I think you are a little ahead of the game. According to that article, it seems that the European Council did, but it still has to go back to the Parliament (and then maybe back to the council--I wasn't sure) before it goes into effect as a directive.

So it's not over yet.

I wouldn't object terribly much to software patents--if software wasn't also already covered by copyright. At least patents have a shorter term, and require the patentholder to prove he/she has come up with a truly unique idea.

Now the *administration* of patents, at least in America, leaves a LOT to be desired. Ridiculous patents like Amazon's "one-click" shopping should never have been approved.

--Dave

Well, Dave, as you know, I'm against both copyrighting or patenting software simply because both activities stifle innovation. I do agree that, in some ways, patents are less restrictive because of the 20 year time limit (opposed to lifetime of the author + 75 years for copyright). However, patent infringments are more dangerous in the longhaul because (a) they are incredibly expensive in court for both parties and (b) they are far more restrictive than copyrights.

A patent on word processors, for instance, would have shut down any company trying to make them for 20 years. This would have either (a) created an almost omnipotent software company specializing in what would undoubtedly be a third or fourth-rate program or (b) stifled the industry. One of the reasons we have decent word processors now is precisely the fact that we had good competition for many years. However, once Microsoft was able to become the proprietary standard of computer operating systems, that competition was virtually eliminated and relegated to woefully small-time efforts that "Real Business (c)" refuse to take seriously.

It is only through competition that innovation is allowed to flourish. Now, supposedly IP laws stimulate innovation by rewarding the efforts of authors and inventors; however, it is has been clearly shown by history that such laws only eliminate competition, which is the key to a flourishing capitalist society--for both companies and consumers.

Indeed, software companies should not worry about patents and copyrights but solely about the overall quality of their product. The only IP laws should involve trademarks and registered trademarks.

true about amazon, and this is the trend unfortunately. but i think that copyright is more desirable since it's expression, not ideas. software patents will prevent other companies from emulating applications, even if the code base is not the same. and where it's really bad is with the open source community. companies can afford the patent applications for ideas; open source communities cannot. and it's been shown already (sorry, can't pull up the link) that the us patent office is granting patents for software that should not be eligible because the concepts are not original. open souce communities do not have the funds to fight this.

reminds me of what lessig objected to about fair use in free culture. seems that someone made the point to him that fair use doesn't work when no one has the money to fight for their fair use rights. software patents are going to hurt in the same way.

Here's an article Lessig wrote for the Standard concerning software patents. Here are some of the high-lights:

On average it takes $1.2 million to challenge the validity of a patent, which means it is often cheaper simply to pay the royalties than to establish that the patent isn't deserved.

An increasingly significant cost of Net startups involves both defensive and offensive lawyering - making sure you don't "steal" someone else's "idea" and quickly claiming as yours every "idea" you can describe in a patent application.

Washington is obsessed with intellectual-property rights. It lives under the mistaken idea that stronger IP always means a stronger economy. No doubt it means larger campaign contributions, but whether it means a better market is a tougher question.