Stop Software Patents European Petition

What Is A Patent?

A patent is a form of protection for an invention. It is a give-and-take between society and an inventor. The inventor discloses the invention, and society gives him a time-limited monopoly to derive commercial value.
Some centuries ago, an inventor had to keep an idea secret to benefit from it economically. For instance, if someone created a medication, he would never tell anybody how he concocted it. That way, it happened that inventors took valuable knowledge with them to the grave.

The word "patent" has a Latin root that means "to lie open". The patent system was created to give inventors an incentive to disclose their inventions. The inventor sends a description of his invention to the patent office, and if the patent examiner at the patent office believes that it is truly an innovation, then he grants a patent. All patents are published in a patent register.

In exchange for the publication of the invention, patent law gives the inventor a time-limited monopoly on the invention. During that time, the patent holder has the exclusive right to the invention (20 years now). After that time, the invention belongs to the public.

"The benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to their general suppression."
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the USA
The time-limited monopoly is an extremely powerful right in the hands of the patent holder. The patent holder can prevent others from applying the knowledge that is protected by the patent. If necessary, the patent holder can ask a court of law for help with that. He can also sell the patent or grant licenses (i.e. permissions to use it), and he is free to negotiate the price for any of that.

This form of protection comes with a variety of problems. The biggest one is that you can "violate" a patent without even knowing that it exists. The one who first registers the idea is the one who owns it, and he cannot only use the patent against those who steal his idea but also against anyone who comes up with the same idea later. It doesn't matter if you can prove that you had the idea independently, and that you didn't even know about the patent. You're guilty of patent violation, and in the worst case, you can be imprisoned for that.

It depends on the invention whether that arrangement is fair, reasonable, and beneficial to the public. If the invention is really ingenious, then that's acceptable. In that case, you're extremely unlikely to come up with the same idea independently during the 20 years in which the patent is valid. However, nowadays we have millions of patents, and the fewest of them stand for major achievements.

"Patent law provides to inventors an exclusive right to new technology in return for publication of the technology. This is not appropriate for industries such as software development in which innovations occur rapidly, can be made without a substantial capital investment, and tend to be creative combinations of previously-known techniques."
Oracle Corporation Patent Policy
In some fields, the patent system works better (or less badly) than in others. There are complaints about the patent system in every area. People protest against patents on human genes, for ethical reasons and because such knowledge should belong to the public. Small and medium-sized companies in all areas of technology see that large corporations have perverted the patent system and use patents as a strategic weapon.

Still the negative aspects of the patent system are tolerable in areas where there is a tangible benefit. Most economists have strong reservations concerning patents, while legal professionals (who potentially make money with patents) defend them. If there is any area in which economists believe the patent system may be beneficial to the economy and to society, then that's pharmaceutics. In that field, research is very expensive, and no one would spend hundreds of millions on the creation of a single product without some very far-reaching protection. In all other areas, there are strong indications that the patent system causes more damage than it provides benefits. And for computer software, it's nothing short of a total insanity.

Click here to go to the start page of the Basics section of this website.

Or click here to see some examples of European software patents that should never have been granted.


Leave a comment on our forum (external)
Apr. 2007: New Patent Proposals: Single EU patent law good for US giants, bad for small EU firms >>
Feb. 2007: EPLA contradicts EU law >>
Jan. 2007: EU Council Presidency - SME call for change in patent policy >>
Dec. 2006: NoSoftwarePatents.com - Forum available again >>
Dec. 2006: Commission's DG Internal Market achieves Worst Lobby Award >>
Dec. 2006: FFII President says current patent system not sustainable >>
Dec. 2006: McCreevy laments unpopular EPLA >>
Nov. 2006: Patent industry writes ICT task force report "on behalf of SMEs"
  >> FFII press release
  >> Techworld article
Nov. 2006: FFII announces the European Patent Conference (EUPACO): "Towards a New European Patent System" >>
Oct. 2006: European Parliament turns around EPLA resolution >>
Mar. 2006: Software patent critics respond to EU Commission's consultation paper on patent policy
  >> FFII press release
  >> Florian Mueller blog
Jan. 2006: EU software patents rear their ugly head again
  >> IDG article
  >> Euractiv article
  >> ZDNet article
Parliament says No to software patents >>
NoSoftwarePatents.com becomes an FFII platform
  >> Press Release
  >> ZDNet article
Creative Commons License 

  Català    Česky    Deutsch    Eesti    English    Ελληνικά    Español    Français    Italiano  
  Latviski    Lietuviškai    Magyar    Nederlands    Polski    Português    Suomi    Svenska