[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy europes-unitary-patent.html
|
From: |
Pavel Kharitonov |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy europes-unitary-patent.html |
|
Date: |
Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:21:23 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev> 11/08/25 15:21:23
Modified files:
philosophy : europes-unitary-patent.html
Log message:
Typographical refinements
s/“/\“/g;s/”/\”/g
s/’/'/g
s/ *— */\—/g
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/europes-unitary-patent.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
Patches:
Index: europes-unitary-patent.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/europes-unitary-patent.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- europes-unitary-patent.html 24 Aug 2011 23:37:30 -0000 1.1
+++ europes-unitary-patent.html 25 Aug 2011 15:21:18 -0000 1.2
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.57 -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<title>Europe’s “unitary patent” could mean unlimited
+<title>Europe's “unitary patent” could mean unlimited
software patents - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<h2>Europe’s “unitary patent” could mean unlimited
+<h2>Europe's “unitary patent” could mean unlimited
software patents</h2>
<p>by Richard Stallman<br />First published in <a
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/22/european-unitary-patent-software-warning";>
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
<p>Software patents are dangerous to software developers because they
impose monopolies on software ideas. It is not feasible or safe to
develop nontrivial software if you must thread a maze of patents. See
-“Software Patents and Literary Patents”, Guardian, June 20,
+“Software Patents and Literary Patents”, Guardian, June 20,
2005.</p>
<p>Every program combines many ideas; a large program implements thousands
@@ -38,11 +38,11 @@
software patents. The Parliament had previously amended it to reject
them, but the Council of Europe had undone those amendments.</p>
-<p>The Commission’s text was written in a sneaky way: when read by
+<p>The Commission's text was written in a sneaky way: when read by
laymen, it appeared to forbid patents on pure software ideas, because it
required a patent application to have a physical aspect. However, it
-did not require the “inventive step”, the advance that
-constitutes a patentable “invention”, to be physical.</p>
+did not require the “inventive step”, the advance that
+constitutes a patentable “invention”, to be physical.</p>
<p>This meant that a patent application could present the required physical
aspect just by mentioning the usual physical elements of the computer on
@@ -54,31 +54,31 @@
much of a limitation, since it is not practical to run a large program
by hand simulation.</p>
-<p>A massive grass-roots effort — the first one ever directed at
-convincing the European Parliament — resulted in defeat of the
+<p>A massive grass-roots effort—the first one ever directed at
+convincing the European Parliament—resulted in defeat of the
directive. But that does not mean we convinced half of Parliament to
reject software patents. Rather, it seems the pro-patent forces decided
at the last minute to junk their own proposal.</p>
<p>The volunteer activists drifted away, thinking the battle won, but the
corporate lobbyists for software patents were paid to stay on the job.
-Now they have contrived another sneaky method: the “unitary
-patent” system proposed for the EU. Under this system, if the
+Now they have contrived another sneaky method: the “unitary
+patent” system proposed for the EU. Under this system, if the
European Patent Office issues a patent, it will automatically be valid
in every participating country, which in this case means all of the EU
except for Spain and Italy.</p>
<p>How would that affect software patents? Evidently, either the unitary
-patent system would allow software patents or it wouldn’t. If it
+patent system would allow software patents or it wouldn't. If it
allows them, no country will be able to escape them on its own. That
would be bad, but what if the system rejects software patents? Then it
-would be good — right?</p>
+would be good—right?</p>
-<p>Right — except the plan was designed to prevent that. A small but
-crucial detail in the plan is that appeals against the EPO’s
-decisions would be decided based on the EPO’s own rules. The EPO
+<p>Right—except the plan was designed to prevent that. A small but
+crucial detail in the plan is that appeals against the EPO's
+decisions would be decided based on the EPO's own rules. The EPO
could thus tie European business and computer users in knots to its
-heart’s content.</p>
+heart's content.</p>
<p>The EPO has a vested interest in extending patents into as many areas of
life as it can get away with. With external limits (such as national
@@ -89,26 +89,26 @@
US appeals court just did</a>, no one could reverse that decision except
perhaps the European Court of Justice.</p>
-<p>In fact, the EPO’s decision about software patents has already
+<p>In fact, the EPO's decision about software patents has already
been made, and can be seen in action. The EPO has issued tens of
thousands of software patents, in contempt for the treaty that
-established it. (See <a href="http://webshop.ffii.org/";>“Your web
-shop is patented”</a>.) At present, though, each state decides
+established it. (See <a href="http://webshop.ffii.org/";>“Your web
+shop is patented”</a>.) At present, though, each state decides
whether those patents are valid. If the unitary patent system is adopted
and the EPO gets unchecked power to decide, Europe will get US-style
patent wars.</p>
<p>The European Court of Justice ruled in March that a unitary patent
-system would have to be subject to its jurisdiction, but it isn’t
+system would have to be subject to its jurisdiction, but it isn't
clear whether its jurisdiction would include substantive policy
-decisions such as “can software ideas be patented?”
-That’s because it’s not clear how the European Patent
+decisions such as “can software ideas be patented?”
+That's because it's not clear how the European Patent
Convention relates to the ECJ.</p>
<p>If the ECJ can decide this, the plan would no longer be certain
disaster. Instead, the ball would be one bounce away from disaster.
Before adopting such a system, Europe should rewrite the plan to make
-certain software is safe from patents. If that can’t be done, the
+certain software is safe from patents. If that can't be done, the
next best thing is to reject the plan entirely. Minor simplifications
are not worth a disaster; harmonization is a misguided goal if it means
doing things wrong everywhere.</p>
@@ -122,14 +122,14 @@
<p>More information about the drawbacks and legal flaws of this plan can be
found in <a href="http://unitary-patent.eu";>unitary-patent.eu</a>.</p>
-<p>You will note that the term “intellectual property” has not
+<p>You will note that the term “intellectual property” has not
been used in this article. That term spreads confusion because it is
applied to a dozen unrelated laws. Even if we consider just patent law
and copyright law, they are so different in their requirements and
effects that generalizing about the two is a mistake. Absolutely
nothing in this article pertains to copyright law. To avoid leading
people to generalize about disparate laws, I never use the term
-“intellectual property”, and I never miss it either.</p>
+“intellectual property”, and I never miss it either.</p>
<!-- If needed, change the copyright block at the bottom. In general,
all pages on the GNU web server should have the section about
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@
<p>Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2011/08/24 23:37:30 $
+$Date: 2011/08/25 15:21:18 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>