EST
- Fairness - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 04:27 AM EST
- How to implement software patents - Authored by: Marc Nadeau on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 11:31 PM EST
- I had the same idea... - Authored by: Mark Grosskopf on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 02:50 AM EST
- Don't bother trying to fix the system - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 11:50 PM EST
- Feel free to smack me down.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 11:18 AM EST
- GPL v3 draft published - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 12:26 PM EST
- Off topc here (not there) - Authored by: rc on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 12:29 PM EST
- Windows 2000/XP fall through Wi-Fi flaw - Authored by: Bill R on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 12:32 PM EST
- MS Customer sued for patent violation - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 01:58 PM EST
- UK Judge: Who needs software patents? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 02:04 PM EST
- UK Watchdog and DRM - Authored by: RPN on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 02:23 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Naich on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 11:07 AM EST |
Like the incorrect spelling of "Off Topic", for example.
Sorry. I've had a hard day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fishyfool on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 11:14 AM EST |
Are these officials elected or selected?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Question for Europians - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 11:23 AM EST
- Question for Europians - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 11:24 AM EST
- Question for Europians - Authored by: discard on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 11:45 AM EST
- small correction - Authored by: rsmith on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 11:51 AM EST
- Question for Europians - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 12:00 PM EST
- Question for Europeans - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 06:48 PM EST
- Apparently, neither - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 09:28 PM EST
- That's a very good question - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 05:54 AM EST
- One more disgruntled European... - Authored by: Saturn on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 06:50 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Hydra on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 11:37 AM EST |
Sigh...
Oh well, here's some nice anti-software patent
ammo:
"Judge dreads software patents" at ZDnet. A
snippet:
An Appeals Court judge has questioned whether
software patents should be granted, and has criticised the US for allowing
'anything under the sun' to be patented.
Sir Robin Jacob, a judge at the
Court of Appeal who specialises in intellectual-property (IP) law, has
questioned whether patents should be granted for
software.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 11:38 AM EST |
To be honest, having a uniform patent system throughout the EU is not that bad
of an objective itself.
Obviously, it is not clear if they are going to persue software patents again by
presenting a new obscure redefinition of it.
Anyhow, I don't think they will ignore the parlement this time in their consult,
so I think this round thing will be more open[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BobDowling on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 11:39 AM EST |
Note this comment in the introduction:
Commissioner McCreevy
has stated his intention to make one final effort to have the proposal adopted
during his mandate.
The clock is ticking for the commissioner.
Will his successor be so keen on software patents?
The document itself
doesn't refer to software but with my paranoid hat on I observe that it is
biased towards companies and patent-holders. “I'm a member of a loose
association of coders with a common interest” might not carry much weight.
But I'll be replying, and I encourage every other EuroGroklawyer to do so too.
I plan to cc my MEPs too. It can't do any harm. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 12:00 PM EST |
One of the things that needs doing id to prevent bogus patents. To that end I
propose the following change to the patent office.
The patent office is split in two parts. One part functions much like the
current patent office. It gets monetary incentives for successfull patents, and
deductions for patents that are invalidated by the second part.
The second part's job is to weed out bad patents. They receive a monetary
incentive based on the amount of patents that they can invalidate.
If properly implemented I think that this could go a long way toward sane
patents.
A second reform would be to limit the validity of patents to five years.
---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- patent reform - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 12:40 PM EST
- patent reform - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 01:56 PM EST
- patent reform - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 12:50 PM EST
- patent reform - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 07:51 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 12:03 PM EST |
PJ, why do you think this is about software patents?
The word software is completely absent from this press release.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 12:20 PM EST |
I will write the software at home, stick it anonymously on a BitTorrent, and
no-one will know who knocked the 'holder of fake intellectual property' into a
cocked hat. Into a cocked hat they will be, though.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DeepBlue on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 01:25 PM EST |
Actually there is a strong case for saying that there should be a
consistent EU wide policy on patents - the current system is daft as individual
countries can differ on their policy - a multi national could just choose the
best country to apply for a software patent in. This could be a great
chance to get a good result across the EU but it will take hard work by
us. ---
All that matters is whether they can show ownership, they
haven't and they can't, or whether they can show substantial similarity, they
haven't and they can't. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 02:12 PM EST |
<< The feedback obtained from stakeholders will form the basis of a
hearing, which the Commission intends to organise in Brussels on 13 June 2006.
>>
Mr. McGreedy seems to forget that the majority of stakeholders in this debate
are the public, not large companies that wish to form a monopoly. As an EU (and
UK) citizen, I take great exception to his arrogant view that mere citizens
unable to pay for his unelected [EU commisioners are not elected posts]
lifestyle are not stakeholders in this debate.
PeteS
---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmac880n on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 03:10 PM EST |
In the U.S, the stated purpose of patents and copyrights is "To promote the
progress of science and useful arts".
In the case of software, is there
any real evidence that patents do what they intend?
I have been a
programmer for 27 years, and I seem to recall quite a bit of progress being made
without the benefits of software patents. The lack of such protections did not
seem to inhibit people from innovating, and even (gasp!) publishing their
inventions!!!
Why did they do this outrageous act, with no patents to
protect them?
Sigh... since I was young at the time, and not in a
position to do so, I cannot speak directly from experience. However, I can
postulate two reasons:
- Publish or perish. A nice monetary
incentive for academic researchers.
- The same as a major motivation for open
source - prestige among your peers. It is interesting to note that this, too,
can be a nice incentive. If you gain enough prestige, employment is sure to
follow...
To hear the pro-patent crowd, no important work will be done
without software patents.
To prove otherwise, all you have to do is
browse around the QA76.5 section of any decent college or university, and notice
the publishing dates of many of the really important works.
Yes, a lot
of work dates after software patents. But a lot predates it, too.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 03:17 PM EST |
There is nothing about Software patents there
What is says is someone high in the foodchain has decided it's time to harmonize
EU IP law (and remember, IP law is much larger than software IP law, and in fact
the IP EU cares most about is not the software-related one)
This could be very bad or very good. What it means is one won't be able to
cancel the debate just because it didn't went the intended way, like they did in
the European Parliament last time. The bureaucrats heading this will be judged
on whether they can produce some sort of document or not, so they will produce
one (what's inside it is still open, and yes I'm not naïve enough to think
patent lobbies won't try to rewrite history once again)
So the next patent round is open. Let's try not to finish it with a draw this
time, let's actually get the european directive we want.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ruskie on Monday, January 16 2006 @ 03:20 PM EST |
Where are the petitions to sing..
---
I'm just a nobody IRL...
But I'm sombody in the virtual world...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 01:41 AM EST |
Via a 'satellite' office on Alpha Centauri, with all critical documents needing
to be delivered by personal courier.
(special thanks to Douglas
Adams).
If they insist on proposing nonsense, why not add nonsense to their
proposals?---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within
each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mark Grosskopf on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 02:40 AM EST |
Why not take the King David approach to splitting the child?
Require that a party submitting for a patent furnish a bond, in addition to
filing fees.
One for prior art.
The filer must post a bond with a face value of $1 million USD (Doc Evil
number), which equates to about 5% or $50,000 USD, if usual guidelines are
followed. Face value is forfeit if prior art is discovered...
This would work well with the new approach to software patents review w/IBM /
Open Source alliance. Entities that issue the bonds with a 95% risk factor to
consider, require a much more THOROUGH review of existing "art" and
obviousness. Essentially bonding entity is certifying an extensive review has
occurred, and that the item up for patent is not OBVIOUS, etc.
It would be self sustaining...the bond cost is submitted to the USPTO/EUPTO and
is non-refundable -- a bigger supply of cash with which to operate. USPTO or
EUPTO could hire "experts" then to search existing technology.
If it comes up "positive", that is, prior art exists which negates the
uniqueness of the patented item, well, then the applicant loses the face value
of the bond -- the issuer of the bond has to pay up to the USPTO/EUPTO. This
result will NOT make the bond issuer happy and she could raise the percentage
of what must be paid for the bond, or sue the applicant, or blackball the
applicant from filing, which other bond issuers could use to prevent that
individual from
filing. Oh, and the BOND ISSUER ALSO CERTIFIES IN THE BOND THAT THEY HAVE NO
ECONOMIC GAIN IN THIS FILING.
In other words, they cannot have any agreements, on the side or otherwise, in
place by which they can profit from the approval of the patent. And the bonding
agency must be registered. The applicant cannot provide the bond; which
eliminates self funding. King's X on the multitude of stupid patents, especially
since the cost has risen and the cost of being wrong is much greater. Would
also keep bad patents out of court.
Yes, it would create a whole new profession -- application technology evaluators
--, but this approach could have eliminated MS FAT patent based on technology
expert review, I think, not the somewhat stilted result we have now.
Even though it would cost more per patent, the bonding would help ensure that
legitimate patents are filed with proper knowledge domain surveys.
There are also other things that can be done, like depletion allowances as used
in oil reserves -- establish a value and life cycle duration up front and when
that value or time gets depleted -- well how else to place the item into the
public domain. And lawsuit penalties also count against this, since they are
usually for "lost profit". Establishing life cycle duration, based on
life cycle of the technology domain -- software evolving much faster than
manufactured objects, therefore possessing a much shorter life span.
Just an idea...I always like the approach of solving the riddle of sharing
what's left of a pie. One person cuts it, the other gets first choice of which
piece to take... almost guaranteeing equity.
MG[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 07:06 AM EST |
The *word* software is indeed not actually used anywhere in the document,
however it does state this...
"The EPLA would be an optional litigation system common to those EPC States
that choose to adhere to it.
The EPLA would set up a European Patent Court which would have jurisdiction over
the validity and infringements of European patents (including actions for a
declaration of noninfringement,actions or counterclaims for revocation, and
actions for damages or compensation derived from the provisional protection
conferred by a published European
patent application). National courts would retain jurisdiction to order
provisional and protective measures, and in respect of the provisional seizure
of goods as security."
The EPO has already granted 40,000+ software patents. Now they want to set up a
judicial body (European Patent Court, EPC) that has jurisdiction on the validity
of those patents.
Sure, it says it is optional for member states to choose to adhere to it, but
once you get just one situtation, where a single European patent is validated in
one state that recognises this "EPC" and invalidated in another state
by that states national judiciary, you then only need one little tiny
legislative step (and these go on all the time in the European) that allows for
the EPC to be an appeals court against national rulings (the interests of Europe
being greater than the interests of individual nationa states).
Note quote also appears to say that National courts would only retain
jurisidiction in enforcing any infringement liabilities, which means they
categorically do not retain jurisdiction over validity.
They need change nothing, the EPO *already* grants software patents, they just
don't have any legal standing...yet.
_AD
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 07:53 AM EST |
The *word* software is indeed not actually used anywhere in the document,
however it does state this...
"The EPLA would be an optional litigation system common to those EPC States
that choose to adhere to it.
The EPLA would set up a European Patent Court which would have jurisdiction over
the validity and infringements of European patents (including actions for a
declaration of noninfringement,actions or counterclaims for revocation, and
actions for damages or compensation derived from the provisional protection
conferred by a published European patent application). National courts would
retain jurisdiction to order provisional and protective measures, and in respect
of the provisional seizure of goods as security."
The EPO has already granted 40,000+ software patents. Now they want to set up a
judicial body (European Patent Court, EPC) that has jurisdiction on the validity
of those patents.
Sure, it says it is optional for member states to choose to adhere to it, but
once you get just one situtation, where a single European patent is validated in
one state that recognises this "EPC" and invalidated in another state
by that states national judiciary, you then only need one little tiny
legislative step (and these go on all the time in the European) that allows for
the EPC to be an appeals court against national rulings (the interests of Europe
being greater than the interests of individual national states).
Note quote also appears to say that National courts would only retain
jurisidiction in enforcing any infringement liabilities, which means they
categorically do not retain jurisdiction over validity.
They need change nothing, the EPO *already* grants software patents, they just
don't have any legal standing...yet.
_AD
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 11:37 AM EST |
| There's 2 ways to get yourself a cat.
1) Go to a cat show. Inquire whether
the cat has come
from
a production process where the user has a patent
licence.
Inquire whether the cat was reproduced under the terms of
a valid
copyright licence. Assuming you get 'Yes' answers,
you figure the vendor has
the right to sell you the cat.
Buy it. This gets you a 'commercial cat'. All
rights
reserved, specifically no reproduction except under
licence and no
creating derivative works.
2) Ask around, find who has some cats, more than
they
want. Figure whether they are to be trusted. Ask about
licensed
production process; get a quizzical look. Ask
about copyright, the owner says
you can let the cat do
pretty much what it likes. With any luck, this gives
you a
'free cat'.
Now, neither the 'commercial' cat nor the 'free' cat is
guaranteed defect-free. Both of them will appreciate the
services of a vet,
from time to time.
Software's the same. And the smart corporations are
doing
the equivalent of opening vet's surgeries. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 01:02 PM EST |
| What sanction does Charlie McC have in mind, for someone who infringes a patent
with free software ? And it is for unlicensed devleopment, importation,
marketing, giving away, servicing, distribution, transferring across a network,
hosting, or what ?
I can hardly wait until someone hauls the radioastronomers
into court for running 'glibc' on a 12288-processor monster here LOFAR radiotelescope
No-one does commercial
software for it. Free software is the only choice available [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 03:19 PM EST |
This article about a softwar
e patent problem appeared in The Times (London) newspaper (last year)
regarding software patents; in particular how they affect one product that is
favoured by the US Federal Government - Blackberry
handhelds:
BLACKBERRY owners in Britain could be cut off from
using their handheld computer-cum-phones if the software company loses a key
court ruling expected before January 12.
...
Even the US federal
government has entered the case. It said that it had become dependent on
BlackBerrys and wants to make sure that federal workers would not be cut off
from mobile access to their e-mail.
I find it interesting (and
funny) that the US Federal Government could be affected by a software patent.
If there are more cases of these problems for Government, how quickly do you
suppose software patents would be repealed?
(Incidently, I haven't
followed it up: does anyone know the outcome of the ruling?)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 17 2006 @ 03:49 PM EST |
There are excellent arguments that a splendid way to improve patents would be to
junk them altogether. Failing that, imposing requirements that patent applicants
prove that they are the first inventors (searching all information from all
sources), and that they prove the ideas are not obvious by some test like asking
10 experts in the field for solutions and showing that none of them came up with
the idea. The system would be better still for individuals or small businesses
if these efforts (esp. the second) were done by the patent office...but they
must really be done. Such searches would be costly in time and money because
there is so much info to search and some is not in current print. A 100 year old
magazine article is publication too. Others should be allowed to come up with
their own groups of experts and if any such groups come up with the idea
proposed for patent, it should be considered obvious. Also having 2 different
people come up with the same idea at the same (within a few weeks) time is prima
facie evidence the idea was obvious.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 18 2006 @ 11:14 PM EST |
why not simply make patent restrictions legally enforceable *only* for
proprietary code? i think this would be a great compromise! i think this is the
last thing we should fight for, if everything else fails. do you agree?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
