Re: [ITPOLITIK] EU-Patentproposal

[Carsten Svaneborg <sslug@sslug>]

Ole Tange wrote:
> Fra: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indprop/02-277.htm
>> Erkki Liikanen said "It represents a reasonable middle ground in a
>> field where dissenting views had been voiced".
> Det ser ud til, at Erkki Liikanen har givet op. Shit.

Det er lige så meget middle ground, som hvis Pia Kjærsgård ville
konvertere til islam, skifte hudfarve i modsat retning af
Michael Jackson og begynde at bære tørklæde.

Jeg tror det kunne være interessant at sende et af dine 25 punkts
emails (ligesom det med OSS distribution og brug til PVS) til 
Liikanen for at klarificere hvad de mener med teknisk, og om
distribution af OSS programmer i binære og source form i sig selv
kan tolkes som en krænkelse af patenter. Og hvad der er nyt i
deres udsagn. Og så ca. spørgsmål til 1000 softwarepatenter og
forretningsmetoder.


Fra deres FAQ:

> Q:  Won't extending patents to cover computer programs reduce competition?
> 
> A: The Directive will not make it possible to patent computer programs
>   "as such". In broad terms, nothing will be made patentable which is
>   not already patentable. The objective is simply to clarify the law and
>   to resolve some inconsistencies in approach in national laws.

Er der nogen der kan se hvad svaret har med spørgsmålet at gøre?

>Q: Why are patents good for innovation?
>
>A:   From the perspective of the owner of a patent, the limited exclusivity
>   provides an opportunity to generate income. This in turn provides an
>   incentive to invest in research and development. And a successful
>   business will use income from patented inventions to fund further
>   innovation. Patents can also be used as security to obtain loans and
>   as a means of negotiating for licenses on technology owned by others.
>
>  It is a condition of obtaining a patent that there should be
>   disclosure of how the invention works. If the disclosure is not
>   sufficient to enable the invention to be reproduced, the patent can be
>   revoked. Patents are therefore an important source of technical
>   information for others to use.  [...]

Dogma!

>Q:  Isn't software different to other technologies in that patents can be
>   used to block legitimate independent innovation?
>
>  The Commission has seen little evidence that this has been a problem
>  in practice in the present environment. This would be the case only if
>  the scope of protection granted by patents were extended to software  
>  as such and, for instance, blocked the use of an algorithmic idea in
>  other technical fields from the one in which a patent is granted.
>  Since the proposed Directive would not extend the scope of what can be   
>  patented, nor the scope of the protection granted by a patent, there
>  should be nothing to fear on this front.

Så man må gerne lave og distribuere software. Man må bare ikke
sælge eller bruge det på en computer i erhvervsmæssig sammenhæng.

LZW patentet er et algoritme patent, mon det er ugyldigt nu.. :*|

En algoritme er automatisk og reproducerbar, ifølge Mark Shar
(EPO dommer) er dette = teknisk. En hver algoritme altså teknisk.


> Q: Would the proposed Directive restrict the interoperability of
>    computer programs?
>
>   No. In fact, Member States' patent laws, while not fully harmonised,
>   do not in general extend to acts performed privately and for
>   non-commercial purposes, or to acts carried out for experimental 
>   purposes related to the subject-matter of the invention. Nor is it
>   likely that the making of a back-up copy in the context of the
>   authorised exploitation of a patent covering a programmed computer or
>   the execution of a program could be construed as an infringement. The
>   proposed Directive will not change this situation. Thus, because of   
>   the differences between the subject-matter of protection under patent

Så hvis MS har et patent på .asf multimedia formatet, så må man
sørme godt lave et program der læser disse sålænge det kun bruges
privat og for ikke-kommercielle formål. Man må også reverse
engineere formatet.

Hvor mange firmaer vil ikke tolke dette som en restriktion
af interoperability af computer programmer at de stadig ikke
må lave, bruge, sælge, distribuere programmer der kan læse og/eller
skrive .asf med mindre de har licens fra MS.

Måske skulle EU lave en FAQ til denne FAQ, fordi den stiller
vist en del spørgsmål til forfatterens mentale helbred og 
generelle logisk argumenterende kapabiliteter. Forfatteren
har vist sniffet for meget kompost og taget mentalt skade.

Alt hvad dette svar siger er at gentage at copyright tillader
reverse engineering for interoperativitet, og så en masse tåge
snak om patenter, der ikke er relevant med mindre selve
formatet/protokollen/API'et indeholder patenterede elementer.

>Q:  Does the proposal include rules about business methods?
>
>A: The proposal does not deal directly with the patentability of business
>   methods. This is because the consultations have indicated clearly that
>   there is general satisfaction with the current situation, whereby
>   "pure" business methods (that is, methods which have no technical     
>   character) are not currently patentable.
>
>   However, in practice some inventions involving business methods could   
>   fall within the definition of "computer-implemented inventions". These
>   inventions would be dealt with in accordance with the proposed
>   Directive, and in particular patents would only be granted for
>   inventions that made a "technical contribution".

Ifølge M. Shar (dommer ved EPO) så er teknisk = automatiserbar
og reproducibel. Og alle e-handels metoder vil være automatiserbare
og reproducible og derfor tekniske.

De siger at forretningsmetode patenter er ikke apriori tekniske
fordi de ikke har et teknisk biddrag, men ifølge Mark Shar
(dommer ved EPO) er de fordi de er automatiserbare, gør et 
biddrag til automatisering og reproducibilitet ??. Så hvad
mener de med teknisk i denne FAQ? 


>Q:  What is meant by "technical contribution"?
>
>A: The proposed Directive defines a "technical contribution" as "a
> contribution to the state of the art in a technical field which is not
> obvious to a person skilled in the art". If an invention implemented
> through the execution of software did not make a technical
> contribution it would be considered to lack an inventive step and thus
> would not be patentable.

Så teknisk er noget en person i et teknisk felt kan erkende som nyt.

Jeg er sikker på at en musiker med kundskaber udi det tekniske 
felt af Jazz musik ville genkende jazz improvisationer som teknik,
og derfor ville et en MIDI fil med nye jazz improvisationer være
et teknisk biddrag, ergo patenterbar. En MIDI fil kan jo køres
på en computer/syntetiszer (MIDI filer er softwareprogram til en 
syntetiser i form af digitale node indstruktioner/musik programmeret
i nodesprog.).

Det kunne være interessant at spørge Liikanen om en ca. 1000
software patenter hvor det tekniske biddrag ligger.

> :
>   It would not be possible for a legal text such as a Directive to
>   attempt to spell out in fine detail what is meant by "technical",     
>   because the very nature of the patent system is to protect what is   
>   novel, and therefore not previously known.

Tyske forbundsdomstol: teknisk= kausal brug af naturkrafter for at
opnå en forudsigelig kontrollerbar reproducibel effekt uden 
indvirken af menneskelige intelligens.  (sådan cirka)

Definere de ikke teknisk så kan de lige så godt fjerne ordet, for
den kapital og lobby stærke industri vil jo kunne underminere enhver
praksis ved salami taktik, som IBM har gjort med EPO.


STØN!!!

Desværre har jeg ikke Quake til Linux, men det ville tage en
gore and violence at komme af med fustrationen over EU. 

-- 
  Mvh. Carsten Svaneborg
What patents did you infringe today?
Goto http://www.softwarepatenter.dk to find out!