Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Saturday March 21 2020, @07:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-can't-do-that-here! dept.

The Fed­er­al Con­sti­tu­tion­al Court of Germany (FCC) has delivered a decisive win for software users and developers around Europe. In a recently-published court decision, 2 BvR 739/17 (in German) from February, it has declared that the Act of Approval to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC) is void. The Unified Patent Court has been widely considered to be a shell for bringing software patents into Europe through the side door, in violation of international treaties which prohibit by name patents on programs for computers.

The Act of Approval to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court ("the Act of Approval") to confer sovereign powers on the Unified Patent Court is void. In its outcome, it amends the Constitution in substantive terms, though it has not been approved by the Bundestag with the required two-thirds majority. This is what the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court decided on a constitutional complaint in an order published today. In its reasoning, the Senate stated that, in order to safeguard their right to influence the process of European integration by democratic means, this, in principle, also entails the right of citizens that sovereign powers be conferred only in the ways provided for by the Basic Law. An act of approval to an international treaty that has been adopted in violation thereof cannot provide democratic legitimation for the exercise of public authority by the EU or any other international institution supplementary to or otherwise closely tied to the EU.

Once more for emphasis, software is protected by copyright law and that governs distribution. Patents govern usage and function, regardless of origin. So had the EPC gone through and forced software patents into Europe, neither clean room nor independent implementations would have protected either end-users, software-using businesses, or developers.

It is predicted that the European Patent Office (EPO) which, despite the name is outside the jurisdiction of the European Union, and which has long been a proponent of injecting software patents into the European market, will bemoan this decisive win for business and research. Their astroturfers are already engaged on spinning against the victory: Those that wish to continue to break the law see a lot of money on the table. The EPO has been illegally granting software patents in recent years in direct violation of the European Patent Convention of 1973, also known as the Convention on the Grant of European Patents of 5 October 1973. The EPC explicity prohibits granting of patents on many things including but not limited to scientific theories, mathematical methods, aesthetic creations, schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers.

Previously:
Texas Court Upholds "Do It On A Computer" Check-Cashing Patent (2019)
A Case for the Total Abolition of Software Patents (2018)
The MP3 Format is now Patent Free (2017)
Microsoft Patents a Slider, Earning EFF's "Stupid Patent of the Month" Award (2015)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Saturday March 21 2020, @09:23PM (2 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Saturday March 21 2020, @09:23PM (#973927) Journal
    You're reading it wrong. A parliamentary vote (with a mega-majority) would be required to approve the UPC properly. Apparently they tried to sneak it through with a lower bar.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday March 21 2020, @10:26PM

    by RamiK (1813) on Saturday March 21 2020, @10:26PM (#973951)

    Aha. That makes more sense. Thanks.

    --
    compiling...
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by pTamok on Sunday March 22 2020, @09:06PM

    by pTamok (3042) on Sunday March 22 2020, @09:06PM (#974235)

    You're reading it wrong. A parliamentary vote (with a mega-majority) would be required to approve the UPC properly. Apparently they tried to sneak it through with a lower bar.

    That just sets the bar for how much money needs to be spent on lobbying to obtain the necessary majority. Compared to the possible future income for the UPC supporters , it is probably far, far too cheap. They only need to win once.