25 ms·

Germany will violate international agreements with Unitary Patent, says FFII

403 points by zoobab 6y ago

animationwill 6y ago
I haven’t heard about this Unitary Patent Court. Is this a new judicial body in the EU? Where does it’s position rank compared to other EU judicial bodies? The article seems to be written for those (legislators) who would already know the background
- kleiba 6y ago
  > I haven’t heard about this Unitary Patent Court. That's probably intentional.
  - chki 6y ago
    What do you mean by that? Do you seriously think that somebody (who exactly?) is suppressing news about this court? Isn't it _a lot_ more probable that this is simply a highly technical issue that doesn't get a lot of attention? As somebody who is somewhat invested into EU law but not into patent law I have already heard about it by the way. I'm always very skeptical about this sort of vague accusation, implying that there is some sort of conspiracy.
    - Ygg2 6y ago
      > What do you mean by that? Well. The less you know about how and what bureaucracy does, the less can you ask yourself why does it exist in the first place. And the more bureaucrats can keep their pointless jobs. It's not so much conspiracy as protection by obfuscation. I bet you don't know why you need even half of documents in your last encounter with it.
      - chki 6y ago
        > I bet you don't know why you need even half of documents in your last encounter with it. I guess you loose that bet.
        Ygg2 6y ago
        I guess. I still wonder about triplicate of that form despite having those info on my ID card.
    - trumpeta 6y ago
      I don't think there is a conspiracy to suppress the information, but on the other hand I'd say EU has a long way to go in terms of PR and informing citizens. Somehow all these things always surface at 11:55
      - Quanttek 6y ago
        Tbh, the EU can only do so much: there are plenty of press releases, press conferences, and social media posts about their legislative proposals. However, the gatekeepers of information are different actors: Mostly the media or whoever you follow on social media. And, not without reason, such a technical debate hasn't really engaged interest in the general public. If you are actually interested in the topic or in EU law, you will likely heard about it because the gatekeepers in that field believed it might interest you
    - kleiba 6y ago
      > What do you mean by that? Do you seriously think that somebody (who exactly?) is suppressing news about this court? Why are you putting words in my mouth? Especially the "seriously" is completely out of place since I never said what you claim I did, so why do get worked up over it? Where was I implying a conspiracy? Did you consider that there are other theories that are consistent with my original statement - for instance, it's completely conceivable that a skilled legislation publishes information about a proposed law of they know it's likely to create a backlash in (some parts of) the media in a more subdued way, specifically in order to lower the odds for getting said negative press. I agree that this "suppressing news" theory that you brought to the table is nonsense. But it's also not necessary if you've got a PR person who knows their job.
      - chki 6y ago
        I didn't intend to confront you and I didn't really "get worked up" over this. Sorry if I was a bit blunt. (and sorry for potential language confusion, I'm not a native speaker) My issue with your comment was that you have this accusation (which you call "probable") that can be perfectly explained in another way ("New European Patent Law Court" is not going to be a top-selling front page headline) > for instance, it's completely conceivable that a skilled legislation publishes information about a proposed law of they know it's likely to create a backlash in (some parts of) the media in a more subdued way, specifically in order to lower the odds for getting said negative press. This is of course technically possible in some situations but considering the difficult negotiation and ratification process (just look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Patent_Court#Ratification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Patent_Court#Ratificat...) of the UPC it's simply very far off from the reality. Especially in Germany where there is an important pending decision by the Constitutional Court on this issue which did actually get a lot of media attention. Edit: As pointed out by Zoobab the decision is no longer pending but has already been decided.
      - zoobab 6y ago
        @chki "Especially in Germany where there is an important pending decision by the Constitutional Court on this issue which did actually get a lot of media attention." The decision is from 20th of March, where the Court only cancelled the ratification for lack of 2/3 majority for transferring judicial powers to international courts. Same problem seems to happen for ISDS courts in CETA in the Netherlands. As many points raised in the first complaint were not addressed by the Court, we will crowdfund soon a second constitutional complaint if the UPCA is given a greenlight tomorrow.
- zoobab 6y ago
  "a new judicial body in the EU" Not really, more like an international court with the blessing of the EU. Cameron forced a deal in 2012 to not have the CJEU as a legislator in patent law, and Merkel and Hollande and other countries bowed to his demand in order to have a deal.
realradicalwash 6y ago
Aren't other countries that have already ratified UP in violation of those agreements, too? I.e., how is this about Germany in particular and not about the European patent system itself?
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Because it's a letter addressed to members of Bundesrat. It's not an article about the issue in general.
- zoobab 6y ago
  The software patent directive of 2005 was rejected at the request for multinationals (IBM, Philips, Microsoft, etc...) who pushed for a central patent instead. Some other countries have ratified, some like Spain, Poland, Czech republic have stayed away for different reasons, like languages and higher costs of litigation for small companies.
tpetry 6y ago
As a german i am quite sure they will ratify software patents. The very sad part is the people deciding this have absolutely no understanding what they are doing and that they open the box of pandora. There is currently almost no invest money in european startups, and if everyone of these startups is liable for bogus software patents they will have absolutely no chance on getting big.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  With von der Leyen being president, I am pretty sure we make the wrong decision. Yes, some Europeans might think she looks sympathetic, especially those that don't know her well because of language barriers. That she is on the position is testament to the democratic dysfunction of the Union. Officially she is in a conservative party, which eastern European countries liked very much. If we want to take democracy seriously, we would need a common language or at least a common media landscape. We could just use US media of course. They have the opposite problem that everyone understands what they are saying.
  - secondcoming 6y ago
    It only became apparent to me yesterday on another forum how much central Europeans, especially Germans, seem to quite dislike von der Leyen!
    - Semaphor 6y ago
      She did a lot of dumb shit while we still had her in Germany.
      - KingOfCoders 6y ago
        Not a fan of her, but can you name 10 things ("lot of") that are "dumb shit" that she did?
        diffeomorphism 6y ago
m12k 6y ago
This was what I feared when I voted against the Unitary Patent. I really hope someone manages to prevent software from becoming patentable in Europe.
raxxorrax 6y ago
The law itself makes sense in my opinion, but the way it was introduced makes the self declaration as being democratic a cheap farce. I doubt the EU will survive in its current state. 10 years ago that would have made me sad. There are enthusiasts, but not enough to make it work.
- kzrdude 6y ago
  The enthusiasts need to temper their dreams and expectations - EU is doing fine, and doesn't need to always become more powerful or more integrated. Especially not now, when citizens don't want it.
  - oaiey 6y ago
    That is a very good point. Problem is that the enthusiasts are the young people across Europe and not exactly a minority. That is a 50:50 or 60:40 thing. So when you satisfy on group (good enough) you will make the the other half unhappy.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      The old people will die off rather sooner than later, the problem will solve itself biologically. The real question is: will this happen fast enough to avoid hitting a no-way-back point in climate change?
      - oaiey 6y ago
        That is not really accurate. The young people get older as well. And change their world view. Once you hear hundreds of times the "bad" news of immigrants, workers from rumania taking your jobs, etc, experiencing the slowness of evolvement of the EU or just switch to thinking british style (nations do better, europe is only a shared market). For sure, that is all inaccurate in one way or the other, but people are busy or in bad situations, leaving their enthusiasm behind them.
  - mamon 6y ago
pbowyer 6y ago
But only in a "limited and specific" way, so that's okay [UK in-joke] At least we're not the only country wanting to violate international agreements at present
- akerro 6y ago
  >At least we're not the only country wanting to violate international agreements at present Countries do it all the time and there are conflicts because it all the time everywhere. UK is slightly different because EU is much stronger than UK, withdrawal agreement is important to keep food, medicine and skills flowing between borders. UK government is planning and making first successful steps towards breaking withdrawal agreement before it's even in place. So why would EU even bother continuing wasting time and resources in this stupid game where they won't be the losers?
  - Voxoff 6y ago
    Well, it happens but rarely does it happen exclusively in the West where there is a lot at stake. (Would be interested in counterexamples) International law, as an attempt to tame excesses of diplomacy, is something that has lifted up the West. It's brought order and prosperity. This move is yet another jenga brick taken out of the liberal West, thereby weakening the EU. The EU really needs to bother...
    - akerro 6y ago
      Just googling for: France breaks international law https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181017-amnesty-france-violates-international-law-by-selling-arms-to-egypt/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181017-amnesty-france-vi... Spain breaks international law: https://www.icj.org/spain-conviction-of-catalonian-leaders-violates-human-rights/ https://www.icj.org/spain-conviction-of-catalonian-leaders-v... Poland breaks international law https://www.ecre.org/human-rights-organisations-poland-violates-international-law-by-blocking-entry-of-asylum-seekers-from-belarus/ https://www.ecre.org/human-rights-organisations-poland-viola... I don't think I need to search for any about USA, each of us remembers at least 5 from very recent history.
zoobab 6y ago
For a more general document, read FFII submission to a public consultation: https://ffii.org/ffii-oppose-the-third-attempt-to-impose-software-patents-in-europe-via-the-upc/ https://ffii.org/ffii-oppose-the-third-attempt-to-impose-sof...
jakearmitage 6y ago
If this was the US, HN would be all over this. Instead, it is rationalizing it. Interesting.
- fastball 6y ago
  1. Most people in the thread seem against this. 2. Maybe it was more true when you posted 2 hours ago, but that is exactly why comments like this one are not helpful.
  - jakearmitage 6y ago
    It is not about being against the subject or not. It's about the way the arguments are presented. In several threads, when the same scenario plays in the US, the comments are "ad hominem" attacks to the country and its culture. When it happens to Germany, the focus is on debating the actual issue. I'm not American, but the Americanophobia present here and the schadenfreude towards bad things happening in the US is quite the subject for a study. Regarding your statement that this comment is not useful: perhaps. I've been observing this trend and it's been interesting to write notes and have the groundwork for something more concrete. Then, it will probably be more helpful.
    - vinay427 6y ago
      > I'm not American, but the Americanophobia present here and the schadenfreude towards bad things happening in the US is quite the subject for a study. As an American in a European country, this rather nicely sums up my experience with some (and to be extra explicit, definitely not all) people from a wide variety of European countries. I've grown to find it rather amusing especially as it serves as a convenient litmus test to identify people with whom it is worth discussing interesting political topics. I suppose my point is that it's probably not just an HN effect. Many Americans also have their own bits on which to improve here, obviously, but I haven't personally been on that side of the table.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      I have noticed a reoccuring identity archetype of stereotype of any non-world power (including oddly enough large cities who are a world power) freely complaining about the entity in all aspects and then being offended if an outsider complains about it. As opposed to a "used to it" as a world power and being unable to counter by saying that the matter doesn't affect them. My guess is it might be a result of that sort of defensiveness forming social baselines that it results in a double standard where to say for example "It is because the people of the US doesn't want the pesky innovation part and just wants to rent seek." would be accepted but a non-hypothetical enclosed "It is because Germans don't want the pesky innovation part and just wants to rent seek." would get flagged as flamebait.
lasermike026 6y ago
How do I get off this planet?
orbifold 6y ago
As someone that has invented novel algorithms I still feel Patents are a net negative especially for software. I just wish EU would be a better place for „startup“ innovation. My experience with the university infrastructure in that area isn’t great:
- ipnon 6y ago
  Strong patent laws stop innovation at the research stage. Derivative works, such as turning research into a startup or a public company, becomes rent seeking. Where in the world can you escape this rent seeking?
  - adammunich 6y ago
    China
    - ipnon 6y ago
      China's stereotype is having no copyright enforcement, but this seems to be wrong. >Plaintiffs won in 80.16% of all patent infringement cases included in the population. Such a win rate was higher than its counterparts in many major countries – Germany (approximately 66%) and the United States (approximately 60%), for example. https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/02/things-infringement-litigation.html https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/02/things-infringement-lit...
      - malandrew 6y ago
        Are there statistics based on national origin of defendant and plaintiff? I'm curious if 80.16% rate for all cases holds up when the defendant is a domestic company and the plaintiff is a foreign company and vice versa.
        ipnon 6y ago
        Read the reference and see that the win rate is higher for foreign plaintiffs than Chinese plaintiffs.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ta20200917 6y ago
Github and other OpenSource hosting sites should pretty much invalidate any possible software patent claim via prior art, right ?
- aagd 6y ago
  These patents might open the doors for legal battles that small companies might just not have the resources for. They're a perfect tool for trolls and bullies.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    You don't need much in the way of resources to invalidate a patent. Proof of prior use, or published prior disclosure. The measure of proof being balance-of-probabilities. If you have that you're immune, show up with your print out, you get costs. If you lose you might have to, for example, hand over profits. The flipside is that small companies can use patents to prevent unlicensed exploitation of their own inventions. This is my personal view and does not relate to my employment.
    - zoobab 6y ago
      In the case of the UPC, the court fees to invalidate a patent are already at 20K EUR. Not to mention the additional lawyers fees.
    - clusterfish 6y ago
      That is absolutely not the case, at least in the US. The people who have actually been frivolously sued and managed to invalidate the patents say differently: it takes several years and millions of dollars to invalidate just a few claims in the patent despite ample evidence. Look up the case against Laminar Research for example.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Yes, but court isn't only about winning. It's also about stamina.
Quanttek 6y ago
I am not an expert on international law but I am 99% sure that the legal arguments in the text are partially wrong. Yes, some aspects of the UPC are not great but it should rather be opposed on public policy grounds, i.e. negative effects software patents and increased cost of litigation (and maybe that should've been done during the negotiations on the treaty). It's a bit difficult to discern their argument as the text is filled with errors and, seemingly, some words were jumbled around. 1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT): The text of the treaty has already been agreed upon and states have signed (or even ratified) it. They are not negotiating the treaty anymore, so the UK (as former negotiating state) not agreeing to the treaty has no bearing on its entry into force or violates Art 24(1) VCLT. As the para. states: "A treaty enters into force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the negotiating States may agree." This is just about how the date is set, i.e. either it is laid down in the text or the States agree - and that has already happened. Somewhat regularly, states will de-ratify treaties or exit negotiations on treaties and the treaty can and will still go into force. 2. Art 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) [1]: According to the case law on "tribunal established by law", the "law" part must ensure its impartiality and independence and, thus, primarily governs its composition (i.e. appointment of judges, assignment to cases (where latter cannot "solely depend on the discretion of the judicial authorities")) [2]. Note that, even in the quote cited in the article it is the object of the clause that "the judicial organisation … is regulated by law emanating from Parliament", i.e. it concerns their composition (also: "object" = aim of article which does not necessarily speak to the specific obligations). The composition and the independence and impartiality of the Court are provided for in Articles 15 to 19 (esp. Art 17: "Judicial independence and impartiality" [3]). Only beyond those rules (as well others), can the Administrative Committee establish rules of procedure (which may not contravene the treaty [4]), after consulting with the Commission on compliance with EU law (Article 41). Regarding fees, it should at least be noted that the treaty provides for the possibility of financial aid for SMEs in Art 36(3) [5]. [1]: Case-law guide https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_ENG.pdf#page=45&zoom=auto,-98,723 https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_ENG.pdf#page=... [2]: Quoting generously from the guide: > 209. The phrase “established by law” covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of a “tribunal”, but also compliance by the tribunal with the particular rules that govern it (Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine, §24). The lawfulness of a court or tribunal must by definition also encompass its composition (Buscarini v.San Marino (dec.)). It is the role of the courts to manage their proceedings with a view to ensuring the proper administration of justice. The assignment of a case to a particular judge or court falls within their margin of appreciation in such matters. However, to be compatible with Article 6 § 1, it must comply with the requirements of independence and impartiality (Pasquini v. San Marino, §§ 103 and 107). The judge assigned to a case must be independent of the executive,and the assignment cannot be solely dependent on the discretion of the judicial authorities (ibid., § 110). … > 212. In principle, a breach by a court of these domestic legal provisions gives rise to a violation of Article6 §1 (DMD Group, A.S., v. Slovakia, §61). The Court may therefore examine whether the domestic law has been complied with in this respect. However, having regard to the general principle that it is, in the first place, for the national courts themselves to interpret the provisions of domestic law, the Court finds that it may not question their interpretation unless there has been a flagrant violation of the legislation (ibid.; Biagioli v. San Marino(dec.), §75; Pasquini v. San Marino, §§ 104 and 109). A court which, without any explanation, oversteps the usual limits of its jurisdiction in deliberate breach of the law is not a “tribunal established by law” in the proceedings in question (Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine, §§27-28). > 213.The object of the term “established by law” in Article6 §1 is to ensure that the organisation of the judicial system does not depend on the discretion of the executive but is regulated by law emanating from Parliament (Biagioli v.San Marino(dec.), §74; Savino and Others v.Italy, §94). > 214. Nor, in countries where the law is codified, can organisation of the judicial system be left to the discretion of the judicial authorities, although this does not mean that the courts do not have some latitude to interpret the relevant national legislation (ibid., and case-law references cited). > 215.Furthermore, delegating powers in matters concerning the organisation of the judicial system is permissible provided that this possibility is enshrined in the domestic law of the State, including the relevant provisions of the Constitution (ibid.). [3]: https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc-agreement.pdf#page=22&zoom=auto,-17,834 https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc... [4]: https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc-agreement.pdf#page=48&zoom=auto,-17,820 https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc... [5]: https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc-agreement.pdf#page=43&zoom=auto,-158,16 https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc...
LockAndLol 6y ago
Good to know Germany is as suggestible as other European countries to the influences of big American corporations. The longer the EU stays a loose union of countries, the longer it will stay susceptible to these kind of moves. Division isn't unity.
- skocznymroczny 6y ago
  Or, if it was a more tight union, then American corporations would have only one country to influence rather than each country separately.
- Wohlf 6y ago
  This may surprise you, but German companies are also heavily invested in copyright. The dispute between GEMA and YouTube lasted for years.
shmerl 6y ago
Parasites and crooks keep pushing software patents. Why can't there be a stronger push against them?
- zoobab 6y ago
  People need to get out of their seat, which is hard.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    It is worse than just getting out of their seat really. Even if they regularly formed mobs of protesters and weren't ignored or took harsh measures to force the issues quickly they would still come back. Even going to the extreme of killing everyone who fits the label wouldn't fix it long term as someone else looking for easy money would try to fill the niche whenever their personal courage outweighed the ambient terror. The only way to fix the issue long term is to replace them and fill the niche better than they can. Needless to say doing so personally risks becoming as bad as those they set out to replace and creating an automated AI official/manager/business entity capable of doing their job better than them and getting it accepted in the face of centuries of stories warning of it being a bad idea before it even existed are very tall orders. It isn't like they are telephone switchboard operators who can be replaced by an impartial dialing mechanism by a disgruntled funeral home owner.
beervirus 6y ago
There are some arguments in there about whether or not the UPC is a good idea, and although I don't particularly agree with them, they're at least plausible. The legal arguments, on the other hand... let's just say that they are definitely the work of a nonlawyer.
Angeo34 6y ago
Von Der Leyen being president should be considered a crime against humanity.
Borlands 6y ago
Maybe this will strenghten Open Source Software

403 points by zoobab 6y ago

I haven’t heard about this Unitary Patent Court. Is this a new judicial body in the EU? Where does it’s position rank compared to other EU judicial bodies? The article seems to be written for those (legislators) who would already know the background

kleiba 6y ago
> I haven’t heard about this Unitary Patent Court. That's probably intentional.
- chki 6y ago
  What do you mean by that? Do you seriously think that somebody (who exactly?) is suppressing news about this court? Isn't it _a lot_ more probable that this is simply a highly technical issue that doesn't get a lot of attention? As somebody who is somewhat invested into EU law but not into patent law I have already heard about it by the way. I'm always very skeptical about this sort of vague accusation, implying that there is some sort of conspiracy.
  - Ygg2 6y ago
    > What do you mean by that? Well. The less you know about how and what bureaucracy does, the less can you ask yourself why does it exist in the first place. And the more bureaucrats can keep their pointless jobs. It's not so much conspiracy as protection by obfuscation. I bet you don't know why you need even half of documents in your last encounter with it.
    - chki 6y ago
      > I bet you don't know why you need even half of documents in your last encounter with it. I guess you loose that bet.
      - Ygg2 6y ago
        I guess. I still wonder about triplicate of that form despite having those info on my ID card.
  - trumpeta 6y ago
    I don't think there is a conspiracy to suppress the information, but on the other hand I'd say EU has a long way to go in terms of PR and informing citizens. Somehow all these things always surface at 11:55
    - Quanttek 6y ago
      Tbh, the EU can only do so much: there are plenty of press releases, press conferences, and social media posts about their legislative proposals. However, the gatekeepers of information are different actors: Mostly the media or whoever you follow on social media. And, not without reason, such a technical debate hasn't really engaged interest in the general public. If you are actually interested in the topic or in EU law, you will likely heard about it because the gatekeepers in that field believed it might interest you
  - kleiba 6y ago
    > What do you mean by that? Do you seriously think that somebody (who exactly?) is suppressing news about this court? Why are you putting words in my mouth? Especially the "seriously" is completely out of place since I never said what you claim I did, so why do get worked up over it? Where was I implying a conspiracy? Did you consider that there are other theories that are consistent with my original statement - for instance, it's completely conceivable that a skilled legislation publishes information about a proposed law of they know it's likely to create a backlash in (some parts of) the media in a more subdued way, specifically in order to lower the odds for getting said negative press. I agree that this "suppressing news" theory that you brought to the table is nonsense. But it's also not necessary if you've got a PR person who knows their job.
    - chki 6y ago
      I didn't intend to confront you and I didn't really "get worked up" over this. Sorry if I was a bit blunt. (and sorry for potential language confusion, I'm not a native speaker) My issue with your comment was that you have this accusation (which you call "probable") that can be perfectly explained in another way ("New European Patent Law Court" is not going to be a top-selling front page headline) > for instance, it's completely conceivable that a skilled legislation publishes information about a proposed law of they know it's likely to create a backlash in (some parts of) the media in a more subdued way, specifically in order to lower the odds for getting said negative press. This is of course technically possible in some situations but considering the difficult negotiation and ratification process (just look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Patent_Court#Ratification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Patent_Court#Ratificat...) of the UPC it's simply very far off from the reality. Especially in Germany where there is an important pending decision by the Constitutional Court on this issue which did actually get a lot of media attention. Edit: As pointed out by Zoobab the decision is no longer pending but has already been decided.
    - zoobab 6y ago
      @chki "Especially in Germany where there is an important pending decision by the Constitutional Court on this issue which did actually get a lot of media attention." The decision is from 20th of March, where the Court only cancelled the ratification for lack of 2/3 majority for transferring judicial powers to international courts. Same problem seems to happen for ISDS courts in CETA in the Netherlands. As many points raised in the first complaint were not addressed by the Court, we will crowdfund soon a second constitutional complaint if the UPCA is given a greenlight tomorrow.
zoobab 6y ago
"a new judicial body in the EU" Not really, more like an international court with the blessing of the EU. Cameron forced a deal in 2012 to not have the CJEU as a legislator in patent law, and Merkel and Hollande and other countries bowed to his demand in order to have a deal.

realradicalwash 6y ago

Aren't other countries that have already ratified UP in violation of those agreements, too? I.e., how is this about Germany in particular and not about the European patent system itself?

dalbasal 6y ago
Because it's a letter addressed to members of Bundesrat. It's not an article about the issue in general.
zoobab 6y ago
The software patent directive of 2005 was rejected at the request for multinationals (IBM, Philips, Microsoft, etc...) who pushed for a central patent instead. Some other countries have ratified, some like Spain, Poland, Czech republic have stayed away for different reasons, like languages and higher costs of litigation for small companies.

tpetry 6y ago

As a german i am quite sure they will ratify software patents. The very sad part is the people deciding this have absolutely no understanding what they are doing and that they open the box of pandora. There is currently almost no invest money in european startups, and if everyone of these startups is liable for bogus software patents they will have absolutely no chance on getting big.

raxxorrax 6y ago
With von der Leyen being president, I am pretty sure we make the wrong decision. Yes, some Europeans might think she looks sympathetic, especially those that don't know her well because of language barriers. That she is on the position is testament to the democratic dysfunction of the Union. Officially she is in a conservative party, which eastern European countries liked very much. If we want to take democracy seriously, we would need a common language or at least a common media landscape. We could just use US media of course. They have the opposite problem that everyone understands what they are saying.
- secondcoming 6y ago
  It only became apparent to me yesterday on another forum how much central Europeans, especially Germans, seem to quite dislike von der Leyen!
  - Semaphor 6y ago
    She did a lot of dumb shit while we still had her in Germany.
    - KingOfCoders 6y ago
      Not a fan of her, but can you name 10 things ("lot of") that are "dumb shit" that she did?
      - diffeomorphism 6y ago

m12k 6y ago

This was what I feared when I voted against the Unitary Patent. I really hope someone manages to prevent software from becoming patentable in Europe.

raxxorrax 6y ago

The law itself makes sense in my opinion, but the way it was introduced makes the self declaration as being democratic a cheap farce. I doubt the EU will survive in its current state. 10 years ago that would have made me sad. There are enthusiasts, but not enough to make it work.

kzrdude 6y ago
The enthusiasts need to temper their dreams and expectations - EU is doing fine, and doesn't need to always become more powerful or more integrated. Especially not now, when citizens don't want it.
- oaiey 6y ago
  That is a very good point. Problem is that the enthusiasts are the young people across Europe and not exactly a minority. That is a 50:50 or 60:40 thing. So when you satisfy on group (good enough) you will make the the other half unhappy.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    The old people will die off rather sooner than later, the problem will solve itself biologically. The real question is: will this happen fast enough to avoid hitting a no-way-back point in climate change?
    - oaiey 6y ago
      That is not really accurate. The young people get older as well. And change their world view. Once you hear hundreds of times the "bad" news of immigrants, workers from rumania taking your jobs, etc, experiencing the slowness of evolvement of the EU or just switch to thinking british style (nations do better, europe is only a shared market). For sure, that is all inaccurate in one way or the other, but people are busy or in bad situations, leaving their enthusiasm behind them.
- mamon 6y ago

pbowyer 6y ago

But only in a "limited and specific" way, so that's okay [UK in-joke] At least we're not the only country wanting to violate international agreements at present

akerro 6y ago
>At least we're not the only country wanting to violate international agreements at present Countries do it all the time and there are conflicts because it all the time everywhere. UK is slightly different because EU is much stronger than UK, withdrawal agreement is important to keep food, medicine and skills flowing between borders. UK government is planning and making first successful steps towards breaking withdrawal agreement before it's even in place. So why would EU even bother continuing wasting time and resources in this stupid game where they won't be the losers?
- Voxoff 6y ago
  Well, it happens but rarely does it happen exclusively in the West where there is a lot at stake. (Would be interested in counterexamples) International law, as an attempt to tame excesses of diplomacy, is something that has lifted up the West. It's brought order and prosperity. This move is yet another jenga brick taken out of the liberal West, thereby weakening the EU. The EU really needs to bother...
  - akerro 6y ago
    Just googling for: France breaks international law https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181017-amnesty-france-violates-international-law-by-selling-arms-to-egypt/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181017-amnesty-france-vi... Spain breaks international law: https://www.icj.org/spain-conviction-of-catalonian-leaders-violates-human-rights/ https://www.icj.org/spain-conviction-of-catalonian-leaders-v... Poland breaks international law https://www.ecre.org/human-rights-organisations-poland-violates-international-law-by-blocking-entry-of-asylum-seekers-from-belarus/ https://www.ecre.org/human-rights-organisations-poland-viola... I don't think I need to search for any about USA, each of us remembers at least 5 from very recent history.

zoobab 6y ago

For a more general document, read FFII submission to a public consultation: https://ffii.org/ffii-oppose-the-third-attempt-to-impose-software-patents-in-europe-via-the-upc/ https://ffii.org/ffii-oppose-the-third-attempt-to-impose-sof...

jakearmitage 6y ago

If this was the US, HN would be all over this. Instead, it is rationalizing it. Interesting.

fastball 6y ago
1. Most people in the thread seem against this. 2. Maybe it was more true when you posted 2 hours ago, but that is exactly why comments like this one are not helpful.
- jakearmitage 6y ago
  It is not about being against the subject or not. It's about the way the arguments are presented. In several threads, when the same scenario plays in the US, the comments are "ad hominem" attacks to the country and its culture. When it happens to Germany, the focus is on debating the actual issue. I'm not American, but the Americanophobia present here and the schadenfreude towards bad things happening in the US is quite the subject for a study. Regarding your statement that this comment is not useful: perhaps. I've been observing this trend and it's been interesting to write notes and have the groundwork for something more concrete. Then, it will probably be more helpful.
  - vinay427 6y ago
    > I'm not American, but the Americanophobia present here and the schadenfreude towards bad things happening in the US is quite the subject for a study. As an American in a European country, this rather nicely sums up my experience with some (and to be extra explicit, definitely not all) people from a wide variety of European countries. I've grown to find it rather amusing especially as it serves as a convenient litmus test to identify people with whom it is worth discussing interesting political topics. I suppose my point is that it's probably not just an HN effect. Many Americans also have their own bits on which to improve here, obviously, but I haven't personally been on that side of the table.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    I have noticed a reoccuring identity archetype of stereotype of any non-world power (including oddly enough large cities who are a world power) freely complaining about the entity in all aspects and then being offended if an outsider complains about it. As opposed to a "used to it" as a world power and being unable to counter by saying that the matter doesn't affect them. My guess is it might be a result of that sort of defensiveness forming social baselines that it results in a double standard where to say for example "It is because the people of the US doesn't want the pesky innovation part and just wants to rent seek." would be accepted but a non-hypothetical enclosed "It is because Germans don't want the pesky innovation part and just wants to rent seek." would get flagged as flamebait.

lasermike026 6y ago

How do I get off this planet?

orbifold 6y ago

As someone that has invented novel algorithms I still feel Patents are a net negative especially for software. I just wish EU would be a better place for „startup“ innovation. My experience with the university infrastructure in that area isn’t great:

ipnon 6y ago
Strong patent laws stop innovation at the research stage. Derivative works, such as turning research into a startup or a public company, becomes rent seeking. Where in the world can you escape this rent seeking?
- adammunich 6y ago
  China
  - ipnon 6y ago
    China's stereotype is having no copyright enforcement, but this seems to be wrong. >Plaintiffs won in 80.16% of all patent infringement cases included in the population. Such a win rate was higher than its counterparts in many major countries – Germany (approximately 66%) and the United States (approximately 60%), for example. https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/02/things-infringement-litigation.html https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/02/things-infringement-lit...
    - malandrew 6y ago
      Are there statistics based on national origin of defendant and plaintiff? I'm curious if 80.16% rate for all cases holds up when the defendant is a domestic company and the plaintiff is a foreign company and vice versa.
      - ipnon 6y ago
        Read the reference and see that the win rate is higher for foreign plaintiffs than Chinese plaintiffs.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ta20200917 6y ago

Github and other OpenSource hosting sites should pretty much invalidate any possible software patent claim via prior art, right ?

aagd 6y ago
These patents might open the doors for legal battles that small companies might just not have the resources for. They're a perfect tool for trolls and bullies.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  You don't need much in the way of resources to invalidate a patent. Proof of prior use, or published prior disclosure. The measure of proof being balance-of-probabilities. If you have that you're immune, show up with your print out, you get costs. If you lose you might have to, for example, hand over profits. The flipside is that small companies can use patents to prevent unlicensed exploitation of their own inventions. This is my personal view and does not relate to my employment.
  - zoobab 6y ago
    In the case of the UPC, the court fees to invalidate a patent are already at 20K EUR. Not to mention the additional lawyers fees.
  - clusterfish 6y ago
    That is absolutely not the case, at least in the US. The people who have actually been frivolously sued and managed to invalidate the patents say differently: it takes several years and millions of dollars to invalidate just a few claims in the patent despite ample evidence. Look up the case against Laminar Research for example.
imtringued 6y ago
Yes, but court isn't only about winning. It's also about stamina.

Quanttek 6y ago

I am not an expert on international law but I am 99% sure that the legal arguments in the text are partially wrong. Yes, some aspects of the UPC are not great but it should rather be opposed on public policy grounds, i.e. negative effects software patents and increased cost of litigation (and maybe that should've been done during the negotiations on the treaty). It's a bit difficult to discern their argument as the text is filled with errors and, seemingly, some words were jumbled around. 1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT): The text of the treaty has already been agreed upon and states have signed (or even ratified) it. They are not negotiating the treaty anymore, so the UK (as former negotiating state) not agreeing to the treaty has no bearing on its entry into force or violates Art 24(1) VCLT. As the para. states: "A treaty enters into force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the negotiating States may agree." This is just about how the date is set, i.e. either it is laid down in the text or the States agree - and that has already happened. Somewhat regularly, states will de-ratify treaties or exit negotiations on treaties and the treaty can and will still go into force. 2. Art 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) [1]: According to the case law on "tribunal established by law", the "law" part must ensure its impartiality and independence and, thus, primarily governs its composition (i.e. appointment of judges, assignment to cases (where latter cannot "solely depend on the discretion of the judicial authorities")) [2]. Note that, even in the quote cited in the article it is the object of the clause that "the judicial organisation … is regulated by law emanating from Parliament", i.e. it concerns their composition (also: "object" = aim of article which does not necessarily speak to the specific obligations). The composition and the independence and impartiality of the Court are provided for in Articles 15 to 19 (esp. Art 17: "Judicial independence and impartiality" [3]). Only beyond those rules (as well others), can the Administrative Committee establish rules of procedure (which may not contravene the treaty [4]), after consulting with the Commission on compliance with EU law (Article 41). Regarding fees, it should at least be noted that the treaty provides for the possibility of financial aid for SMEs in Art 36(3) [5]. [1]: Case-law guide https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_ENG.pdf#page=45&zoom=auto,-98,723 https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_ENG.pdf#page=... [2]: Quoting generously from the guide: > 209. The phrase “established by law” covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of a “tribunal”, but also compliance by the tribunal with the particular rules that govern it (Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine, §24). The lawfulness of a court or tribunal must by definition also encompass its composition (Buscarini v.San Marino (dec.)). It is the role of the courts to manage their proceedings with a view to ensuring the proper administration of justice. The assignment of a case to a particular judge or court falls within their margin of appreciation in such matters. However, to be compatible with Article 6 § 1, it must comply with the requirements of independence and impartiality (Pasquini v. San Marino, §§ 103 and 107). The judge assigned to a case must be independent of the executive,and the assignment cannot be solely dependent on the discretion of the judicial authorities (ibid., § 110). … > 212. In principle, a breach by a court of these domestic legal provisions gives rise to a violation of Article6 §1 (DMD Group, A.S., v. Slovakia, §61). The Court may therefore examine whether the domestic law has been complied with in this respect. However, having regard to the general principle that it is, in the first place, for the national courts themselves to interpret the provisions of domestic law, the Court finds that it may not question their interpretation unless there has been a flagrant violation of the legislation (ibid.; Biagioli v. San Marino(dec.), §75; Pasquini v. San Marino, §§ 104 and 109). A court which, without any explanation, oversteps the usual limits of its jurisdiction in deliberate breach of the law is not a “tribunal established by law” in the proceedings in question (Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine, §§27-28). > 213.The object of the term “established by law” in Article6 §1 is to ensure that the organisation of the judicial system does not depend on the discretion of the executive but is regulated by law emanating from Parliament (Biagioli v.San Marino(dec.), §74; Savino and Others v.Italy, §94). > 214. Nor, in countries where the law is codified, can organisation of the judicial system be left to the discretion of the judicial authorities, although this does not mean that the courts do not have some latitude to interpret the relevant national legislation (ibid., and case-law references cited). > 215.Furthermore, delegating powers in matters concerning the organisation of the judicial system is permissible provided that this possibility is enshrined in the domestic law of the State, including the relevant provisions of the Constitution (ibid.). [3]: https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc-agreement.pdf#page=22&zoom=auto,-17,834 https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc... [4]: https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc-agreement.pdf#page=48&zoom=auto,-17,820 https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc... [5]: https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc-agreement.pdf#page=43&zoom=auto,-158,16 https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc...

LockAndLol 6y ago

Good to know Germany is as suggestible as other European countries to the influences of big American corporations. The longer the EU stays a loose union of countries, the longer it will stay susceptible to these kind of moves. Division isn't unity.

skocznymroczny 6y ago
Or, if it was a more tight union, then American corporations would have only one country to influence rather than each country separately.
Wohlf 6y ago
This may surprise you, but German companies are also heavily invested in copyright. The dispute between GEMA and YouTube lasted for years.

shmerl 6y ago

Parasites and crooks keep pushing software patents. Why can't there be a stronger push against them?

zoobab 6y ago
People need to get out of their seat, which is hard.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  It is worse than just getting out of their seat really. Even if they regularly formed mobs of protesters and weren't ignored or took harsh measures to force the issues quickly they would still come back. Even going to the extreme of killing everyone who fits the label wouldn't fix it long term as someone else looking for easy money would try to fill the niche whenever their personal courage outweighed the ambient terror. The only way to fix the issue long term is to replace them and fill the niche better than they can. Needless to say doing so personally risks becoming as bad as those they set out to replace and creating an automated AI official/manager/business entity capable of doing their job better than them and getting it accepted in the face of centuries of stories warning of it being a bad idea before it even existed are very tall orders. It isn't like they are telephone switchboard operators who can be replaced by an impartial dialing mechanism by a disgruntled funeral home owner.

beervirus 6y ago

There are some arguments in there about whether or not the UPC is a good idea, and although I don't particularly agree with them, they're at least plausible. The legal arguments, on the other hand... let's just say that they are definitely the work of a nonlawyer.

Angeo34 6y ago

Von Der Leyen being president should be considered a crime against humanity.

Borlands 6y ago

Maybe this will strenghten Open Source Software