Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - March 12th, '05

[TankGirl]

European Parliament Cries Foul Over Patent Directive
Matthew Broersma

Lawyers have been asked to probe Denmark's failure to prevent the software patent directive being adopted by the European Council

The European Parliament (EP) and the Danish parliament are investigating whether the EU Council broke procedural rules by adopting the draft directive on software patents in the face of opposition from ministers. In an extraordinary meeting called on Monday night, the EP's Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) decided to ask the Luxembourg presidency for full documentation of the EU Council's meeting.

"It would have been much better if we had returned to a first reading," Lichtenberger told the JURI meeting. "After the Commission's restart denial and now the unclear decision in the Council, we are faced with procedural questions rather than having a constructive dialogue on the content of the dossier."

A Danish minister said he would ask the Danish parliament's lawyers to examine the validity of the EU Council's decision in the light of Danish Minister of Commerce Bendt Bendtsen's mandate from the Danish parliament to reopen debate. Bendtsen was directed by the Danish Parliament's Europe Council to transfer the text from an A-item, not requiring further discussion, to a B-item, which could have led to a renegotiation of the Common Position. However, the text was allowed to proceed as an A-item with only a formal statement attached expressing Denmark's reservations.

The procedural investigations are unlikely to make much difference to the progress of the draft directive, said Florian Mueller, who runs an anti-patent Web site. "In purely formal terms the Council just followed its usual procedures," he said. "The Danish minister may have acted against some Danish law or even the Danish constitution but that's a Danish issue, and not a software patent issue."

Opponents of the directive are urging MEPs to make substantial changes to the text or, preferably, to reject it, Mueller said.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050309/152/fdzmh.html

A good commentary on the topic from Kuro5hin:

What if patents applied to literature?

This is the text of an open letter that I intend to send to all nine of my MEPs. I've watched the progress of Europe's Software Patent Directive for months and years. This week, it's passed an important hurdle on its way to becoming law, and I've decided to do my bit to work against it.

I am a professional software developer. I work both for myself [corba consultant], and for a small company that makes scheduling software for the steel industry [broner metals]. I'm writing to you my MEP, to ask you to vote AGAINST the second reading of the 'Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions', and reject this bad legislation.

This letter is a little different from the many I'm certain you've received concerning this issue. The strength of feeling amongst the software development community is all too apparent [Patent Bribe Pledge Drive] [zdnet comment]. We are confused and angry. Hopefully, when you've finished reading you'll understand WHY we believe software patents are such an intrinsically ludicrous idea.

I'd like to compare software with another field whose work is also principally protected by copyright - literature. I'm sure that you are not a programmer, so perhaps the comparison seems odd to you, but I assure you that software developers are just as involved with their programs as any author is with his next novel. The creative process is just as difficult, and the protection offered by copyright is just as strong. The law certainly sees no difference between an artful sonnet and a carefully crafted subroutine.

Just like authors, programmers are creative people. The products of our creation are not as accessible to the layman as a Harry Potter novel, but we craft them with as much love and care nonetheless.

Just like authors, we draw inspiration from the work of our peers: It is often said that there are only seven 'archetypal' stories, from which all literature is derived. Certainly, many novelists draw inspiration from each other. Bold authors experiment, they break new ground. Sometimes they succeed and spawn a new genre, more often they fail.

Most authors do not write bold avant garde novels. They work to find their own distinctive voice within established genres. Is the work of J.K. Rowling diminished by the debt she owes to J.R.R. Tolkien or Thomas Hughes? No. She has taken ingredients from the best of her predecessors, added her own special magic and created something that is wholly her own [The Inspiration for Harry Potter].


Now imagine a literary world restricted by patents. A patent protects not just the work itself, but the idea behind the work.

Arthur Conan Doyle's patent on detective fiction would have expired long ago, but not before preventing Agatha Christie's career. C.S. Lewis' patent on the fantasy novel would have discouraged Tolkien's already reluctant publishers. Without this inspiration, the fantasy trilogies that fill an entire wall in every bookshop would never have been written.

Today we would have patents on smaller and smaller points of style or story. Every opening scene, every surprise ending, every combination of characters, every imaginative sex scene would be protected by a patent.

How could any budding author know what story ideas were already 'owned'? No one could expect him to have read every novel published in the previous 25 years! His profession would have become a minefield. Every day he would fear some lawyer 'discovering' that the hero of his latest story was actually covered by a patent owned by an author he'd never heard of, from a book he'd never read.

This is exactly the situation that I fear will soon plague software development, if this directive isn't stopped.

Copyright offers authors very strong protection from plagiarism [Harry Potter rip-offs]. They have no need of patents. Indeed patents would cause great harm to the vibrancy and creativity of the literary world. The same is true for software. Copyright has been sufficient to allow a thriving and profitable software market to develop [uk games software] [uk software industry]. There is no need to further strengthen the protection. Patents can only serve to drive away the creative and innovative people upon which this vital industry depends.

This week the European Council finally voted to accept the Common Position on the Patentability of Software. This Directive now passes back to the European Parliament for its second reading. This directive threatens my livelihood, that of my employer, and the future of software innovation throughout the European Union. We face the terrible prospect of having our work stolen from us by large bullying corporations wielding trivial patents [Amazon one-click patent], or patent litigation companies that produce nothing but exist solely to prey upon those of us who do [eolas].

Please vote AGAINST the second reading, and reject this bad legislation.