Stallman crashes European Patent session

By Liz Tay on Sep 21, 2010 12:34 PM
Filed under Software

GNU founder protests Australian software patents.


See all pictures here »

Software freedom activist Richard Stallman made an unexpected appearance at a European Patent Office presentation in Brisbane today.

Stallman, pictured, who was also due to address the World Computer Congress later in the day, carried a placard that said: "Don't get caught in software patent thickets".

He briefly interrupted a presentation by European Patent Officer Ralf Abbing, who spoke about the "big issues in IP in relation to computing technology".

In his presentation, Abbing outlined the requirements for software patent applications under the European Patent Convention (EPC).

"We have a very narrow interpretation," Abbing said of patentable software.

According to Article 52 of the EPC, patented inventions had to be "susceptible of industrial application", new, and involve an inventive step.

The Article excluded aesthetic creations, discoveries, mathematical models, business methods and presentations of information from being patented.

Abbing explained that patentable software also had to be "technical" - that is, software that processed physical data parameters, controlled values of an industrial process, or affected "the way a computer operates".

As such, software that processed monetary values, defined auction rules, sold or booked packages, or defined promotional incentives could not be patented.

Eva Hopper, another patent examiner at the European Patent Office, said there were 300 examiners who dealt with computer software and hardware patents at the office.

In a separate presentation at the World Computer Congress, Hopper noted that innovators often made "significant investment" in developing new products.

Without intellectual property protections like patents, competitors could exploit this development work and marketing efforts, she said.

"Competitors see this product as successful and start building similar or even identical products ... at cheaper price, which will put pressure on the original inventor and eventually drive the innovator out of business," she said.

The presentations came as the Australian Advisory Council on Intellectual Property prepared a report on patentable subject matter, which would be released early next year.

Last month, a developer-led petition to abolish software patents in Australia attracted 1083 signatures.

Stallman said he supported the movement, and told iTnews that the European Patent Office was lobbying for software patents in Australia.

"We're here at the World Computer Congress and what I've discovered is that the European Patent Office is here to campaign in favour of software patents in Australia," he said.

"You can be sure that if Australia allows software patents, almost all the patents will belong to foreigners and will give them the opportunity to sue Australians.

"There's no problem that requires a solution with anything like software patents. Without software patents ... neither of us would get sued by the various patent troll companies whose sole business is collecting patents so that they could go threaten people."

Stallman was accompanied by another protestor and distributed printouts of his article about intellectual property being a "seductive mirage".

7 comments in this discussion

"Well, CyrusL, here's an opportunity for you or any other public-spirited open-source fans, to set up your own patent filter. Patent applications in major countries these days are published online, ..."

By ttim

Tags

stallman, rms, patent, foss, epo, epc, wcc2010

US patent ruling deals blow to NAB's Alice Corp

Debian 7.0 debuts with private cloud deployment tools

Court test looms for Apple's $450m damages award

Spanish regional government goes Linux for desktop PCs

Breaking Stories

NBN Co buys TransACT fibre network

Myer automates online order management

Google technology advocate sends NBN safety message

ACMA shops 'freephone' charge changes

Vodafone still losing Australian customers

Readers of this article also read...

Comments: 7

ITrant Sep 21, 2010 6:00 PM	The Patent system was designed to nurture innovation. Now that that system is broken, we need a new one.
longsword Sep 22, 2010 8:47 AM	The problem isn't really the Patent system more the allowing of litigation based on that system. A better solution would be a mandated review if a Patent holder advises a breach of their patent rather than allowing threats of litigation or litigation itself. I'm not a big fan of Open Source software as it's poorly supported and often causes other issues with ciritcal systems. I'd rather pay for software I know works and if necessary can get support for in the long run, it is quicker easier and most often cheaper to go down that path
Sams Sep 22, 2010 10:03 AM	"I'm not a big fan of Open Source software as it's poorly supported and often causes other issues with critical systems" Utter twaddle. Let me just go back through the updates I ran on my Ubuntu servers this week - all automatically downloaded and installed (granted I had to read the info and hit the 'y' key a couple of times): security patches for bzip2, apache, php5, samba, openssl, postgres and various other minor utilities and multimedia libraries. This is a regular event - all freely supported. No major issues. Uptime for our main hosting server is currently 319 days. Desktop system: updates to Firefox, Thunderbird and Inkscape. Why is it so well supported? Because there is a massive force of corporately-funded developers supporting the major open source projects and OS distributions. I you are having problems with open source affecting critical systems, I'd suggest PEBKAC. If you are trying to suggest that Microsoft software, with its well known ability to mangle open standards, is better for interworking with other systems, then that is simply laughable. "I'd rather pay for software I know works and if necessary can get support for in the long run, it is quicker easier and most often cheaper to go down that path" I rather pay for extra support when I need it from anyone competant (although I've never needed to) or pay anyone that can code well to add features that I might need but don't yet exist (again, never needed to). I'd rather not be locked into expensive long term licenses. I'd rather have systems unencumbered by licensing and DRM so I can develop with them and integrate them freely. I'd rather see what the code does than trust shady corporations.
peterhau Sep 22, 2010 11:04 AM	open source is the incubator for some of the most successful software in the market today. Novell and Redhat both have commercial and open source versions of their linux O/S and some of the advancements in the commercial versions owe their start to the open versions. Open SuSe and SuSe have different components, but the versions marry up with new releases. The open versions are always one step ahead... what open source does to the industry is create a global development team, every single user can adapt the source code to their requirements and they then put in the enhancements for the greater community to use - there aren't many malicious products, as it is a community environment.
phayes Sep 24, 2010 2:30 AM	Stallman makes a good point about the majority of patents being owned by external or semi-external entities. Though it might sound like scaremongering, actually it is exactly what one would expect and is the case even in Europe. On the other hand, Eva Hopper's scaremongering non sequitur is typical of the disingenuous economic nonsense the EPO and other patent promoters and apologists come out with. It's sad that those in charge of a system whose purpose is to promote progress in science and technology habitually inspire about as much confidence in their stewardship as might a homeopath in charge of a hospital, or a creationist in charge of a school biology curriculum.
CyrusLesser Sep 24, 2010 8:11 AM	The main problem with the patent system is that it's too easy to patent something that others have done or could easily do, but which the patent office doesn't know. Then once iot's granted it's expensive and difficult to revoke. There needs to be a global notice system calling for objections before any new patent is granted, but instead of it being published in an obscure patent attorney journal, it needs to be specifically sent to those with knowledge on the subject matter and to industry associations who can find out people who already know what's being claimed.
ttim Oct 6, 2010 6:09 AM	Well, CyrusL, here's an opportunity for you or any other public-spirited open-source fans, to set up your own patent filter. Patent applications in major countries these days are published online, years before they get granted. They aren't too difficult to watch for and search. If you find something really silly, you can object to it - often just by writing in. It would be a lot of work for one person, but a large group...? Of course, patents you consider silly will still get granted. But you should be able to stop at least some of those that slip through due to Patent Office ignorance (and don't be too hard on Patent Examiners, nobody can know everything, even with a computer!).