Petition to Stop Software Patents Worldwide

Considering that

  1. Software patents are too slow. Examination takes 4 years or more. Patents limit competition for up to 20 years. The software life cycle and amortization of investments are much shorter.
  2. Software patents ruin investment. A typical software can violate hundreds of patents. Established players shoot down emerging competitors with a single patent and delay creative destruction of their markets. Entrepreneurs refrain from the risk of entering a 'mined' market. Legal ambushes deter investment in the next generation by the market leaders of tomorrow.
  3. Software patents are overly broad rights, as opposed to precise rights such as software copyright. Broad, intricate and clumsy rights are damaging for the market while at the same time more valuable for their holders. 'Inventors' may deliberately phrase their applications very broadly and negotiate with the patent office over breadth of the grant.
  4. Software patents deprive authors of the fruits of their work. Patent regimes dilute your ownership over copyrighted works because they overlap with the realm of copyright. Software patenting closes an alleged copyright 'protection gap', which was preserved by the legislator for reasons that advise against patenting, too.
  5. Software patents are not economically justified. Insufficient economic evidence supports an application of the patent system on software. On the contrary, most studies hint that software patent regimes restrain innovation.
  6. Software patents reward 'hot air'. Ideas are not scarce but cheap. Their disclosure barely justifies to grant rights to prevent them happening. Developers who read software patents consider them an offence: they disclose nothing useful.
  7. Software patents are difficult to research. Patent databases, software and patents are complex. Patent attorneys can do unreliable research for you. Only courts can decide if you infringe a patent. You take all risks and bills. Patent Offices admit it is impossible to find prior art in source or binary code.
  8. Software patents are useless for defensive purposes. Your own patents are useless against 'patent trolls', since they do not have any product which could infringe a patent of yours. When your business bankrupts a troll will buy your 'defensive' patent and terrorise your competitors.
  9. Software patents discriminate small players. They are forced to bow into cease-and-desist letters about questionable patents or settle out of court as litigation is too expensive and takes a long time. As a small player you can either pull or cut your software or take a license if available. You are excluded from fair cross-licensing deals, since you do not have enough patents to cross-license.
  10. Software patents are like 'cold war' for large companies. Large companies view positively the potential to nuke competitors from the market. With cross-licensing deals they recreate a level playing field that resembles the situation without a patent system for members of the club. But weight in trolls, litigation costs, damages, royalties, product removal risks, and a shift of resources from the R&D (Research&Development) to the P&L (Patents&Litigation) department.
  11. Software patents do not fit for service-oriented markets. The software market is about providing services. Patenting suits service markets badly. Patents were designed for the classic industrial sector.
  12. Software patents are not written by (and for) developers. 'Inventors' can write patent applications without skills in software development and sue software developers who independently 'recreated' their 'inventions'.

We ask our parliaments and governments to do the following:

  1. Pass legal clarifications to substantive patent law. Such clarifications comprise negative and positive tests for patent examiners to assess what is eligible to merit a patent. We made proposals and remain open to alternatives that contribute to the end of software patenting worldwide. Two major ones are:
    1. A claimed object that consists only of instructions for use of generic data processing hardware (universal computer), also called “program for computers” or “computer-implemented solution”, is not an invention in the sense of patent law, regardless of the form in which it is claimed.
    2. A claimed object can be an invention in the sense of patent law only if it contributes knowledge to the state of the art in a field of applied natural science.
  2. Overcome a patent reform discussion trapped into "non-obviousness" The 'American disease' of patent law requires a return to real steering instruments. The patent community has been using that obviousness filter to distract reforms and to get industry backing for dismantling of more meaningful examination filters.
  3. Apply sound economical justifications and impact assessments in a democratic legislative process.
  4. Apply democratic reforms of patent institutions. Patent offices have to stay neutral and abstain from lobbying. They must let patent examiners contribute their first hand experiences. Persuasion for patenting based on the assumption that small enterprises just lack awareness puts preconceptions over the rationale of market choice.
  5. Provide for non-infringement declarations which override enforcement of patents. Rather than you taking the risk to research patents, patent holders should declare upon you request if your product or standard infringes one of their patents. Such estoppal provides legal certainty and standard confidence.
  6. Get patent professionals out of policy making. Increase the influence exercised by economists on the governance of innovation policy. The quality of professional judges cannot be exchanged for 'technical judges' without legal training and eligibility to a judicial office or administrative 'case law'.
  7. Keep substantive patent law harmonisation away from Free Trade Agreements.
  8. Start an open debate about the patent crisis aimed at finding solutions. Economists can easily explain to you why free rider effects make patent opposition suboptimal. Other institutional unbalances pressure patent examiners to grant permissively. Let's review the institutional incentives and start reform.

WARNING: THIS IS A DRAFT VERSION RELEASED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS:

  1. IF YOU SIGN IT BEWARE THAT IT IS NOT FINAL AND STILL SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN A NEAR FUTURE
  2. IF YOU SIGN NOW, YOU WILL BE CONTACTED BACK VIA EMAIL IN ORDER TO SIGN THE FINAL VERSION
  3. IF YOU WANT TO CONTRIBUTE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PETITION PLEASE ADD THEM BELOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Privacy policy: by signing this draft petition, you agree to receive an email asking you to sign the final version. Your name, country, time of signature, and comments will be publicly displayed in the list of signatures.

First name:
Last name:
City:
Country:
Email:
You will receive a verification email to this address.
Comments:

Please comment on the draft petition!

fold
first post
zoobabzoobab 1220315374|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

"if it contributes knowledge to the state of the art in a field of applied natural science." should be in bold.

reply | options
unfold first post by zoobabzoobab, 1220315374|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Worried by "Privatisation of patent examination"
Anonymous (91.177.30.x) 1220383911|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

Worried by:

"Privatisation of patent examination may be an option."

My view of the world is that economics, and the private sector, is outside of morality, which is enforced, albeit inadequately, by politics (legislative, executive, judiciary).

Removing anything as vital as examination from the political control, which is all that we have, is I think very dangerous.

Put it differently, how can a group of concerned citizens control the execution of a public function performed outside politics?

We put currently a high value on public awareness and our own lobbying, because we do not have political power on this issue. But our goal should be to enshrine our positons into law, and let the administration apply it. Not to introduce other players, legitimately motivated by money and career instead of the public good. When they are baught, using money we do not have, we barely have grounds for complaining.

Our ultimate power is opinion tranformed into votes. I think votes have a more direct impact on an administration than on a private company.

Of course, we might hope to tender for patent examination calls, with competent people favorable to our positions. But so will the other side.

There is frustration with the current patent offices. But they are, albeit indirectly, our employees. And we have a chain of command to them, albeit imperfect. When evaluation goes public, we weaken the chain of command.

It will be hard to change the entrenched habits of the current Patent Offices, which is the current problem. But I fear that it would be harder still to control private evaluators in the future.

Sincerely,

Pierre Van Nypelseer, AITECH S.A., vanyp at scarlet.be

Incidently, I do not wish to remain anonymous. Unfortunately, I had to cheat the system to get my email up there. Any email address seems automatically removed.

reply | options
unfold Worried by "Privatisation of patent examination" by Anonymous (91.177.30.x), 1220383911|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Re: Worried by "Privatisation of patent examination"
arebentiarebenti 1220392640|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

The idea is that privatisation of examination may actually be a very good thing as it changes the institutional incentives.

reply | options
unfold Re: Worried by "Privatisation of patent examination" by arebentiarebenti, 1220392640|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Re: Worried by "Privatisation of patent examination"
Anonymous (91.177.30.x) 1220433351|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

As I said, "hard to change the entrenched habits of the Patent Offices". But what beneficial incentives do you see there? Will they be sufficient, and what control will be left if they are not sufficient?

My position is that:
- usually revolutions do not work. The new state tends to be worse than the original, until it improves (except US)
- NGO give some relief
- but the real solution is to reclaim the state

I think the notion of incentives is too clever, and it digs the hole deeper. Working for the public good is mandatory in state institutions, and must be enforced.

The risk with incentives are:
- the consequences of specific incentives are hard to predict. The only predictors are ideological.
- that obscurity will prevent a sound political debate on the choice of appropriate incentives
- and in an universe governed by incentives, not by enforced duty, the powerfull can always offer better incentives.

Of course, the public service incentive also exists. But the overall current state of affairs shows that, if it is not enforced as a duty, it is unsufficient.

Pierre Van Nypelseer, AITECH S.A., vanyp at scarlet.be

reply | options
unfold Re: Worried by "Privatisation of patent examination" by Anonymous (91.177.30.x), 1220433351|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Re: Worried by "Privatisation of patent examination"
arebentiarebenti 1220438459|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

Very interesting because we have totally different views.

"I think the notion of incentives is too clever, and it digs the hole deeper. Working for the public good is mandatory in state institutions, and must be enforced."

- I recommend you to read the STOA report of the European Parliament on patent matters.

- Incentive means for me here: how does the institutional environment of an examiner manipulate him to grant bad patents or his institutions to lobby for lowering standards. There are strong institutional interests in the expansion of the system because otherwise a patent office would be institutionally neutral to its granting task which is not the case. In fact they even aggressively lobby the legislator.

If we want to change these factors we need to change the incentives of the patent offices and exercise democratic control.

The trade union of the EPO examiners complained bitterly about the work conditions of examiners that make it more difficult for them to reject patents. Pompidou, the former president of the EPO even wanted to pay bonuses to examiners based on patents granted.

The idealistic phrase of the "public good" mission is not helpful here but sure that is the goal. I am not speaking of a kind of "bonus" system but of a larger institutional reform. Patent bureaucracies become more and more unable to solve the examination backlog problem although they expand their staff like no other government agencies.

reply | options
unfold Re: Worried by "Privatisation of patent examination" by arebentiarebenti, 1220438459|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
"As in the corpus of patents?"
zoobabzoobab 1220515837|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

Sorry "as in the corpus of patents" is too complex to understand.

reply | options
unfold "As in the corpus of patents?" by zoobabzoobab, 1220515837|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Re: "As in the corpus of patents?"
arebentiarebenti 1220532239|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

"corpus of patents" means "all patents (which are in force)", the library of all patents, add to this those applications which are in the pipeline and where you have a probability of granting. Here a double risk applies: You don't know what will be granted in 4-5 years that was applied for today. Often patentees really don't make a difference between patents and applications. If you want to convince your investors you cannot wait 4-5 years.

Corpus is a professional term for a total library of documents, it is heavily used in editorial science.

The phase is "as is the corpus of patents" not "as in the corpus": software is complex and the corpus of patents is complex.

last edited on 1220532617|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover by arebenti + show more
reply | options
unfold Re: "As in the corpus of patents?" by arebentiarebenti, 1220532239|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Re: "As in the corpus of patents?"
zoobabzoobab 1220533615|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

You have to use simpler terms.

I would remove the "corpus" thing and keep the "Software is complex and typically may violate hundreds of patents."

This everybody understands. And the corpus "all patents granted and pending" should go to the explanatory page.

reply | options
unfold Re: "As in the corpus of patents?" by zoobabzoobab, 1220533615|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
New item3 already covered by item1
zoobabzoobab 1220524420|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

New item3:

The fundamental and all-important condition for granting a patent is that the idea claimed to be patentable must be an invention. Therefore identification of technical character is a separate step to be resolved before the considerations of novelty and inventive step are analyzed.

is already covered by item1:

A claimed object that consists only of instructions for use of generic data processing hardware (universal computer), also called “program for computers” or “computer-implemented solution”, is not an invention in the sense of patent law, regardless of the form in which it is claimed.

reply | options
unfold New item3 already covered by item1 by zoobabzoobab, 1220524420|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Re: New item3 already covered by item1
arebentiarebenti 1220529700|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

Also mind that the petition is worldwide

reply | options
unfold Re: New item3 already covered by item1 by arebentiarebenti, 1220529700|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Re: New item3 already covered by item1
zoobabzoobab 1220533393|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

I do not see the relation between "petition is worldwide" and the fact that item3 is already covered by item1.

last edited on 1220533403|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover by zoobab + show more
reply | options
unfold Re: New item3 already covered by item1 by zoobabzoobab, 1220533393|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
First two points
arebentiarebenti 1220618682|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

Thanks to the great input of you and externals I reworded the first two points. Thanks in particular to Rene M. I am still not pleased with the use of the word "idea" in paragraph 2 but I cannot use "inventions" and "concepts" was no good term either. Following the criticism of Georg I weakened the emphasis of studies in the first argument.

I acknowledge the criticism of the reward teaching of Reinier but it is not the point in 2. You can dissent with a teaching and still argue against, the emphasis here is not on reward but that patents mean rights for the wrong object, an object which does not need to incentivised as it is not scarce and an object whose disclosure doesn't make a difference.

In more indecent wording 2 is: "Software patents are a bonus granted for poop that prevent others to poop". The use of key wordings as "reward"
and "disclosure" is used made because these phrases are common in the patent discourse.

The first sentence of 1 lacks precision and is oversimplified but I leave it that way

1. *Software patents do not work
<http://stopsoftwarepatents.org/petition:do-not-work>.*
Insufficient economic evidence supports an application of the
patent system on software. On the contrary, most studies hint that
software patents restrain innovation.
2. *Patents reward 'hot air' in software
<http://stopsoftwarepatents.org/petition:hot-air>*. Ideas are not
scarce but cheap. Their disclosure in an application does not
justify to grant rights to prevent them happening. Developers who
read software patents consider them as an offence; they disclose
nothing meaningful.

last edited on 1220618736|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover by arebenti + show more
reply | options
unfold First two points by arebentiarebenti, 1220618682|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Some discussion of the ethics as well as the economics?
plhplh 1220695871|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

We've all seen the sickening contents of the patent databases: duplicate or overlapping software patents; often absurdly broad/trivial/obvious software patents; software patents for non-novel 'inventions'. Independent re-invention is no defence and you are guilty until proven innocent in the Patent Courts even when pre-invention is involved. There appears to be little if any will in the system to change any of this and good reason to believe that only weakly effective changes could be made even if there was such a will. Frauds are being perpetrated and licences to steal and extort are being handed out and in the absence of strong economic evidence that software patents are a significant overall benefit to society, this is an intolerable state of affairs. It is a moral outrage.

reply | options
unfold Some discussion of the ethics as well as the economics? by plhplh, 1220695871|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Grammatical Errors
justathoughtor2justathoughtor2 1222047738|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
  • Reasoning section:
    • Missing period in item 5
    • Remove word "an" in item 4, sentence 4
  • Recommendations section:
    • Missing period in first sentence of item 3
    • Change "desease" to "disease" in item 3
    • Missing period in final sentence of item 5
    • Change second instance of word "you" in item 7, sentence 2 to "your"
reply | options
unfold Grammatical Errors by justathoughtor2justathoughtor2, 1222047738|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Re: Grammatical Errors
YanaBYanaB 1222158235|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

Thank you for your input! The corrections have been made.

reply | options
unfold Re: Grammatical Errors by YanaBYanaB, 1222158235|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Re: Grammatical Errors
coopdotcoopdot 1222306342|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
  • Reasoning section:
    • Change "along" to "long" in item 11
    • Change "ressources" to "resources" in item 12
reply | options
unfold Re: Grammatical Errors by coopdotcoopdot, 1222306342|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Software in the Public Interest signs
Bruce PerensBruce Perens 1222316400|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

It's late, because they waited for their monthly board meeting, but Software in the Public Interest, the non-profit foundation behind the Debian project and many other meritorious efforts, has signed the petition. There's no other place for corporate rather than individual signatures, so I'm entering theirs here. - Bruce Perens

reply | options
unfold Software in the Public Interest signs by Bruce PerensBruce Perens, 1222316400|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Re: Software in the Public Interest signs
zoobabzoobab 1222350756|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

We are gonna setup a special form for companies and associations once the petition is final.

The more important thing right now it to put forward comments on the content of the text, in order to have a high quality text.

reply | options
unfold Re: Software in the Public Interest signs by zoobabzoobab, 1222350756|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Delayed Launch of the Petition?
Anonymous (152.7.196.x) 1222862270|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

I don't mean to rush the project, but is there a reason why the official petition hasn't been launched yet? I thought we were sending it in on the 24th. Are we just waiting on more signatures?

I'm in no rush, don't get me wrong! But this is the first big free software project I've ever really gotten involved in, and I'm afraid that it's losing steam and won't be sent at all! That would not be good at all. What's happening on the other end of this site?

~ BP

PS: Sorry for the anonymous post… I just don't feel like making an account.

reply | options
unfold Delayed Launch of the Petition? by Anonymous (152.7.196.x), 1222862270|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Re: Delayed Launch of the Petition?
zoobabzoobab 1222893881|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

We are asking some friends to review the text of the petition. It should be ready soon.

reply | options
unfold Re: Delayed Launch of the Petition? by zoobabzoobab, 1222893881|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Re: Delayed Launch of the Petition?
Anonymous (84.129.59.x) 1223036914|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

Because 23 Sept a user named "zoobab" changed the whole petition text and thus the text needs to maturate again. It will be released when it's ready.

It is not crucial to launch it now. The petition is aimed to become a longterm project. It aims to be a replacement for the noepatents petition that collected ~300 000 signatures over 5 years but was heavily outdated and European-only. So ssp.org will be very generic and worldwide. SSP.eu (which is not ready yet, developed by a competing Berlin team) would focus on specific European messages and requirements for a patent reform.

So "quality" of the ssp.org text and the message goes over "time to market". We are trying to simplify and condense the message. More review is needed.

reply | options
unfold Re: Delayed Launch of the Petition? by Anonymous (84.129.59.x), 1223036914|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
phrasing: may
Anonymous (88.78.235.x) 1224752658|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

Item 3 has: 'Inventors' may deliberately phrase their applications very broadly and […]
Well, I would replace "may" with "often". This is not just an obscure theory, but it happens. —akf

reply | options
unfold phrasing: may by Anonymous (88.78.235.x), 1224752658|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
fold
Re: phrasing: may
Anonymous (90.187.1.x) 1225285321|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

It is what patent attorneys *have to do*. It is a negotiation process. But if its negotiable then it is no "static" broadness.

reply | options
unfold Re: phrasing: may by Anonymous (90.187.1.x), 1225285321|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

Add your comment

Add a new comment

Latest 250 signatures

All signatures so far: 1729

Most recent signatures:

  • Lauri Võsandi, Estonia, 1246175566|%O ago
    Comments: Stop the maddness!
  • Troels Just Christoffersen, Denmark, 1245102926|%O ago
  • Roman Land, Israel, 1242514780|%O ago
  • Ger Hooton, Ireland, 1242207047|%O ago
  • Egon Elbre, Estonia, 1239040858|%O ago
    Comments: For those who don't understand: "Software Patent is like restricting painters paint landscapes where is one mountain."
  • Hadrien Grandry, Canada, 1238551169|%O ago
  • Aner Levi, Israel, 1238363275|%O ago
  • Tony Belanger, Canada, 1237994705|%O ago
    Comments: Software patents suck!
  • filippo spada, Italy, 1234990216|%O ago
  • Federico Ponchio, Italy, 1234447914|%O ago
  • matthieu vanderdonck, Belgium, 1234128633|%O ago
  • Mark Usang, Malaysia, 1233883101|%O ago
    Comments: Just like mathematics, software should not be patented. Software patents impedes innovation and competition!
  • Wouter Van Meir, Belgium, 1233876484|%O ago
  • Mikael Nordstrom, Sweden, 1233847523|%O ago
  • Rikard Westman, Sweden, 1233782549|%O ago
  • Sascha Gallardo, Sweden, 1233395554|%O ago
    Comments: Software patents is most likely used to have a secured side income if the original source flops.
    "I know my sw is a piece of shit, but I'm still becoming a millionaire due to sw patent and law suits!"
  • Kai Lüke, Germany, 1233263375|%O ago
  • Noé Rubinstein, France, 1233165444|%O ago
  • William Schleifer, Cyprus, 1233040849|%O ago
  • Leigh Taylor, Australia, 1233014159|%O ago
  • Stephan Paskert, Germany, 1232978948|%O ago
  • Dragomir Pavkovic, Croatia, 1232978659|%O ago
  • Tim Lossen, Germany, 1232973302|%O ago
  • Anna Braun, Austria, 1232878717|%O ago
  • Brian Cooper, Australia, 1232877871|%O ago
  • Erin Carson, United States, 1232562388|%O ago
  • Endre Stølsvik, Norway, 1232449467|%O ago
    Comments: We want free innovation!
  • Kjetil Fossum, Norway, 1232439342|%O ago
  • Fabian Bastin, Canada, 1232403673|%O ago
  • Frank Langbein, United Kingdom, 1232368367|%O ago
    Comments: People who have novel ideas publish them for everyone to use; some are too greedy and end up being isolated. People who had one trivial idea get a patent and pester everyone else. People without ideas buy those trivial ideas. So who do we need to solve problems?
  • Luís Mendes, Portugal, 1232117487|%O ago
    Comments: If you want to be able to start a software company in the near future, or to be able to develop and share your work, then help to stop this "I have so much money and I to want to have it all" stuff.
  • Stephanie CHARY, France, 1231790007|%O ago
  • Ana Aranguren, Spain, 1231445709|%O ago
  • Ville Lindstedt, Finland, 1231265495|%O ago
  • Skyler Clark, United States, 1230917541|%O ago
    Comments: As someone who will soon be entering the industry, patents must be stopped.
  • thibaud brocard, France, 1230633773|%O ago
  • pierluigi cavallaro, Italy, 1230580462|%O ago
    Comments: abbasso winzozzz
  • Brice Vandemoortele, Belgium, 1230567485|%O ago
  • Gustavo Ponzo, Italy, 1230489731|%O ago
  • Joseph Robinson, United States, 1230450409|%O ago
    Comments: Consider what's already been said, I have little to add. The choice seemed clear to me: Sign this petition.
  • Konstantinos Ioannidis, Greece, 1230413921|%O ago
    Comments: Software patents sound to me like "i forbid to everyone to cook a recipe that contains as a part something that i made first"
    Patents imply chains in thought
  • Anna Maria Vincitorio, Italy, 1230104132|%O ago
  • Wally Pettinelli, Italy, 1230103636|%O ago
  • Roberto D'Orsogna, Italy, 1230103417|%O ago
  • Tiago Reul, Brazil, 1229868254|%O ago
  • paul-henri audin, France, 1229718861|%O ago
  • Marina Latini, Italy, 1229648573|%O ago
  • Ladislav Koribský, Slovakia, 1229525729|%O ago
  • Dimitri Livitz, United States, 1229492240|%O ago
  • Lorenzo Iannuzzi, Italy, 1229360417|%O ago
  • Loïc Hoguin, France, 1228680125|%O ago
  • angelo antonio ricci, Switzerland, 1228646189|%O ago
    Comments: libero è bello
  • Boyan Kasarov, Bulgaria, 1228588951|%O ago
  • David Aardwolf, Singapore, 1228407621|%O ago
    Comments: Kudos!!!
  • Radoslaw Zasiadczuk, United Kingdom, 1227746266|%O ago
  • Tiago Geada, United Kingdom, 1227648676|%O ago
    Comments: For all the reasons stated above (some of them I wasn't even aware) I think patents for software should never exist

    there should be no software boundaries
  • João Vieira, Portugal, 1227542947|%O ago
  • Andrei Vasiliu, Romania, 1227293394|%O ago
  • J Larsen, Denmark, 1227217814|%O ago
  • L. Kettenbach, Germany, 1226851888|%O ago
  • tomer filiba, Israel, 1226704449|%O ago
    Comments: patents suck. free software and innovation for all!
  • gabriel ilardi, Italy, 1226594334|%O ago
    Comments: Stop patent trolls!
  • Jody Bruchon, United States, 1226535225|%O ago
    Comments: Software is analogous to an instruction manual: it only tells a machine what it is to do and how to do it. Last time I checked, instruction manuals weren't a patentable item. When will this country learn from the infamous Amazon 1-Click Patent? I'm tired of this garbage even a decade later!
  • Luca Cappelletti, Italy, 1226482161|%O ago
    Comments: Stop Nazism at 360 degrees
  • Ričardas Barkauskas, Lithuania, 1226433699|%O ago
  • Michael Nielsen, Denmark, 1226065806|%O ago
    Comments: Patents will lead to a company needing to employ 2 laywers for every developer, as they would need to test every line of code against a paten, due to the triviality of most patents.
  • tad bisaha, France, Metropolitan, 1225597968|%O ago
    Comments: Merci de nous laisser la liberté de choisir et de créer selon nos souhaits! Et surtout, MéSSieurs, foutez-nous la paix, n'est-ce pas!?
  • Casper Langemeijer, Netherlands, 1225454196|%O ago
  • Riccardo Runci, Italy, 1225452481|%O ago
    Comments: PORCO DIO LADRO
  • Andrea Vinci, Italy, 1225452368|%O ago
  • Francesco Francescangeli, Italy, 1225353585|%O ago
  • Stefano Rosellini, Italy, 1225285948|%O ago
  • Marco Rossi, Italy, 1225271057|%O ago
  • Andrea Bozzetto, Italy, 1225232069|%O ago
  • Dario Zannini, Italy, 1225215027|%O ago
  • Vincent Ortalda, Italy, 1225202805|%O ago
    Comments: Stop the patents!
  • Paolo Mandrino, Italy, 1225198825|%O ago
  • Ioannis Andriopoulos, Greece, 1225192618|%O ago
  • Alessandro Talami, Italy, 1225191057|%O ago
  • Giorgio Caligni, Italy, 1225155088|%O ago
    Comments: STOP IT!
    Patents are not the solution. To evolve, Sharing the Knowledge is the solution, like in the Science!
  • Massimiliano Cingolani, Italy, 1225135921|%O ago
  • angelo campanelli, Italy, 1225122946|%O ago
  • Andrea Rondelli, Italy, 1225120259|%O ago
    Comments: Thanks for all you do for us, I support you. Stop Software Patents!
  • Flavi Copes, Italy, 1225117848|%O ago
  • Stefano Pezzoli, Italy, 1225115672|%O ago
  • Alberto Bertozzi, Italy, 1225115232|%O ago
  • andrea giacomelli, Italy, 1225111568|%O ago
  • Guillaume Zurbach, France, 1225103884|%O ago
  • Thomas Schenck, United States, 1225056608|%O ago
  • Stephane Vast, France, 1225030898|%O ago
    Comments: This is an absolute necessity. Do we pay for Pythagore's theorem?
  • Edward Lenssen, Netherlands, 1224829268|%O ago
  • Alberto Martinez, Spain, 1224526099|%O ago
    Comments: I think that the main argument against software patents is that they are granted to a general idea instead of a particular implementation. An invention is not just an idea but the practical implementation that brings the idea to the physical world.
  • Juuso Lehtimäki, Finland, 1224386019|%O ago
  • Andrea Botteghelz, Italy, 1224330229|%O ago
  • Alexandros Pantazis, Greece, 1224321840|%O ago
    Comments: The ideas must be free, and the knowledge too. Must find a different way to fee people who invent things
  • Pam de Groot, Netherlands, 1224282485|%O ago
  • Mario A. Valdez-Ramirez, Mexico, 1224254776|%O ago
  • Hasse Feldthaus, Denmark, 1224252595|%O ago
  • Ignacio Vicario, Spain, 1224183573|%O ago
  • Magnus Gustavsson, Sweden, 1224088074|%O ago
  • Omar Cornut, France, 1224067858|%O ago
  • Costantino Cerbo, Germany, 1224061603|%O ago
  • Friedrich Müller, Germany, 1224019620|%O ago
  • Ivan Vilata, Spain, 1224002129|%O ago
  • Pål Lykkja, Norway, 1223986373|%O ago
    Comments: Thank you!
  • Szymon Graczyk, Poland, 1223919922|%O ago
  • Francisco Soberón, Spain, 1223908327|%O ago
  • Nitin Agarwal, United States, 1223742336|%O ago
  • Mortier Benoit, Belgium, 1223727983|%O ago
  • Iskren Slavov, Bulgaria, 1223545539|%O ago
  • Jan Sevelsted, Denmark, 1223498554|%O ago
  • oskar reven, Austria, 1223491592|%O ago
  • João Cunha, Portugal, 1223475554|%O ago
  • Alexander Ruoff, Germany, 1223450999|%O ago
    Comments: I agree with Anonymous, privatisation of the patent examination is not an option. The examination has to be neutral and objective, which is not guaranteed within the private sector.
  • Alex Bell, United Kingdom, 1223401229|%O ago
  • Federico Del Bene, Italy, 1223388078|%O ago
  • Maciej Gębka, Poland, 1223318089|%O ago
  • Carlos J. Reyes M., Venezuela, 1223316361|%O ago
  • Marcus Ertl, Germany, 1223238404|%O ago
    Comments: The patent system in general needs a requirement to "disclose clearly and fully", so that in the rare case someone wants to read a patent, they can actually make use of it. If a patent is found to lack any of these qualities, it should automatically be revoked and precluded from being reapplied for.
  • Sergey Mezentsev, Russian Federation, 1223032491|%O ago
  • Oleg Ssorin, Latvia, 1223028458|%O ago
  • Claudio Clemens, Germany, 1223017963|%O ago
    Comments: Hi... the Draft is ok, but I think the formulation should be more formal. Try to avoid Metaphors like "coldwar" and "hot air". I think this takes the seriousness of the Petition. As always: This is just MY opinion.
  • Ralf Hein, Germany, 1222969213|%O ago
  • Nahuel Cristóbal, Argentina, 1222960616|%O ago
  • George Papadopoulos, Greece, 1222959407|%O ago
    Comments: No need to send me an email asking me to sign the final version. I do sing the final version whatever that will be, and all so all your future petitions. Thank you.
  • Jacques Stebler, Switzerland, 1222954574|%O ago
  • Erwan HAMON, France, 1222933810|%O ago
  • Dinu Vlad, Romania, 1222903020|%O ago
  • Jesus Alberto Lopez Cegarra, Venezuela, 1222888149|%O ago
    Comments: Software Patents are a serious threat to innovation.
  • caron Hugo, France, 1222869588|%O ago
  • joseph confoy, United States, 1222865701|%O ago
  • Jamie Johnson, United Kingdom, 1222863995|%O ago
  • Emile Kimme, South Africa, 1222859216|%O ago
  • LOPEZ JB, France, 1222849284|%O ago
  • Arnaud HIDOUX, France, 1222846899|%O ago
  • Olivier Maillard, France, Metropolitan, 1222808192|%O ago
    Comments: Ok to increase the role of economists, but economists are not scientists, they are closer to ideologues. So the whole thing should not be left to them, they should be part of it, but it's most important to push this debate in clear and intelligible terms for citizens.OIl
  • john bekiaris, Greece, 1222799681|%O ago
  • Matt Langley, United Kingdom, 1222784888|%O ago
    Comments: Patents restrict trade.

    Any income from a software patent is unearned as no technology was provided to the payee and no significant investment was made by the beneficiary.
  • Bernd Jäke, Germany, 1222773236|%O ago
  • Frederick Pascual, Philippines, 1222753028|%O ago
  • Vasil Truja, Italy, 1222729727|%O ago
  • Nicolas Vandeput, Belgium, 1222725307|%O ago
  • Raffaele Vitolo, Italy, 1222720948|%O ago
  • renato vitolo, United Kingdom, 1222720612|%O ago
    Comments: Thanks for your work! It is comforting to know that there is someone protecting the general interests of society while I am at (hard) work!
  • Sergio Bello García, Spain, 1222712131|%O ago
  • Felix Klee, Germany, 1222709065|%O ago
    Comments: I wonder whether "troll" is a word that every professional in the field understands. Sounds somewhat childish to me.
  • Stefano Paoloni, Italy, 1222709016|%O ago
  • john winstanley, United Kingdom, 1222705176|%O ago
  • Marcos Astorgano González, Spain, 1222704104|%O ago
  • Luc Santeramo, France, 1222695417|%O ago
  • Wouter Van daele, Belgium, 1222690706|%O ago
  • Adam Kubon, Poland, 1222687193|%O ago
  • Mathew George, Kuwait, 1222682107|%O ago
    Comments: Patents will kill innovation. Time to see some freedom from these stiflers
  • Maxime Lenglet, France, 1222677601|%O ago
  • Marlies Lampe, Germany, 1222676077|%O ago
  • Marvin Lampe, Germany, 1222675901|%O ago
    Comments: Software patents inhibit the development of all kinds of software. Why should we pay for a company which inhibits future?
  • Mattias Mattsson, Sweden, 1222646166|%O ago
  • Peter Radcliffe, Australia, 1222645253|%O ago
    Comments: UK citizen.
  • Felix Herbeck, Russian Federation, 1222642027|%O ago
  • Ilario Gelmetti, Italy, 1222635355|%O ago
  • David Fernández Piñas, Spain, 1222628435|%O ago
    Comments: Software is pure maths, so it is not patentable. Moreover, patents just promote litigation, not innovation.
  • Sylvie DROUET, France, 1222620184|%O ago
  • Lutz Langerwisch, Germany, 1222610503|%O ago
  • Jonatan Nyberg, Finland, 1222606818|%O ago
  • Bogdan Dobrota, Romania, 1222605113|%O ago
    Comments: It is like someone plays God. One day will someone saying that I am what I am because of him/her/them.
  • Jan Drha, Czech Republic, 1222545238|%O ago
  • Alex Muntada, Spain, 1222541208|%O ago
  • Ondrej Pagáč, Slovakia, 1222540909|%O ago
  • Claudio Vaccani, Switzerland, 1222540662|%O ago
  • bar fernand, Belgium, 1222534136|%O ago
  • Saverio Raponi, Italy, 1222532279|%O ago
    Comments: Software patents are wrong because no one can privatize a evolutionary step.
    Thanks for your work!
  • Martin Thomas, Germany, 1222519815|%O ago
  • Kamil Zaręba, Poland, 1222518387|%O ago
  • Willem Fortuin, Philippines, 1222518175|%O ago
  • Michel Meyers, Luxembourg, 1222508877|%O ago
  • René Matthäi, Germany, 1222507305|%O ago
  • Thomas Arnoux, France, 1222474964|%O ago
  • Sven Schwyn, Switzerland, 1222466344|%O ago
  • Aleksander Ansion, Poland, 1222465818|%O ago
    Comments: Software patents = nonsense.
  • Adrian Almenar, Spain, 1222462859|%O ago
  • Axel Mulder, Canada, 1222460913|%O ago
  • GIRAUD-PERNETTE Antonin, France, Metropolitan, 1222460734|%O ago
  • Mohammad Bakri Che Haron, Malaysia, 1222450416|%O ago
    Comments: may the source be with you
  • Luc Bollen, Belgium, 1222449451|%O ago
  • Joe Church, United States, 1222448226|%O ago
  • Victor Dimitrov, Bulgaria, 1222446385|%O ago
  • Andrew Kroesen, Canada, 1222445495|%O ago
  • Sam Watkins, Australia, 1222437143|%O ago
  • Emílio Lopes, Germany, 1222437134|%O ago
  • Tomasz Huć, Poland, 1222431724|%O ago
  • Roland Pisano, France, 1222429710|%O ago
  • Marcello Piliego, Italy, 1222429188|%O ago
    Comments: Stop Software Patents
  • Kamil Kuramshin, Russian Federation, 1222428856|%O ago
    Comments: I'm agree with all of above.
  • Miłosz Gawryś, Poland, 1222426600|%O ago
  • Steffen Hampel, Germany, 1222424494|%O ago
  • nicola giacobbe, Italy, 1222424222|%O ago
    Comments: There is no possible comment. If we are too stupid to understand what is happening maybe we just deserve it.
  • gregoire masset, France, 1222422207|%O ago
    Comments: -
  • Adam Warnowski, Poland, 1222421886|%O ago
  • Tomasz Nowacki, Poland, 1222421239|%O ago
  • Ed Mahood, Germany, 1222421039|%O ago
  • Roberto Guido, Italy, 1222419742|%O ago
  • Giovanni Di Trapani, Italy, 1222419536|%O ago
  • Andrea Carron, Italy, 1222418806|%O ago
  • Pierpaolo Marinucci, Italy, 1222418800|%O ago
  • Adrian von Bidder, Switzerland, 1222418551|%O ago
    Comments: Not sure if the problem is *software* patents. Aren't patents as a whole a last remnant of the feudal system of privileges granted to individuals by the King?
  • Ireneusz Bulwarski, Poland, 1222418478|%O ago
  • Laurent Baudelocque, France, 1222416559|%O ago
  • Geert Verdoolaege, Belgium, 1222414476|%O ago
  • Stuart Ritchie, United Kingdom, 1222413832|%O ago
  • Emidio Planamente, Switzerland, 1222413068|%O ago
  • Jaroslav Kučera, Czech Republic, 1222411779|%O ago
  • Torsten Küpper, Germany, 1222410982|%O ago
  • Markus Hinterseer, Austria, 1222410231|%O ago
    Comments: IMHO patents block innovation and contribute to claim-staking and upholding the current state of affairs. They drive small creative companies into dependency on bigger partners.
  • Thomas Dammann, Germany, 1222409292|%O ago
  • Jean-Pierre Gosso, France, Metropolitan, 1222408820|%O ago
  • Piotr Krzysztof Soboń, Poland, 1222407529|%O ago
    Comments: Ja tylko dodam od siebie, że wszystkie patenty są złe, nie tylko te na oprogramowanie. :P
  • André Perron, Canada, 1222405831|%O ago
  • Pablo Nicolás Núñez Pölcher, Argentina, 1222404600|%O ago
  • Lorenzo Fortina, Italy, 1222396698|%O ago
  • Flavio Cappelli, Italy, 1222391382|%O ago
    Comments: Software patents are just an issue among many, the world should review the whole economic system. Technology needs knowledge and ethic: people must be educated, and understand that only a strong respect for all players (companies, humans, animals, Earth), will ensure a good future to our children.
  • Bernardo Innocenti, Italy, 1222390667|%O ago
  • Michele Castellano, Italy, 1222390346|%O ago
    Comments: Patents software are a cancer for the human innovations.
  • Carlheinz Schorr, Germany, 1222390345|%O ago
  • Yury Chumak, Ukraine, 1222385642|%O ago
  • Iacopo Benesperi, Italy, 1222384558|%O ago
  • Robin Cheek, United Kingdom, 1222384537|%O ago
  • Matthé Commandeur, Netherlands, 1222382561|%O ago
    Comments: software patents oppose to standardisation
  • Marco Frattola, Italy, 1222380733|%O ago
    Comments: Software Patents are NOT Innovation!
  • Mariusz Soltysiak, Poland, 1222379366|%O ago
  • Artem Hvostovskiy, Russian Federation, 1222377438|%O ago
  • Josh Swartzbaugh, United States, 1222374909|%O ago
  • Tomasz Ziobrowski, Poland, 1222374391|%O ago
  • Michał Bianga, Poland, 1222373537|%O ago
  • Karsten Vieth, Germany, 1222373320|%O ago
  • Hugues De Keyzer, Belgium, 1222373080|%O ago
  • Mariusz Machczynski, Poland, 1222372891|%O ago
  • Marcin Makosa, Poland, 1222371758|%O ago
  • Marcin Landowski, Poland, 1222371330|%O ago
    Comments: patents = the end of democracy!!!
  • Paweł Drygas, Poland, 1222370861|%O ago
  • Robert Pollak, Austria, 1222369301|%O ago
  • Emmanuel Halbwachs, France, 1222368303|%O ago
    Comments: Software is like science or research: it have to evolve in a cumulative way. Author's right is sufficient, we don't need patents.
  • Krzysztof Hajdamowicz, Poland, 1222367631|%O ago
  • Robson Schaeffer, Brazil, 1222367562|%O ago
    Comments: free creativity!
  • giorgio villa, Italy, 1222366444|%O ago
  • Mikołaj Kuligowski, Poland, 1222366048|%O ago
  • Łukasz Skłodowski, Poland, 1222365596|%O ago
  • Eric Grejda, United States, 1222364237|%O ago
  • Andrey Kovalyv, Russian Federation, 1222364163|%O ago
  • Dan Smith, United Kingdom, 1222361484|%O ago
  • Sebastien BRACQUEMONT, France, 1222361479|%O ago