Or that at least is how the double-talking civil servants in George Orwell's 1984 would have described it. The only reason the directive has got this far is that the proponents -- interested parties all, including big software businesses and the various European patent offices -- have managed to co-opt the language of patents with their Newspeak so as to make any meaningful discussion almost impossible. Big Brother would have been proud.
If any proof were needed of the complete success of patent officers and politicians to fail to speak the same language as developers, it was demonstrated clearly just before Christmas at a meeting in Whitehall. This meeting, for which the invitation criteria was straight out of a Kafka novel, was intended to explain to developers just why the software patent directive is such a good idea.
It will, say the politicians and patent officers, stop proliferation in Europe of the sorts of software patents that have reduced the US software business to a series of legal battles over who owns such grand inventions as the idea of a software equivalent of the shopping trolley.
It all hinges on the definition of 'technical implementation', which the patent officers and politicians say only allows patents on software governing systems that variously include traffic control systems, bread makers, robot arms, mobile phones and vehicle software.
Examples of software that would not exhibit technical implementation include accounting packages, spreadsheets, computer aided design software, portfolio management, translation software, Internet trading and online auction software.
Although a casual observer may easily discern some difference between the two sets of examples, for the developers at the meeting, who spend their lives developing software in many of the areas mentioned, the distinction was unclear. As hard as the patent officers tried to explain their logic, the roar of (mainly incredulous) laughter from the floor only got louder.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that the consultation on this directive began over a decade ago, before the situation in the US exploded into the mess it is today. It is just one more example of how inadequate current legislative processes are at addressing the fast-paced world of technology.
The best thing that could happen to the Europe Software Patents directive now is for Brussels to throw it out and start afresh.
Talkback
Nothing would make our members, who all support the CII Directive, happier than if the EU's Council of Ministers threw out the Directive.
We could then remain with the status quo, which as everyone knows is working extremely well. Patents are being granted and innovation (including open source) is thriving.
Patents protect innovation!
Bull. Patents can't bring innovation as sooner or later every possible part of a computer will be patented by someone. Thus eliminating the need for competition.
Patents are the cornerstone of innovation. Why? Because if one cannot protect one's work, then no one has any incentive to develop that work. No one wants to spend years creating something only to have it stolen and copied by others. Without patents there would be no innovation, no creation. The elimination of patents is Communism - take from everyone and redistribute - a system in which no one owns anything.
If the U.S. patent system is such a 'mess' as this article claims, then perhaps ZDNet should ask itself why the U.S. economy is #1 in thw world. Anwser: it's because the U.S. protects IP and thus provides an incentive for developers and inventors to create things. Without that incentive, no one wouild bother making anything because it can be stolen by someone else.
Idiots. The only thing driving this political campaign are companies with deep pockets protecting their own interest. Anyone that doesn't see that (or claims to not see that) is either payed for or doesn't understand what is actually going on.
Furthermore, there's an ocean of difference between how the US compares to the EU .
In short, if you think that 'one size fits all' is the way to go then do as the stockholders of the deep pocket companies would like to see things happening (perhaps question why stockholders love 'one size fits all' so much). In any other case make sure that deep companies can only stay deep pocket companies by providing truly innovative and ground-breaking solutions time and time again without being handed the tools to break any competition without breaking into a sweat.
In other words, 'well deserved' should be protected for a short amount of time and not 'well locked in'. Currently the existing copyright laws provide some protection against that (thanks to how current law reacts to breaches of that right) but the suggested patent laws won't by far.
And if you think that todays current deep pocket companies already have provided innovative and ground-breaking solutions time and time again then clearly you don't have any clue of what's really happening out there.
Also a reason why politicians should be advised by real professionals and not by commercially motivated ( or sponsored, or informed by or otherwise mind controlled) 'professionals'.
Simon Gentry:
Software-"Patents are grantet" in EU already - right.
But they are not enforcrd. They cannot.
The anonymous software engineer who claims that patents are the cornerstone of innovation is clearly talking nonsense. No wonder he does not put his name to his opinions. Is he really suggesting that no innovation took place during early years of the computer industry? The 1977 Patent Act clearly excluded software.
I have been programming for 45 years and would suggest that, if anything, there is far too much pointless innovation and too little application of tried and tested techniques by competent software engineers.
Most of the innovation in the software field came out of academic and research institutions effectively paid for by public money for the public good. Why should large companies (who alone can afford the huge legal fees) be permitted to monopolise ideas which should be available to all?