Software Patents - Net Strike 2004-04-14

[Solar]

You might want to take the time and read http://swpat.ffii.org/news/04/cons0408/index.en.html - the European Council of Ministers is basically ignoring a democratic vote of the EU parliament against software patents, and trying to push for full patentability of software, including data structures (!), once again. This directly impacts onto not only hobbyist OS development, but software industry in general.

The FFII calls for a net strike until April 15th, 2004. Blank out your web site front page to show your position on this. I know it's late (the strike was intended to start on April 7th), but if anything this shows how easy it is to push things into existence if we aren't paying attention.

[Therx]

Surely this will only work on sites that the Ministers are likely to use and the sites they are likely to use (search engines etc.) are probally quite keen to patent their ideas...

Catch 22

Pete

[DennisCGc]

I changed my website, placed banners.
You may have a look at: www.denniscgc.tk
I'm completely againt the idea, that software will be patented, because free software won't exist anymore.
(Who the f*** made this decision ?)

[Solar]

Surely this will only work on sites that the Ministers are likely to use...

It's a thing called "lobbyism". Of course your website isn't visited by a single person directly involved. But it is visited by others who might be made aware of the issue. You (and everybody else joining in) can list your website on the FFII list of sites under strike. It gives the FFII people something to argue with. "Over 1000 sites joined the net strike".

And being aware is the only thing that keeps politicians from pushing their agendas without anyone noticing.

In the very least, it shows the FFII people that their hard work does not go unnoticed.

That might make the difference. The last net strike made one.

And you'd be surprised how few people actually support software patents. The net outcome strongly favors international players; I doubt even Google would want to see software patents becoming reality: You usually invent only 1-5% of your product, the rest is "smart copying" the right pieces.

[Pype.Clicker]

World::reset()

hmm ... doesn't work ... maybe delete(World::getInstance()) would do it ?

[Solar]

You may have a look at: www.denniscgc.tk

You might want to add your URL to the list at http://demo.ffii.org/inserturl.php.

I'm completely againt the idea, that software will be patented, because free software won't exist anymore.
(Who the f*** made this decision ?)

Patents are the currency of the big players in the US (Intel, IBM, Sun, etc.). Want to license a technology? Sign a patent exchange contract. Getting sued over some copyright issue? Sign a patent exchange contract. Want to take over a company subsidiary? Pay in stock and sign a patent exchange contract.

But even in the US many people think that software patents are A Bad Thing (tm), and resistance is rising.

Now, some EU biggies feel left behind in the international marketplace because they can't claim patents as "company currency". And instead of lobbying against US practice (which would be rather hard), they lobby in favor of the EU copying US practice (which is rather easy because of the lack of IT know-how among EU politicians, and the not-yet-really-functional EU legal / jurisdictional system).

And some EU politicians, partly because they want to please the lobbyists (can you spell m-o-n-e-y?) and partly because they are blissfully unaware of the implications, are pushing a law (and not for the first time) that is actually much worse than anything the US has come up with.

To reiterate: They are planning to make data structures patentable. What that means for the next generations of protocols and file formats should be easy to imagine.

[Therx]

Added my 2 sites.

http://therx.sf.net/
http://therx.sf.net/osdev/

The total count of participating sites is 1868!

Pete

[DennisCGc]

Anyway, I don't like the idea, that all the software should be commercial.
So I think it should be rejected ( the proposition), like others do.
>:( >:( >:( >:(

[ich_will]

see my page too:

www.klafft.de.vu

[Tim]

DennisCGc: If you got paid to write software, like I do, you might begin to think commercial software is a good idea.

[DennisCGc]

DennisCGc: If you got paid to write software, like I do, you might begin to think commercial software is a good idea.

Yes, true, but not ALL the software.
Of course, some software may be commercial like Photoshop, but they "deserve" to be commercial.
It has cool, and they also difficult to program, features.
But not all the software should be[glow=red,2,300]COMMERCIAL.[/glow]

[Solar]

Whether software should be "commercial" or "free" is a completely different ballgame, and not part of this issue. This is about whether protocols, file formats, algorithms, or interface features should be patentable, which affects both camps.

It doesn't matter to the patent lawyer if you're writing commercial or free software, he'll sue you for using colored bars in your timetable software anyways. (And yes, there's a patent on that.) For companies that spells bancruptcy, for hobbyists it spells uncalculatable legal risk. Free or not.

(And Dennis, while adamantly opposing SW patents, I'm not pro "free" software either... )

[DennisCGc]

Whether software should be "commercial" or "free" is a completely different ballgame, and not part of this issue. This is about whether protocols, file formats, algorithms, or interface features should be patentable, which affects both camps.

It doesn't matter to the patent lawyer if you're writing commercial or free software, he'll sue you for using colored bars in your timetable software anyways. (And yes, there's a patent on that.) For companies that spells bancruptcy, for hobbyists it spells uncalculatable legal risk. Free or not.

(And Dennis, while adamantly opposing SW patents, I'm not pro "free" software either... )

We are talking about patents, right ?
If everyone would set patent on everything, the products are GOING to be COMMERCIAL.
Because you have to pay for everything that has been patented.
So if I mean commercial, I know the word was wrongly chosen, I mean you have to PAY for it.
It isn't a completely different ballgame.
Because if everything is patented, everything is going to be commercial somehow ::)

[Tim]

Maybe you misunderstand patents. A patent gives an inventor full rights over something he or she has invented for a number of years, depending on the length of the patent. The inventor can let anyone build as many copies of the invention as they like, or they can restrict it completely, or they can change money for licences -- whatever they want.

Note that, by their nature, patents put the invention into the public domain. The patent must contain enough information for somebody in the same industry to be able to build the invention from the patent alone.

So, for instance, Microsoft can patent the long file name extensions to FAT: although the format of the LFN extensions are public knowledge, Microsoft invented them and, if they take out a patent on them, can dictate who can licence products using LFN extensions and under what terms.

[Therx]

i think that it would be fine if there was a clause which meant that free/hobby software could use the patents freely and that you only had to pay the author or whatever if you were going to make your software (using the patent) commercial

Just my 2 cents

Pete