| 1 |
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> |
| 2 |
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> |
| 3 |
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> |
| 4 |
<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays laws patents" --> |
| 5 |
<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> |
| 6 |
<title>Opposing The European Software Patent Directive |
| 7 |
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> |
| 8 |
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/guardian-article.translist" --> |
| 9 |
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> |
| 10 |
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> |
| 11 |
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> |
| 12 |
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> |
| 13 |
<div class="article reduced-width"> |
| 14 |
<h2>Opposing The European Software Patent Directive</h2> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
<address class="byline">by <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard |
| 17 |
Stallman</a> and Nick Hill</address> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
<div class="infobox"> |
| 20 |
<p><em> |
| 21 |
The European Union software patent directive, which this 2003 article |
| 22 |
opposed, was ultimately dropped by its own supporters after facing |
| 23 |
lots of opposition. However, they later found another way to impose |
| 24 |
software patents on most of Europe: through fine print in |
| 25 |
the <a href="/philosophy/europes-unitary-patent.html">unitary |
| 26 |
patent</a>.</em></p> |
| 27 |
</div> |
| 28 |
<hr class="thin" /> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
<p> |
| 31 |
The computer industry is threatened by a Wild West-style land grab. The |
| 32 |
biggest, richest companies are being assisted by governments to take |
| 33 |
unassailable exclusive control of the ideas that programmers combine to |
| 34 |
make a program.</p> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
<p> |
| 37 |
Our society is becoming more dependent on information technology. At |
| 38 |
the same time, centralised control over and ownership of the |
| 39 |
information technology field is increasing, and mega-corporations with |
| 40 |
law-given dominion over our computers could take away our freedoms and |
| 41 |
democracy. With an effective monopoly on modern software, the largest |
| 42 |
grabbers of the “land” will have control over what we can |
| 43 |
ask our computers to do, and control over production and distribution |
| 44 |
of information on the net, through monopolies that the EU plans to |
| 45 |
give them.</p> |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
<p> |
| 48 |
The monopolies are patents, each one restricting use of one or several |
| 49 |
of these software ideas. We call them “software patents” |
| 50 |
because they restrict what we programmers can make software do. How do |
| 51 |
these monopolies work? If you wish to use your computer as a word |
| 52 |
processor, it must follow instructions that tell it how to act like a |
| 53 |
word processor. This is analogous to instructions found on a musical |
| 54 |
score, which tell an orchestra how to play a symphony. The |
| 55 |
instructions are not simple. They are made up of thousands of smaller |
| 56 |
instructions, much like sequences of notes and chords. A symphonic |
| 57 |
score embodies hundreds of musical ideas, and a computer program uses |
| 58 |
hundreds or thousands of software ideas. Since each idea is abstract, |
| 59 |
there are often different ways to describe it: thus, some ideas can be |
| 60 |
patented in multiple ways.</p> |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
<p> |
| 63 |
The US, which has had software patents since the 1980s, shows what this can |
| 64 |
do to development of everyday software. For example, in the US there are 39 |
| 65 |
monopoly claims over a standard way of showing video using software |
| 66 |
techniques (the <abbr title="Moving Picture Experts Group">MPEG</abbr> 2 |
| 67 |
format).</p> |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
<p> |
| 70 |
Since a single piece of software can embody thousands of ideas together, |
| 71 |
and those ideas are arbitrary in scope and abstract in nature, writing |
| 72 |
software will only be worthwhile for those who are rich and have a large |
| 73 |
software monopoly portfolio: those with the war chest and clout to fight |
| 74 |
off claims that might otherwise sink a business. In the US, the average |
| 75 |
cost of defending against an invalid patent claim is $1.5 million. The |
| 76 |
courts favour the wealthy, so even when a small business gets a few |
| 77 |
patents, it will find them useless.</p> |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
<p> |
| 80 |
Software patents are being claimed at a tremendous rate in the US. If they |
| 81 |
become legal in Europe, most of those US patents will be extended to |
| 82 |
Europe also. This is likely to have a devastating effect on European |
| 83 |
software development—leading to job losses, a poorer economy, more |
| 84 |
expensive computer use, and less choice and less freedom for the end user. |
| 85 |
The advocates of software patents in Europe, and the probable beneficiaries |
| 86 |
of them, are the patent bureaucracy (more influence on more areas of life), |
| 87 |
patent lawyers (more business from both plaintiffs and defendants), and |
| 88 |
computer mega-corporations such as IBM and Microsoft.</p> |
| 89 |
|
| 90 |
<p> |
| 91 |
Foremost among the software mega-corporations is Microsoft. Even as |
| 92 |
part of the European commission investigates Microsoft for |
| 93 |
monopolistic practices, another part is planning to hand it an |
| 94 |
unending series of overlapping 20-year monopolies. Bill Gates wrote in |
| 95 |
his Challenges and Strategy memo of May 16 1991 that</p> |
| 96 |
|
| 97 |
<blockquote> |
| 98 |
<p> |
| 99 |
If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of |
| 100 |
today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry |
| 101 |
would be at a complete standstill today. The solution … is |
| 102 |
patenting as much as we can … A future start-up with no patents |
| 103 |
of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to |
| 104 |
impose.</p> |
| 105 |
</blockquote> |
| 106 |
|
| 107 |
<p> |
| 108 |
Today Microsoft hopes to parlay software patents into a permanent |
| 109 |
monopoly on many areas of software.</p> |
| 110 |
|
| 111 |
<p> |
| 112 |
The European commission says its proposed directive on |
| 113 |
computer-implemented inventions will disallow software patents. But |
| 114 |
the text was actually written by the Business Software Alliance, which |
| 115 |
represents the largest software companies. (The commission didn't |
| 116 |
admit this—we detected it.) It contains vague words that we |
| 117 |
suspect are designed to open the door for software patents.</p> |
| 118 |
|
| 119 |
<p> |
| 120 |
The text says that computer-related patents must make a |
| 121 |
“technical contribution”; the commission says that means |
| 122 |
“no software patents.” But “technical” can be |
| 123 |
interpreted in many ways. The European patent office is already |
| 124 |
registering software patents of dubious legal validity, defying the |
| 125 |
treaty that governs it and the governments that established it. |
| 126 |
Operating under those words, it will stretch them to allow all kinds |
| 127 |
of software patents.</p> |
| 128 |
|
| 129 |
<p> |
| 130 |
Arlene McCarthy, <abbr title="Member of the European Parliament">MEP</abbr> |
| 131 |
for north-west England, has been a key figure promoting and acting as |
| 132 |
rapporteur for this proposed directive. The cosmetic changes she has |
| 133 |
so far proposed do nothing to solve the problem. However, the |
| 134 |
cultural affairs commission's amendment that defines |
| 135 |
“technical” will assure British and European software |
| 136 |
developers that they will not risk a lawsuit simply by writing and |
| 137 |
distributing a software package.</p> |
| 138 |
|
| 139 |
<p> |
| 140 |
The vague words drafted by the mega-corporations must be replaced with |
| 141 |
clear, decisive wording. Wording that will ensure that our information |
| 142 |
future will not be hijacked by the interests of a few rich organisations.</p> |
| 143 |
|
| 144 |
<p> |
| 145 |
Please go |
| 146 |
to <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20031216123801/http://www.softwarepatents.co.uk"> |
| 147 |
softwarepatents.co.uk [Archived Page]</a> to learn more, and then talk with the MEPs from |
| 148 |
your region.</p> |
| 149 |
</div> |
| 150 |
|
| 151 |
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> |
| 152 |
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> |
| 153 |
<div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> |
| 154 |
<div class="unprintable"> |
| 155 |
|
| 156 |
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to |
| 157 |
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. |
| 158 |
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> |
| 159 |
the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent |
| 160 |
to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> |
| 161 |
|
| 162 |
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, |
| 163 |
replace it with the translation of these two: |
| 164 |
|
| 165 |
We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality |
| 166 |
translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. |
| 167 |
Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard |
| 168 |
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> |
| 169 |
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> |
| 170 |
|
| 171 |
<p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of |
| 172 |
our web pages, see <a |
| 173 |
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations |
| 174 |
README</a>. --> |
| 175 |
Please see the <a |
| 176 |
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations |
| 177 |
README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations |
| 178 |
of this article.</p> |
| 179 |
</div> |
| 180 |
|
| 181 |
<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to |
| 182 |
files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should |
| 183 |
be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this |
| 184 |
without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. |
| 185 |
Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the |
| 186 |
document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the |
| 187 |
document was modified, or published. |
| 188 |
|
| 189 |
If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. |
| 190 |
Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying |
| 191 |
years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable |
| 192 |
year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including |
| 193 |
being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). |
| 194 |
|
| 195 |
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers |
| 196 |
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> |
| 197 |
|
| 198 |
<p>Copyright © 2003, 2013, 2021 Richard M. Stallman and Nicholas R. Hill</p> |
| 199 |
|
| 200 |
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" |
| 201 |
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative |
| 202 |
Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> |
| 203 |
|
| 204 |
<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> |
| 205 |
|
| 206 |
<p class="unprintable">Updated: |
| 207 |
<!-- timestamp start --> |
| 208 |
$Date: 2021/09/16 16:30:32 $ |
| 209 |
<!-- timestamp end --> |
| 210 |
</p> |
| 211 |
</div> |
| 212 |
</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> |
| 213 |
</body> |
| 214 |
</html> |