EU Software Patent Plans Jeopardise Linux Migration

http://kwiki.ffii.org/ ^ | 08/04/2004 | http://kwiki.ffii.org/Limux040730En

[N3WBI3]

Press Release

Munich, 07/30/2004 - When the city administration of Munich decided to migrate its IT infrastructure to the Linux operating system, it made headline news around the world. That project is now threatened by software patents. In May the EU Council and Commission have reached "political agreement" to legalise software patents and reject all limits of patentability for which the European Parliament had voted in September 2003.

Software patents are considered the greatest danger to the usage and development of Linux and other Free Software. A cursory search by FFII revealed that the Linux "base client", which the city of Munich plans to install on the desktop computers of approximately 14,000 employees, is in conflict with more than 50 European software patents.

Today Jens Muehlhaus, an alderman from the Green Party, filed two motions in which he calls on the mayor of Munich, the Social Democrat Christian Ude, to contact the federal government of Germany on this matter and to analyse how the EU software patent directive affects Munich's Linux project. The politician, a supporter of open source, warns that patent infringement assertions could take entire departments of the city administration out of operation. He attached the preliminary result of an FFII patent search to his motions. Mr. Muehlhaus expresses concern over the future ability of open source software to meet the needs of the city administration if software patents massively hinder its development. Related caveats have been voiced by the SME association CEA-PME and by Deutsche Bank Research.

A week earlier, the chief information officer of Munich, Wilhelm Hoegner, said it is "indispensable" to check on the consequences of the software patent directive to open source software. Any such oversight would be a "catastrophe for Munich's Linux migration project, and for open source in general".

Florian Mueller, an active participant in the software patent debate, sees the EU Council on the wrong track: "Open source is a historic opportunity for Europe to save costs and create jobs. Schroeder, Blair and Chirac should demonstrate leadership and stop their civil servants from sacrificing the open source opportunity to the insatiable patent bureaucracy, lest some large corporations will shut down open source and many SMEs." Mr. Mueller is a software entrepreneur, and an adviser to Europe's largest open source software company MySQL.

[monday]

Software patents are a stupid idea. It isn't going to stop just open source software but will seriously hinder all software development and cause software prices to rise.

Software is copyrighted already. Patents will just cause massive litigation and hugely overpriced software. Count on the EU to screw up at every opportunity.

[zeugma]

monday wrote:
Software patents are a stupid idea

I couldn't agree more. I also notice that the FUD claim of 50 patent violations is spread without comment as to the veracity of the claims or the validity of the patents.

The U.S. patent system is seriously broken, and the EU patent agencies are following the same path to lunacy.

[Bush2000]

Software is copyrighted already. Patents will just cause massive litigation and hugely overpriced software. Count on the EU to screw up at every opportunity.

Right or wrong, most companies are just following IBM's lead in obtaining patents, as a means of protecting themselves from encroachment by competitors. If they don't patent, their competitors will. It's sad but true.

Whether we consider the current system broken or not is really rather inconsequential: It's coded into the U.S. Constitution and regulated by Congress. Congress has shown absolutely no interest in changing things, either.

[monday]

": It's coded into the U.S. Constitution and regulated by Congress. "

Wrong. It isn't coded into the constitution. Software patents are like novelists patenting the concept of the mystery, or western, or science fiction novel. It is stupid and the politicians that allow it are either stupid or have been bought and paid for by large software companies and trial lawyers. Of course that isn't surprising. Politicians have always been stupid and corrupt. Most of them are trial lawyers too. They smell worse than septic tank slime.

The reality of this law is that small independent programmers will no longer be able to write and market their own software, because they will immediately be sued for patent infringement by the large companies. Even if they have infringed on no patents, they will go broke trying to prove it. Large companies like IBM and Microsoft will own the market through legal blackmail and dirty tricks. The trial lawyers will be the big winners, and as always it is the consumer who will lose as software prices skyrocket due to decreased competition, and litigation.

Not incidentally, this has the potential of clogging court systems all over the world. Software patents will be very difficult to prove in court due to their technical nature. One case could drag on for years. It is going to cost taxpayers billions in additional courtroom costs.

[Bush2000]

Wrong. It isn't coded into the constitution.

Uh, yeah. It is.

"The Congress shall have Power [...] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

Software patents are like novelists patenting the concept of the mystery, or western, or science fiction novel.

Concepts/ideas are not patentable under current law. There must be a backing implementation.

The reality of this law is that small independent programmers will no longer be able to write and market their own software, because they will immediately be sued for patent infringement by the large companies.

Cry me a river.

Not incidentally, this has the potential of clogging court systems all over the world. Software patents will be very difficult to prove in court due to their technical nature.Courts routinely interpret software patent cases. This isn't exactly new ground.

[monday]

"Uh, yeah. It is."

Uh, no. It's not. "Congress has the power"... means that congress can do pretty much whatever they want. If there was any intelligence or honesty in congress, software would be copyright-able, but not patentable.

"Cry me a river."

So you support legal blackmail as a way for large companies to limit competition from small competitors? I see. You must be a trial lawyer, or perhaps you own lots of Microsoft stock?

"Courts routinely interpret software patent cases. This isn't exactly new ground."

That doesn't make it a wise or economically sound use of the taxpayer funded court system. It is a government subsidy for trial lawyers and large software companies.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Last I heard, Bush2000 worked for Microsoft (maybe he's a former employee, what with all the outsourcing...hehehehe).

[Bush2000]

Uh, no. It's not. "Congress has the power"... means that congress can do pretty much whatever they want.

No, Congress can't do "pretty much whatever they want". The Constitution explicitly says that protections on inventions can only be granted for a limited period of time -- over the objections of some legislators at the time who wanted to be able to hand off the rights to inventions from one generation to another in perpetuity. The Constitution prevents that sort of thing from happening, and the courts have interpreted "limited period" in the same spirit that the Founding Fathers intended.

If there was any intelligence or honesty in congress, software would be copyright-able, but not patentable.

Software is machinery. It does work. Different work than a combustion engine or a cotton gin -- but work, nonetheless. That's what "inventions" "do". They perform some novel function. Contrasted to writings and artwork -- which have no such capacity -- the distinction is obvious to all but the most strident anti-patent bigots. Consequently, I have to disagree with your interpretation.

"The patent system adds the fuel of interest to the fire of genius."
-- Abraham Lincoln

So you support legal blackmail as a way for large companies to limit competition from small competitors?

The same protections that available to small competitors, as well. Large companies don't have a monopolies on ideas.

I see. You must be a trial lawyer, or perhaps you own lots of Microsoft stock?

No, merely a thinking individual.

That doesn't make it a wise or economically sound use of the taxpayer funded court system.

Thankfully, our society doesn't have arbiters of what's "wise [and] economically sound" with axes to grind over open source software.

It is a government subsidy for trial lawyers and large software companies.

In case you haven't noticed, it has been small companies such as Eolas and Stac that are wielding patents against large companies such as Microsoft. There's nothing stopping anti-patent, open source advocates from patenting their own ideas; that is, if they have any ideas of their own that they haven't stolen from somebody else.

[Bush2000]

The U.S. patent system is seriously broken, and the EU patent agencies are following the same path to lunacy.

LMAO! When you guys squeal, it's obvious that a nerve has been struck. But you only have yourselves to blame. The same patent protections that apply to IBM, Microsoft, Intel, and other big companies are also available to you. All that you have to do is put your money -- or free beer -- where your mouths are.

[zeugma]

Bite me shill. There have been enough really stupid patents accepted by the PTO to justify doing away with the whole thing. I don't care who holds them.

[Bush2000]

Bite me shill.

No thanks. It really is amusing to see you OSS advocates get your panties in a bunch...

There have been enough really stupid patents accepted by the PTO to justify doing away with the whole thing. I don't care who holds them.

Oh, right. Like your patron saint IBM's attempt to patent a toilet-queuing system two years ago. Nice IP portfolio.

IBM eliminates loo patent

[zeugma]

Did I say that I supported IBM's software patents? Try reading my post again, shill.

I do not believe the patent office should issue patents for non-physical things. If you can't build it, you shouldn't be able to patent it.

[Bush2000]

Did I say that I supported IBM's software patents? Try reading my post again, shill.

You and your little OSS buddies are in bed with IBM, whether you want to admit it or not. Enjoy the company. Your benefactor is the leading filer of patents in this country.

I do not believe the patent office should issue patents for non-physical things. If you can't build it, you shouldn't be able to patent it.

Luddite thinking. Software is machinery. It does work. It can be automated -- just like hardware devices. Consequently, this notion that patents should only apply to physical things is just a pile of stinking cr*p.