GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Europe voted against Software Patents (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=182450)

jeroman 10-04-2003 06:48 AM
Europe voted against Software Patents
 
Europe voted against software patents and for freedom of publication, freedom of interoperation and other basic values of the information society!


FUCK ACACIA

JamesK 10-04-2003 06:51 AM
god bless europe

Calvinguy 10-04-2003 06:52 AM
Link?

<IMX> 10-04-2003 06:57 AM
NICE...


Now, will they allow the U.S. companies that kick ass in to compete?

Probably not.

They are trying to undercut U.S. intellectual property.

Not saying it is not a good thing to do, just saying it is politically motivated.

Paul Markham 10-04-2003 07:04 AM
Give me the link and I will send it around the boards, this is good news.

Theo 10-04-2003 07:22 AM
"Under the proposal, an ?invention? requires a contribution to the state of the art in a technical field. For an invention to be patentable it must be technical, new, non-obvious, and susceptible of industrial application. But the draft now states that a computer-implemented invention should not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus.

This means that patents should not be granted for software inventions that implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the machine or network on which it operates."

and thats how things should be

Groove 10-04-2003 07:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Soul_Rebel
"Under the proposal, an ?invention? requires a contribution to the state of the art in a technical field. For an invention to be patentable it must be technical, new, non-obvious, and susceptible of industrial application. But the draft now states that a computer-implemented invention should not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus.

This means that patents should not be granted for software inventions that implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the machine or network on which it operates."

and thats how things should be
If this interpretation is correct, it's fantastic news! :thumbsup

But what the fuck is this guy talking about? ....

Quote:

The U.S. patent system has become a mace that large companies can use against smaller ones. Just the threat of a patent infringement suit incurs onerous legal fees on the threatened company. That can be enough to break a low-budget outfit or shutter an open source project.

The European nations that avoided these conditions can no longer breathe easy; the EC voted in favor of its software patent legislation. I find no pleasure in knowing that Europe will soon be in the same mess we?re in.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/...OPcurve_1.html :eek7

doober 10-04-2003 07:34 AM
does this mean people will not be receiving purple information packets in europe now?

doober 10-04-2003 07:42 AM
I heard they are hittin colleges now cause they are gettin tight for beer money.
Maybe it would be easier if they backed down and started to play nice, before they get squashed anyway

:glugglug

flashfreak 10-04-2003 07:42 AM
this happens when people THINK!

Groove 10-04-2003 08:02 AM
This one needs a bump :glugglug

Sarah_Jayne 10-04-2003 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Wildcard
god bless europe

:)

Gasper 10-04-2003 08:36 AM
Fantastic :thumbsup

FightThisPatent 10-05-2003 06:43 AM
Acacia isn't affected by EU's decision not to include software patents.

The Acacia patents are a process patent, there is no technology or software, or even a product.

It's funny when you read Acacia's Press Release statements and they talk about companies licensing their "technology".

Acacia's patent is particularly troubling for the fact it is a process patent... they describe the process of digitizing audio or video with compression, then storage on a server, with tranmission to a PC for playback.

No technology here at all, in fact, this process patent relies on technology companies to provide the pieces.

It is the end-user (the website) that "uses" the process by piecing everything together.

So if a webmaster buys their video content from some distributor (this covers the digitization and compression) and stores it on their webserver (this is the storage part), and then people are able to download and view the video (this is the transmission and playback), whether using a streaming video server, or just using HTTP/FTP for the downloading, then the website is "infringing" upon Acacia's patent claims.

Another thing that is very absurd, is that a company can INTERPRET and CLAIM anything they want that can be LOOSELY based on the actual patent.

They can then use the Justice System to intimate people into believing that what they SAY is what the patent SAYS, packaged in a legal FU document that lists licensing fee rates and C&D type language.

For those that defend themselves and believe the claims to be INVALID, and end up winning in court, are left with attorney bills that they can't pass on to the plantiff.

There is some very good potential prior art against Acacia's patents (and other patents from other companies).

Any company that is faced with their "information packets" should contact me since i provide my assistance with prior art for free.

Fight The Patent!

chemicaleyes 10-05-2003 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by jeroman
Europe voted against software patents and for freedom of publication, freedom of interoperation and other basic values of the information society!


FUCK ACACIA
:thumbsup

FightThisPatent 10-05-2003 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by jeroman


FUCK ACACIA


bump

jeroman 10-09-2003 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FightThisPatent
Acacia isn't affected by EU's decision not to include software patents.....................
I belive acacia would fit the description for software patents
in europe. I hear what you say and agree but if it can't fit
into the software area there is just no place for it in europe
and that, in the end, would mean the same thing for european webmasters.

:thumbsup

FightThisPatent 10-09-2003 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by jeroman


I belive acacia would fit the description for software patents
in europe. I hear what you say and agree but if it can't fit
into the software area there is just no place for it in europe
and that, in the end, would mean the same thing for european webmasters.

:thumbsup

Their patent has already been granted in europe:

http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/patents.htm


I have heard that they did some information packets to webmasters in Europe.... while Acacia is based in California, they can easily contact IP firms in europe to carry on their patent infringrment claims in your backyard.



Fight the Patent!

Groove 10-09-2003 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FightThisPatent
Acacia isn't affected by EU's decision not to include software patents.
You keep saying this. But do you know it for a fact?

I have read several stories which imply that Acacia's patents
WOULD be invalidated under the proposed legislation.

For example a story in the Detroit News said:

Quote:

The European Parliament voted to ban business method patents such as Amazon.com Inc.'s "one-click" Internet shopping feature, in an effort to prevent U.S. companies from dominating Europe's $60 billion software market.
http://www.detnews.com/2003/technolo...ogy-280529.htm

Or here's a quote from Macworld UK:

Quote:

Votes cast tallied 364 voting in favour, 153 against and 33 abstentions. Several amendments to the original proposal were passed. MEPs agreed to one which outlaws the patenting of algorithms. Another explicitly outlaws the patenting of business methods, such as the "one-click" shopping technology patented in the US by Amazon.com.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_...fm?NewsID=6954

These stories are talking about invalidating business method patents!

Does anyone know of anywhere online that has copies of
the relevant EU patent legislation and amendments?

Groove 10-09-2003 06:30 PM
OK this is from the official EU web site:

Quote:
Patentability of computerised inventions

Arlene McCARTHY (PES, North West)
Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions
(COM(2002) 92 ? C5-0082/2002 ? 2002/0047(COD))
Doc.: A5-0238/2003
Procedure : Codecision (1st reading)
Debate : 23.09.2003
Vote : 24.09.2003
Vote

Parliament adopted a legislative resolution on computer implemented inventions. The central question was whether the current practice of the European Patent Office issuing patents for computer implemented inventions should be formally legalised. MEPs answered this question positively by voting 361 votes in favour, 157 against and 28 abstentions on the legislative resolution. Although a number of amendments limited the allocation of patents so as to ensure that patents would not be issued for actual software.

MEPs strictly define a "computer-implemented invention as any invention in the sense of the European Patent Convention the performance of which involves the use of a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus and having in its implementations one or more non-technical features which are realised wholly or partly by a computer program or computer programs, besides the technical features that any invention must contribute." Furthermore, article 52 of the Convention on patents states that software is not patentable.

To limit the scope of the directive, MEPs also strictly define what is meant by the "technical contribution", also called "invention", it means a contribution to the state of the art in a technical field. The technical character of the contribution is one of the four requirements for patentability. Additionally, to deserve a patent, the technical contribution has to be new, non-obvious, and susceptible of industrial application.

MEPs also insisted on defining areas excluded from the directive by saying that a computer-implemented invention should not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run should not be patentable. Member States will also have to ensure that patent claims granted in respect of computer-implemented inventions include only the technical contribution which justifies the patent claim.

On the used of patented techniques, MEPs say that the Member States should ensure that, wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for a significant purpose such as ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or networks so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use should not be considered to be a patent infringement.

Finally, MEPs also introduce a "grace period" in respect of elements of a patent application for any type of invention disclosed prior to the date of the application. It has been strongly argued that a grace period is necessary to avoid an inventor being deprived of his or her invention when it has been made public before applying for a patent, for instance in order to test its attractiveness to the market. It is maintained that this would be particularly useful for innovative SMEs and cooperation between universities and industry. However, such an innovation could not be introduced solely for patents for computer-implemented inventions without a prior study of its impact and its compatibility with the Community's international obligations under, for instance, TRIPs.
http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipa...NAV=S#SECTION2

JDog 10-09-2003 06:32 PM
Hey, that's the way it should be!

jDoG


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123