14:29 http://native-lang.openoffice.org/conference/ 14:29 hi all, no slides provided by Simon? :) 14:34 hi 14:37 hello everybody 14:38 AietKolkhi: hi :) 14:38 hi 14:42 Hi all 14:42 Hi Khirano, sorry you just disconnected while i was answering 14:43 Hi all 14:43 Hi simon 14:43 afternoon simon 14:45 If you want to look at the presentation already, it's here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~simonbr/software_patents.sxi 14:46 simondr: thx 14:48 Hi Khirano. 14:48 Hi Simon 14:50 just mentioned this conference on #bxl-ffii, should have earlier 14:50 felipe: indeed :) 14:50 clemen1:Welcome, not so hard ;) 14:52 we thought you were ditching us ;) 14:53 afternoon Jeroen 14:53 afternoon :-) 14:54 is Daniel coming ? 14:55 if I'd have seen the conf topic ealier I would have emailed 14:59 hi all 14:59 Hi Jza 14:59 hi Alexandro 15:00 Hi all 15:00 Hi all, what do you think, shall I start the talk or wait a bit 15:01 perharps a call on #openoffice.org channel 15:01 ? 15:01 subject is ok now? 15:02 Laurent, could you do that? 15:02 considering the importance of the issue, I'd even say /wallop 15:02 well ... hummm ... tadaa ......... i go 15:02 Felipe, what do you mean by that? 15:03 simonbr: done 15:03 Thanks Laurent 15:04 simonbr: :) 15:04 simonbr: the /wallops command (operators only) sends the message to all on the network with "mode +w", i.e. those who want to receive just messages. 15:04 aha 15:05 hi cloph, welcome! 15:05 Hi * :-) 15:06 hi oramirez, welcome! 15:06 Did all of you already get the presentation, it's at http://www.xs4all.nl/~simonbr/software_patents.sxi 15:07 I did 15:07 nope, I'll look now 15:07 simonbr: you should repost the url of your slides for new commers 15:07 nope, thanks 15:07 simonbr: oups, sorry 15:07 yes, i like banana ;) 15:07 yes, a beautifull one 15:08 khirano, hi.. thanks.. 15:08 It was the banana I had for lunch on the day the Council of Ministers passed the directive proposal as an A item 15:10 (I will explain about that later on) 15:10 simonbr: sure :) looks sweet! 15:10 Shall I start with the talk? 15:11 yes 15:11 kick it 15:11 go ahead 15:11 OK. 15:11 Let's start with the introduction sheet. 15:12 Welcome to my online presentation about software patents. As Daniel already said in his announcement, software patents are one of the greatest threats to free software. 15:12 The frontline of the fight agains software patentsis now in Europe. A European Directive is being prepared, which may give software patents a firm legal basis. 15:13 In this presentation, I want to give an overview of what is happening in this area. 15:13 It says "a short introduction", I hope it will not be too long :) 15:14 The presentation is structured as follows. First, I'd like to go into patents in general. What are patents, and why do we have them? 15:14 Then, what makes software so special that we are talking about "software patents"? Why did we not have software patents for a long time, and on the other hand, in what sense is software similar to inventions that can be patented? 15:15 The US has known software patents for some time. How did it come to be this way? 15:15 Next, the history of software patents in the European Union. 15:16 I will be discussing in some detail the history of the European directive on "Patentability of Computer-implemented inventions" which may give software patents a firm legal basis in the EU. 15:16 And finally: what is going to happen next, and what can we still do to attempt turning this threat around? 15:17 For those who are just entering the room, get the presentation, it's at http://www.xs4all.nl/~simonbr/software_patents.sxi 15:18 why it's in english 15:18 So far, am I going too fast or too slow? 15:18 too slow 15:18 OK 15:19 Next slide, What are Patents 15:19 A patent is intended to induce an inventor to disclose knowledge for the advancement of society. In exchange for the disclosure, the inventor receives a limited period of exclusivity on the invention. 15:19 So if you invent something, and are able to get a patent on it, that means you can legally prevent someone else to produce, sell or use your invention, for a duration of 20 years. 15:19 IIf you don't have the means to profit from your invention then you can also give out licences. Such licenses are in fact an agreement not to sue the licensee for making use of your invention. 15:20 Ready for the next slide? 15:20 yes 15:20 yup# 15:20 Why have patents? 15:20 The reason for having patent law is to promote innovation. Without patents, an inventor may decide not to pursue an idea, because anybody would be able to use the invention, therefore the inventor may not be able to profit from it. 15:21 This means useful ideas may not become available to society. The possibility to patent an invention makes it interesting to pursue, because it gives the inventor the means to profit from the invention. 15:21 Next slide - Why is software a special case? 15:22 The U.S. Patent Statute states that "Processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter are patentable." 15:22 form != form ;) 15:22 Not patentable are scientific truths or mathematical expressions of it. 15:22 In the European Patent Convention of 1973, computer programs are excluded from patentability. 15:23 Also, software can be considered a form of expression comparable to mathematics and literature. For this reason, software is covered by copyright, which sets it apart from things that can be patented. 15:24 Next slide - why could software be considered patentable? 15:24 Software makes a machine (a computer, or another technical apparatus) *do* something. In this sense it is clearly different from a mathematical truth or a literary work. 15:24 In many cases, the same function of a device can be implemented in hardware (for example a logic circuit) or in software (an embedded processor whose programming results in the same effect). 15:25 An example that is often quoted by the proponents of software patents is an automatic brake system. Its behaviour could be controlled by pneumatics, analog electronics, or an embedded microcontroller with a software program. 15:25 So it's not so obvious that software is not similar to the kinds of technology that can be patented. 15:26 Next slide- What is against software patents? 15:26 With software patents, sofe development becomes a legal minefield. Any software that is nontrivial may infringe on hundreds softwarepatents, even if independently developed without knowledge of those patents. 15:26 Instead of concentrating on development the developer has to invest time to deal with software patents. In the US, researchers have found that software patents lead to less investment in R&D. 15:27 Thus, software patents tend to *obstruct* innovation rather than promote it. 15:27 This is not such a big deal for big companies, because they are often able to make cross licensing deals. In fact companies such as Microsoft and Philips are among the big promotors of software patents. 15:27 Small and medium enterprises however don't have the means to make big patent portfolios. So they are at a big disadvantage 15:28 Software patents are especially bad for Free Software projects. Even the threat of infringement is in some cases enough to stop or severely hinder a project. For instance the instant messenger Kopete is threatened by IM patents, and PostgreSQL had to revert to an inferior caching scheme due to patents. Of course we all know about the GIF patents. GIF was not supported by Free software until the patent recently ended. 15:29 Ready for the next slide? (software patents in the US) 15:29 <_kd> yes 15:29 yes 15:29 simon: what are sme's 15:30 In the 1970s, the U.S. P.T.O. (Patent and Trademark Office) avoided granting any patent if the invention utilized a calculation made by a computer. It viewed computer programs and inventions containing or relating to computer programs as mere mathematical algorithms, and not processes or machines. 15:30 Caracremada, Small and Medium Enterprises 15:30 In 1981 the Supreme Court forced the P.T.O to change it position, in the case of Diamond v. Diehr. In that case, the invention related to a method for determining how rubber should be heated in order to be best "cured." 15:31 The invention (as defined by the claims) included not only the computer program, but also included steps relating to heating rubber, and removing the rubber from the heat. 15:31 The Supreme Court stated that in this case, the invention was not merely a mathematical algorithm, but was a process for molding rubber, and hence was patentable. 15:31 even though the only "novel" feature of this invention was the timing process controlled by the computer. 15:32 In the early 1990s, the Federal Circuit (the highest court for patent matters other than the Supreme Court) tried to clarify when a software related invention was patentable. If the invention utilizes the computer to manipulate numbers that represent concrete, real world values then it is a process relating to those real world concepts and is patentable. 15:32 In 1996, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office adopted its Final Computer Related Examination Guidelines.A computer related invention will be patentable if it is claimed in connection with a specific machine or product. This can be accomplished by claiming the invention in connection with a specific type of computer or memory structure. What is not important is the type of computer program involved. 15:33 For example a graphics program, a spreadsheet, and a word processing program are statutory when properly claimed. 15:33 Next slide - Software patents in Europe 15:34 In Europe, the European Patent Convention (treaty) of 1973 prohibited patenting of, among others, computer programs. 15:34 In 1986 the European Patent Office (EPO) started granting patents that were directed to computer programs but presented in the guise of process claims, typically phrased as follows: "1. process for [using general-purpose computing equipment], characterised by ..." 15:35 Patents granted on this basis were considered as hypothetical. The program as such, when distributed on a disk or via the Internet, did not constitute acess and was not an invention. To resolve this ambiguity, the European Patent Office took the final step toward patentability of pure software in 1998 by authorising program claims, i.e. claims of the following form: "2. computer program, characterised by that [with its help a process according to cl 15:35 DIR="LTR"> In August 2000 the European Patent Organisation, i.e. the intergovernmental organisation that runs the European Patent Office, attempted to delete all the exclusions listed under Art 52 of the European Patent Convention (such as the one about computer programs). Due to public resistance which they apparently did not anticipate, this effort failed. 15:35 15:36 In 2002 the European Commission proposed a European Directive on "Patentability of computer implemented inventions". 15:36 "computer implemented inventions" is a euphemism for software, of course. 15:37 Next slide - Democracy? 15:37 yep :) 15:37 There was much protest against the directive, which in effect would make most software patentable. 15:37 Hey this is a great presentation so far simonbr 15:37 thanks 15:37 The FFII (Foundation for Free Information Interchange) did much work to analyze the directive and to promote changes to it. 15:38 The European Parliament then tabled a great number of amendments and voted in favor of them. The result would be a directive with real limits to patentability of software, and would be acceptable to those opposing software patents. 15:38 According to the European procedures, the Council of Ministers (consisting of ministers of the member states) was then to revise the proposal, taking into account the amendments of the European Parliament. However, they then presented a proposal in which the most important amendments were disregarded! It would allow (if possible) even more software patents than the original proposal. 15:39 The parliaments of several member ststed against acceptance of this proposal, but after a confusing period the second step for acceptance was taken by the Council of Ministers. 15:40 Several member state parliaments (notably Poland and Denmark) attempted to make use of procedural possibilities to keep this from happening, but all attempts to do this were foiled. According to the Luxembourg president of the Council "This is not a banana union"! 15:41 i see, there banana go. 15:41 You can see the banana I had in my lunch that day. 15:42 If this runaway train could have been stopped, the directive would probably have to be remade from scratch, and the public discussion would have led to a much more acceptable result. 15:43 (sorry for the delay right now) 15:43 Next slide, "what's next?" 15:43 eating a banana?:) 15:44 With the acceptance of the proposal by the Council of Ministers, the Europarliament has to look at it again. In "second reading" they can again vote for amendments. 15:44 This part of the procedure actually started yesterday, april 15. The European Parliament has to decide on the Council proposal and file its amendments until 2005-07-15 . 15:44 Unfortunately this time for each amendment to be accepted, an absolute majority is required. The votes of Members of the parliament who are absent from the voting, are also counted. So in practice the amendments require about 70 % of the votes of the MEPs present. 15:45 The Europarliament is quite angry about the way the proposal has been handled by the Council, and this may mean it will not accept the proposal so easily. Rejection is also possible. But it is difficult to predict the outcome. 15:45 Next slide - What can we do? 15:46 I am convinced that awareness of the arguments pro and contra software patents is of the greatest importance. The more the public and the politicians know about the subject, the more likely they will be against software p15:47 The pro-software patents lobby has already been active talking to journalists. For example, this week in the NRC, a Dutch newspaper that is regarded as quite respectable, there was a big article that compared the anti-software patent people to anarchists. 15:48 But in Trouw, another Dutch newspaper, a pro-software patents article was followed up by a very good article explaining the objections to software patents. Reactions from the community played a big part in the article coming about. 15:48 Next slide, where to find more information 15:49 I recommend www.nosoftwarepatents.com The tone of this website is rather alarming (you could almost call it FUD) but it is much more accessible. 15:49 15:50 that is, more than the site of the FFII, www.ffii.org. Very detailed information, information overload. www.ffii.org 15:51 It is a very complicated subject, anyway. 15:51 The conclusion... 15:51 Ok question, I am not european, nor north american, so my question is what can I do regarding this issue. I remember there were systems about signature collection on (remember the one about Brasilian congressman vs. Microsoft) where people from all over (not just Brazil) was encourage to add their 'support signature'. Is there something similar about this here. any URL? 15:52 The subject is very complicated for a short presentation. It was much longer than I had envisioned. I hope that I was able to convey the most important points. 15:52 Simon: you certainly have - clap clap clap 15:52 clap clap clap clap 15:52 simonbr:clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap 15:53 * JZA clap clap clap 15:53 applause :) 15:53 simonbr: Excellent 15:53 applause :) 15:53 Thank you all for the attention! 15:53 sorry for being late! I set my phone to act as an alarm, but it was in "vibrate" mode!! 15:53 *clap clap clap clap* 15:53 Simon: can we ask questions now? 15:53 Sure 15:53 Ok 1. Is the presentation available in other languages? 15:54 2. If not, can we translate it (with you name still on it)? 15:54 No, but of course you can translate it... 15:54 3. Has it been sent to all MEP's? 15:54 With my name on it OK 15:55 No, I made this presentation specially for this occasion. 15:55 Caracremada: you might be able to synchronize that with FFII Spain or Proinnova people 15:55 Hi simon I asked a question before, about how can people from abroad get involve. 15:55 4. filipe good idea 15:56 JZA, keep a close watch what your government is doing with respect to software patents 15:56 simonbr: thanks 15:56 simonbr: How long do software patents last in the US and Europe? is it the same amount of time as normal patents? 15:56 JZA: You can organize talks and create awareness!! 15:56 20 years 15:56 4. Is there a standard letter we can send to our MEP's that's been written. We can get more people that way since many don't want to compose their own letter. 15:56 Q:Any suggestion on how to get the USPTO to stop issueing patents that are based upon prior art. [ RSA, One click, etc? ] 15:56 JZA: For example, I invited Simon to give a talk :-) 15:56 Caracremada: you could try "es-parl at ffii dot org" if you're not already there. 15:57 felipe, sorry my spanish is not good. I speak catalan but not spanish 15:57 Caracremada: it is better to make your own letter. That would give a more sincere impression. 15:57 ahh :) 15:57 Of course it is also very important to be very polite when you write to MEPs 15:58 Caracremada: barcelona? 15:58 Caracremada: http://patents.caliu.info 15:58 please can you speak in french? 15:58 simonbr: yes but some important points enumarated as a check list could be usefull 15:58 simon: I agree but many people don't have the time or will to compose their own. Other causes, use similar methods. Anyone is free to write their own. JZA: girona 15:58 There is lots of info on writing letters on the FFII web site 15:59 Ok, I'll check it out, thx 15:59 kartoon:this is an international talk sorry 15:59 Actually I would rather not have to spend time with software patents, but it is too important 16:00 simonbr: I see a rather dark future for free software if corporate interests become law. How bad do you think it will get for video player projects, where I understand it is a "patent minefield" 16:01 I think it may be possible that Free Software video player projects give up due to patent threats. There are already signals that they would 16:01 Seamus, if you use linux you have a hard time playing DVD's that you have bought legally!!! Because of the encryption. 16:02 The free MP3 encoder project LAME already is out of the picture because of those concerns 16:02 Videolan is in trouble too because of the patents. 16:02 the LAME project is dead? 16:02 yes, as far as I know 16:03 Mplayer too, I could go on and on. It's really dangerous. 16:03 But all those apatents were issued despite being bopth blatently obvious, and based upon prior art! 16:03 about the duration, are there any plan to reduce the 20 years ? what were software 20 years ago, what will they be in 20 years ? 16:04 No such plans as far as I am aware. 16:04 It is clear that software innovation will not have the same pace as before. 16:05 I'll try and get some articles published in the Girona papers on this subject. Also El Pais has a supplement on informatica and friends of mine are journalists on that paper. 16:05 @pseudo_daoist: it is difficult and costly to have a patent declared invalid due to prior art 16:06 simon, Could an american company attempt to prosecute a european company over patent infringement if there aren't such patent laws in said european company? 16:06 and the patent offices are not always able to determine if an invention has prior art/ is obvious 16:06 in that particular country, I meant 16:07 Seamus, they could. But the judge may not give them what they want. 16:07 It is not possible reducing length of patent protection, TRIP says, that all signators are requested to prove, that patent will protect at least 20 years. And revision of TRIP is not on the plan for many many years 16:07 Caracremada: do you have an email address you could give me? 16:08 Caracremada: msg please? 16:08 danohnesorg: what is TRIP ? 16:08 simon, but the threat of a large company such as microsoft could be enough to kill a project 16:09 Seamus, sure. 16:09 sorry TRIPS, a multi (almost all) country agreement, made by WTO memebers 16:09 danohnesorg: sorry, what is WTO (trying to decode acronyms) 16:09 In fact I believe that most of the 30.000 software patents that the EPO has already given out are in the hands of US companies 16:10 wow 16:10 World Trade Organization 16:10 danohnesorg:thx 16:10 Would it be worthwhile sending letters the european newspapers listing the patents that have been issued, and the prior art that either their patent office, or more commonly the USPTO ignorned/did not know about? 16:11 Especially if that prior art were 1 000 years old? 16:12 simonbr I don't know what I can do about this, it seems as if corporations control america and most people are so uninformed/uncaring on the issue that things may never change 16:12 pseudo_daoist: someone successfully got a patent for the wheel. 16:13 you must also note very important point if the rules changes while the play is running, the player, which is used for new rules wins, so if you will allow USPO rules in europe, companies, which have already US patents will winn most of European patents too, while players here will search what is under new rules possible, US players will be getting patents 16:13 pseudo_daoist, simonbr: I think pseudo's idea is very good. 16:13 http://webshop.ffii.org 16:14 That is where you can see the possible effect of a number of patents that were already issued by the EPO 16:16 Seamus, the most important thing to do is to raise awareness of the issues with everyone you know, the general public, the media, the politicians. 16:16 The effectiveness of that has already been surprising. 16:16 I'm off now. Thanks to Simon and to all of you for the discussion. 35 people is a start (and surely other things are going on too). Thanks to you all. Bye. 16:17 but we also have to give clear actions to do 16:17 Who knows it is enough to have the directive amended again or thrown out completely., 16:17 otherwise people will only say : yes, bad ... 16:18 Laurent, keep an eye on FFII.org. There are mailing lists you could subscribe to. This works very well to coordinate actions 16:18 ok 16:19 but should be part of the spreading of the 'information' 16:20 Again, thanks for the attention all! 16:21 simonbr: I will keep my eyes on Japanese government. 16:21 thanks to you Simon 16:21 simonbr: thanks! 16:21 simonbr: Thank you very much for your time and your efforts. 16:21 Thank you Simon! 16:21 Bye 16:21 10x Simon 16:21 bye Simon :) 16:21 bye 16:22 all: bye, it seems i have some reading on FFII to perform ... 16:22 khirano: also in Japan is patent system harmonized with USA system and software patents are legal 16:22 danohnesorg: you are right. 16:23 actually in Mexico, (I just found out) that there is no patents for free software..... then again we don't have a mature software industry :) 16:24 khirano: also USA, Australia and Japan have software patents, and now is made some agreement under WTO with China, that there should be software patents - USA patent system - implemented too 16:25 hmm, China doesn't want that. for sure. 16:26 felipe: i was in EU parl last week and i have heard, that china will accept it, but I have no link to some paper about this 16:27 well, that would be an enormous setback for uhhh everything 16:27 do you have any reference at all that I could check, something I could google for, a date maybe..? 16:29 I dont have, but vicepresident mr. Ouzky said it, there is no acceptance of copyright, but they have suceeded with acceptance of patents, so he said, that it will be better to protect software with patents than with copyright, becouse other way china will destroy software industry in europe 16:30 danohnesorg: it's shame :( We have a saying, If U.S. coughs then Japan gets cold. 16:31 no kidding 16:31 that's a good reason for them *not* to accept though. 16:32 and would put enormous pressure on Europe to do the same if their decision was already made and publicized. 16:32 its very complicated, we have very long speech about lisabon strategy and he wonted from me to explain, how will be protected the outcome from this strategy, if copyright won't protect algorithms in software and patent protection is no acceptable for me 16:32 khirano: wow we said that if US get a cold, Mexico get bornquitis 16:35 JZA: let us chage :) 16:35 the problem we have is that the US *does* have a patent cold. 16:37 either the rest of the world gets sick too, or the rest of the world stays healthy and they will be forced to find some kind of solution to their sickness. 16:38 DanielC: did you get the log? 16:38 khirano: felipe is sending me one. 16:38 *nod* 16:38 good 16:38 :) 16:40 thanks everyone, good night 16:41 see you again, bye :) 16:41 bye bye, thank you for comming. 16:41 yeah, good uhhh evening ;) 16:41 morning 16:41 :-) 16:42 is there anybody who I haven't been chatting privately with that I should have been chatting privately with? if so, message me please. 17:44 * DanielC is away: food! food! food!