Microsoft sued for European Music Service [Archive]

MacRumors

Oct 14, 2003, 11:42 AM

According to this CNet article (http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5090679.html), Long Island-based E-Data (http://www.e-data.com/) has filed suit against Microsoft over their new music download service in Europe.

The company's patent reportedly covers "the transmission of information to a remote point-of-sale location, where information is then transferred to a material object", which the company claims describes the process of downloading music and burning to CD-R.

The patent expired in January 2003 in the United States which means Apple's iTunes Service, launched in April 2003, will not likely be the target of a lawsuit.

jxyama

Oct 14, 2003, 11:44 AM

what a ridiculous patent... nuff said. :rolleyes:

onemoof

Oct 14, 2003, 11:55 AM

That does sound like a stupid patent. It doesn't take any genius to come up with it so it shouldn't be a patent.

imbriumink

Oct 14, 2003, 11:56 AM

ditto

Poff

Oct 14, 2003, 11:59 AM

Microsoft lawyers are gonne schred them to pieces..

slowtreme

Oct 14, 2003, 12:15 PM

wow E-Data holds the patent on the pay-per-use FAX machine?

Seems kind of a broad patent.

Photorun

Oct 14, 2003, 12:32 PM

To quote Nelson from the Simpson "Hah hahhh" [points at Microsoft]

Seems like a silly patent but hey, if someone can sue Microsoft and (doubtful but hopefully) take that swill of a company for some cash it's cool in my book. Not like Microsoft doesn't have cash issues and it's certainly cost the world billions in sub par software for eons. Hope they win the suit for as much as they can milk 'em.

dongmin

Oct 14, 2003, 12:34 PM

Just goes to show how inept the American patent system is. Not that I'm cheering for MS but this suit needs to go away.

Stella

Oct 14, 2003, 12:35 PM

??

In Europe the patent laws are vastly more relaxed than the states.

You cannot patent software, so I'm surprised this law suit is going ahead.

For example, I could add amazons "One Click" feature (without licensing from Amazon) to my e-shop and there is nothing Amazon could do as along as I stopped US internet users from accessing my site.

tny

Oct 14, 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by cc bcc
If this has stopped Apple from introducing iTMS Europe, they would have known about the patent. MS probably would have known too. I think it's just a coincidence, a good one for Apple. But if this is the reason for the iTMS Europe delay, will we have to wait until 2005 for the patent to run out and iTMS to arrive?
I think it's unlikely.

Probably Apple could, if they wished, license the patent from E Data. Licensing a patent is always cheaper than losing a patent violation suit. But it would more likely be in Apple's best interest if the patent were shown to be irrelevant (i.e., if MS were to win).

IANAL.

Uragon

Oct 14, 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by jxyama
what a ridiculous patent... nuff said. :rolleyes:

though it sounds ridiculous, but it seems that E-date have settled or won against some companies.

dwishbone

Oct 14, 2003, 12:46 PM

this patent sounds stupid. that could be anything. hell buying shareware could be a violation of this patent. you buy it online. you use it on your computer. you can burn it to a cd or any other media. dumb patent.

this has nothing to do with iTMS for Europe. as i understand it the reason for iTMS' delay in Canada, Europe, and Japan is that the copyright laws are different in those countries and Apple has to get all the legalities worked out there.

mainstreetmark

Oct 14, 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Uragon
though it sounds ridiculous, but it seems that E-date have settled or won against some companies.

This company appears to be in the business of collecting royalties from it's patents and that's about it. Came up with some good, inevitable ideas and threw a patent on it.

Kind of like RCA back in the days of radio.

mdntcallr

Oct 14, 2003, 12:57 PM

Not that i am a huge fan of microsoft, Love Halo and Office though, But honestly, this patent suit is ridiculous against them.

In no way should downloading a song and burning it to cd after purchase be something that they need to pay this lil company for.

At this point that idea, which is not novel, shouldnt be covered by a patent.

joeyjojoe

Oct 14, 2003, 01:13 PM

I'm sick of people expressing their MS hatred. We get it. You bought a mac because you don't like Microsoft (well some of you anyway). Microsoft is only powerful because you or consumers like you choose to purchase their products ... end of story (yes I believe in Lassiez Faire, thanks for asking).

The suit is ridiculous. I could file patent on a program that makes your screen turn green, and then every time an RGB command is made, I could sue the manufacturer of the monitor/computer.

jxyama

Oct 14, 2003, 01:13 PM

the reason i said it's stupid is not because the patent itself sounded stupid... patent is meant to protect the inventor and thus spur inventions... however, when a patent issued nearly 20 years ago is applied so broadly to a fast advancing technological field, it's doing nothing to spur inventions.

it sounds as if this company was issued a very broad patent applied to the process of remote sales transfered to a physical media concept. 20 years ago, we didn't even have wide spread use of CD-ROM, much less CD-R. to have patent applied to technology/process that was virtually non-existent is ridiculous because non-existent does not equal non-obvious, as a patent should be.

this patent should have been far better defined and should not have been issued in such a form to be applicable to situations that was completely unforeseen at the time of "invention." if the inventor himself couldn't foresee its applicability, it's not a part of his "invention."

rvernout

Oct 14, 2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by onemoof
That does sound like a stupid patent. It doesn't take any genius to come up with it so it shouldn't be a patent.

Much can be discussed about the legitimacy of the patent system as it is now (and as a patent attorney I will be happy to start one), but the above remark seems a bit too easy to me.

Imagine yourself in the early 80's. Your business is to develop new marketing concepts making use of new technologies, and you have a vision of a complete new concept for selling music to the public, involving a network (a direct telephone connection? internet did not exist yet...) through which information is sent to a store, where the information is recorded on an information carrier (music cassette? recordable CDs did not exist yet...) and sold to the public. A very obvious concept indeed for that time.... not.

In order to be able to develop your concept into a business, which requires huge investments because the technology is not readily available yet, you want to protect your idea, so you apply for a patent, and invest at least US$ 30.000 to establish protection in both the US and Europe. Despite your attempts to market the concept, 15 years later the return on your investment is still zero. Nevertheless you pay the annual fees required to maintain your patents in all the seperate countries, a total of several thousands of dollars per year, apparently because you still believe in the concept.

Then finally, in 2003, your idea is copied (at least sort of, there are no physical stores involved) and implemented on a big scale, and some big money is made..... by others.

Unfortunately your patent has expired in the US in the meantime, and your patents in Europe will lapse VERY soon because of maximum duration... Lucky you...

Also, for a company like Apple, this could have been an opportunity to buy the patent rights for a fair amount, and be able to develop and invest in its iTunes Music Store for a while without being "shamelessly" (and badly) copied.

(Interesting point in view of this case: in several countries the patentee looses its rights when, after a defined number of years from the application date, the invention is not exploited in practice)

3.1416

Oct 14, 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by rvernout

Then finally, in 2003, your idea is copied

I really don't think "copied" is the word, because that idea now obvious given the advances in technology. It would have been done whether or not this company had applied for an obscure patent 20 years ago. In this case, and many others, patents are clearly not "advancing the useful arts and sciences", but simply being used for extortion.

peterj1967

Oct 14, 2003, 01:41 PM

Sounds like you need to charge for copying the file onto media other then a hard drive, such as a CD, to infringe on the patent.

From the article

"(Those companies) are offering downloads of music over the Internet, which can be downloaded onto CDs for a fee,"

So maybe it doesn't apply to iTMS, since you get charged to download the file and the copying the file to CD is free. Other services have an additional charge if you copy the file to an mp3 player or CD.

Just a thought...

SeaFox

Oct 14, 2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by 3.1416
I really don't think "copied" is the word, because that idea now obvious given the advances in technology. It would have been done whether or not this company had applied for an obscure patent 20 years ago. In this case, and many others, patents are clearly not "advancing the useful arts and sciences", but simply being used for extortion.

Sounds like a good money-maker.

I think I'll get a patent on "a vehicle or other contraption used for the transport people that does not produce any major environmental polutants." So when we eventually figure out the alternative for fossil fuels, I can collect a royalty.

I won't mention this when they're designing the cars. I'll wait until they've sold a million or so and then file my suit.

kenaustus

Oct 14, 2003, 01:57 PM

Legal illiterate I may be, but I can see the difference in finding a different way to carry out a process in order to avoid a patent and simply copying the patent.

If MS copied the company's intellectual efforts covered by the patent then let them pay. If, however, they independently developed a method of achieving the same results without infringing on the patent then the suit is going to die.

csubear

Oct 14, 2003, 02:02 PM

sounds like some one at $m didn't do their homework?

rvernout

Oct 14, 2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by SeaFox
I think I'll get a patent on "a vehicle or other contraption used for the transport people that does not produce any major environmental polutants."

You won't obtain a valid patent this way, because one of the requirements in patent law is that you disclose a working embodiment of your invention. Also, you can only claim protection for a combination of technical features which constitutes the invention (i.e. the combination of technical features must be new and inventive). You may use fairly broad (but clear) terms for these features, but you definitely can not validly claim protection for a goal or effect to be achieved. Besides that, the goal you describe here as an example seems not to be new to me.

SeaFox

Oct 14, 2003, 02:08 PM

This is an example of why it is not always good for Apple to be first to a market with a product. Thanks to M$ getting the European Music Store running first they got sued instead of Apple.

Now M$, instead of Apple, can pay the legal fees to get this overly broad patent thrown out and clear the way for the European iTMS. Meanwhile, MS's downloading service may be brought to a screeching halt while the case rolls through.

It's all good. :D

Mac User Canada

Oct 14, 2003, 02:17 PM

The more I read this forum, the more the average age of its participants becomes apparent.

With the rapid development of technology, this patent appears inappropriate today. But go back 20 years to a time when the internet was in its infancy.

In the late 1980s, I found printing a document and walking over to a fax machine annoying. I got a team together and we started developing a fax modem with built-in Postscript SIMMs. Just print to the card like any other printer. It was going to be so great. But the cost proved far too prohibitive and the new IBM XTs and 286s weren’t really powerful enough. Who ever thought you could do it all in software? Admittedly I was the victim of my own prejudice. With a hardware background I was completely oblivious to software solutions.

But you get the point. In order to asses the validity or wisdom of this patent, you must change your perspective and judge it not by today’s standards but by those of its own time.

I imagine that many readers of this site are fans of science fiction. Those of us who are a little older remember a time before Ridley Scott and Syd Mead’s Blade Runner. I strongly recommend reading early 20th Century science fiction. It can provide wonderful insight into the minds, dreams and visions of earlier generations.

MUC

SeaFox

Oct 14, 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by rvernout
You won't obtain a valid patent this way, because one of the requirements in patent law is that you disclose a working embodiment of your invention. Also, you can only claim protection for a combination of technical features which constitutes the invention (i.e. the combination of technical features must be new and inventive). You may use fairly broad (but clear) terms for these features, but you definitely can not validly claim protection for a goal or effect to be achieved. Besides that, the goal you describe here as an example seems not to be new to me.

All of your points are not demontsrated in the current case.

1) E Data did not have a working proprietary network at the time of its patent filing.

2) The idea of selling information/media over a remote kiosk to transfer to a physical media was certainly not new at the time of the patent filing. So it wasn't an original combination of technical features.

3) I was joking.

As I was reading the description of the patent in c|net's article, it reminded me of Wired magazine.

You see Wired charges for reprints of feature stories on past issues. Wouldn't this violate the patent, too? I have to pay to output to a physical media. The website acts as a kiosk.

withnail

Oct 14, 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Mac User Canada
Those of us who are a little older remember a time before Ridley Scott and Syd Mead’s Blade Runner.

And those of us even a little older than that remember when it was _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_ ;)

rvernout

Oct 14, 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by SeaFox
1) E Data did not have a working proprietary network at the time of its patent filing.

2) The idea of selling information/media over a remote kiosk to transfer to a physical media was certainly not new at the time of the patent filing. So it wasn't an original combination of technical features.

3) I was joking.

Ad 1) It is not necessary to HAVE a working embodiment, it suffices to describe one.

Ad 2) I don't know what exactly is claimed in the patent, but if you can find evidence about any system available or described prior to the application date and which is covered by the patent claim, MS would be very grateful to you. Any judge would readily nullify the patent in that case.

Ad 3) I was aware of that :)

singletrack

Oct 14, 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by SeaFox
I think I'll get a patent on "a vehicle or other contraption used for the transport people that does not produce any major environmental polutants." So when we eventually figure out the alternative for fossil fuels, I can collect a royalty.

You mean a bicycle? Sorry, problem solved already.

Fender2112

Oct 14, 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by peterj1967
Sounds like you need to charge for copying the file onto media other then a hard drive, such as a CD, to infringe on the patent.

From the article

"(Those companies) are offering downloads of music over the Internet, which can be downloaded onto CDs for a fee,"

So maybe it doesn't apply to iTMS, since you get charged to download the file and the copying the file to CD is free. Other services have an additional charge if you copy the file to an mp3 player or CD.

Just a thought...

Interesting point. Apple only charges for the download. What you do with it after that is up to you. Perhaps Apple was aware of the patent and this how they got around it.

Still, without the specifics of the patent, it's hard tell what the scope of use might include.

MongoTheGeek

Oct 14, 2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Mac User Canada
The more I read this forum, the more the average age of its participants becomes apparent.

With the rapid development of technology, this patent appears inappropriate today. But go back 20 years to a time when the internet was in its infancy.

Someone suggested a pay-for-fax system being covered under this. That may have been the original intent and the patent lawyer got creative. From what I recall of 1985 it probably involved people downloading the text of books and articles and printing it out locally.

The point of the patent is the consumer does a roll your own storage and only the data changes hands. It could probably apply to selling plans for a gear that gets produced in one of those 3d printers.

VerseGuru

Oct 14, 2003, 03:39 PM

"the transmission of information to a remote point-of-sale location, where information is then transferred to a material object"

I would argue that the downloaded music is not information but data and that the online music service provider has no control over the final destination media of the data, nor is the primary purpose of the service to save the data to external media (not in the iTMS instance); thus the patent should not apply to the service.

"tranmission to" could be a key phrase as well, it implies a sender initiated transmission (e.g. PUSH), much like someone elses example of a fax, rather than a recipient intiated reception or download (e.g. PULL) which would be "transmission from".

I'd be hard pushed to describe my computer as a "remote point of sale location", it's not a location but a device. Perhaps if you buying from a kiosk then that could be described as a location.

Actually it sounds rather like it was intended to automatically deliver locally printed news or something similar. Delivery (transmission to) of news content (information) and printing (trasnfer) on to paper (material object).

Of course this is based on the above quote not the actual patent text which I'm sure is more specific.

Given the age of the patent and that it probably holds little credible value these days, this is probably just an effort by the owner to make some money out of an unused patent in the only way America knows how: sue.

Mac User Canada

Oct 14, 2003, 03:49 PM

The point I was trying to make is that the electronic distribution of data may be taken for granted today, but 20 years ago it was a unique idea worthy of patent protection.

I'm reminded of a Star Trek: Original Series episode where a number of Enterprise crew are stranded on a planet following a transporter malfunction. As night approaches, the stranded crew members are in danger of freezing to death.

Some fans have asked: why didn't they simply send a shuttle craft to get them?

The answer is that shuttle crafts weren't introduced until the following season because no one had thought of them yet.

So while electronic distribution of data may seem obvious to us today. There was a time when it hadn't yet occurred to anyone.

MUC

suzerain

Oct 14, 2003, 04:00 PM

I am not a patent lawyer, and I'm not trying to argue here. I'd really like an educated opinion.

Originally posted by rvernout

Imagine yourself in the early 80's....A very obvious concept indeed for that time.... not.

This is the sort of point that could just be argued about, but IMO since ARPANET was created in the 1960s for chrissakes, and computers were already networked at this time, the idea was pretty damned obvious. Of course, that's something to be argued in court.

In order to be able to develop your concept into a business, which requires huge investments because the technology is not readily available yet, you want to protect your idea, so you apply for a patent, and invest at least US$ 30.000 to establish protection in both the US and Europe. Despite your attempts to market the concept, 15 years later the return on your investment is still zero. Nevertheless you pay the annual fees required to maintain your patents in all the seperate countries, a total of several thousands of dollars per year, apparently because you still believe in the concept.

OK, here is what I really want to know, and where I think your argument falls apart. What the hell has this asshole been doing for the last 8 years since the Internet broke mainstream? I've been working on the Web since that time, and I've certainly thought -- numerous times -- about ways to sell music online, though that has never been a business I wanted to get into.

It seems to me the patent loses some worth when all the technological pieces are served up to you on a silver platter, and yet you still fail to act on a patent YOU OWN - for eight years.

Then finally, in 2003, your idea is copied (at least sort of, there are no physical stores involved) and implemented on a big scale, and some big money is made..... by others.

Unfortunately your patent has expired in the US in the meantime, and your patents in Europe will lapse VERY soon because of maximum duration... Lucky you...

The iTunes Music Store, or Microsoft's UK venture, weren't the first services for selling downloadable music! There have been such services for years -- smaller ones. Remember how people were talking about how Apple was crazy to do the music store, because it was pointed out the labels had failed with their enterprises? Well, those enterprises were started BEFORE 2003, and the expiration of the U.S. patent.

So, answer me this: can Microsoft argue that this company didn't enforce their own patents the last few years in the U.S., while it was still in effect, and therefore they are only selectively enforcing the patent now after the media attention has been focused on iTMS?

Finally, as others have pointed out...the patent says nothing about music, and is incredibly broad ("information"? come on!). So, might this apply to fonts, shareware, printable back issues of magazines...etc. and so on?

I think this patent claim is ridiculous...as are most patent claims.

Phil Of Mac

Oct 14, 2003, 04:32 PM

I'm going to patent "a plastic device to prevent people from killing each other" and sue everyone who makes football helmets, trigger safeties for guns, and bulletproof vests. I'll make millions!

Java

Oct 14, 2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by mdntcallr
Not that i am a huge fan of microsoft, Love Halo Bungie makes Halo. Microsoft just bought the company.

dongmin

Oct 14, 2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by xDANx
but what many diehard laissez faire advocates won't admit is that it's the very act of competition that leads to monopoly and oligopoly situations. see 'capital' vol. I...it's full of all sorts of fun stuff...;) you should be referencing Adam Smith, if you're talking about diehard laissez faire advocates.

donkeydonkey

Oct 14, 2003, 07:39 PM

Had to register just to respond to this thread....

1) Software patents are EVIL/WRONG.
2) Some people here are defending software patents.
3) ....figure it out.

If you don't understand why #1 is truth then I would refer you to the following:

FFII: Software Patents in Europe (http://swpat.ffii.org/)

To quote from their site:
"The plans for patentability of software have been strongly criticised by the Council of Regions of the EU, the Economic and Social Council of the EU, the French Government, the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce, the German Monopoly Commission, the British Government's Intellectual Property Rights Commission, the French Industrial Planning Commission, numerous economic studies, 30 leading scientists, numerous politicians and political parties as well as 91% of the participants in a EU consultation and more than 250,000 individual and 2000 corporate signatories of a petition to the European Parliament and associations representing 2,000,000 enterprises."

Finally, as they clearly summarize:
"When software is patentable, anything is patentable"

I urge you to read the literature referenced at that site and get involved.

peace

donkeydonkey

Phil Of Mac

Oct 14, 2003, 07:47 PM

I'm going to patent software patents. I'll make millions suing all the patent offices.

donkeydonkey

Oct 14, 2003, 07:47 PM

One more thing....

Several here have directly and indirectly argued that software patents allow a means to financially protect the original developer of the patented concept.

This is true only insofar as it protects the greedy.

Software patents have been categorically shown in multiple studies to DECREASE R&D investment.

As an asdide, this is also true for other patents as well. For example, US drug companies argue that patents protect their investments AND thereby allow them to invest in R&D. The first half is true....the second half is false. Drug R&D is completely taxpayer subsidized - 100%.

Be sure to read this page in the site I referenced above:

Software Patent Horror Gallery (http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/index.en.html)

peace

donkeydonkey

rvernout

Oct 15, 2003, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by donkeydonkey
1) Software patents are EVIL/WRONG.
2) Some people here are defending software patents.
3) ....figure it out.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about software patents, including on the sites quoted here. In Europe software "as such" is (still) exempt from patentability. The discussion of the past years is about this exemption. But a computer loaded with that software is, and always has been patentable, which in practice gives the inventor the same protection.

In my view there is no difference whether an inventive concept is implemented in software or in hardware (electronically or mechanically). So instead of this silly (non) discussion, the real discussion should be about the legitimacy of the patent system as a whole, i.e. what constitutes an invention, how broad should the protection of a patent be, how long should a patent last?

Although I am working in the patent business, I will not defend the system at all points as it is. There are many pros, and many cons. It is suggested and substantiated that for developing countries the system is detrimental for their development, and the same could be true for young, developing technical fields. At the same time, it has also been proven that the system promotes the development of technology in the developed world.

So it may be a good idea to differentiate the span and period of patent protection for different technical fields and geographical areas. This should certainly be true for the medical field, as the current system is responsible for numerous deaths in the third world.

SeaFox

Oct 15, 2003, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by rvernout
Ad 2) I don't know what exactly is claimed in the patent, but if you can find evidence about any system available or described prior to the application date and which is covered by the patent claim, MS would be very grateful to you. Any judge would readily nullify the patent in that case.

I don't have examples off the top of my head, but I'm sure some tech journalist at some point in the 80's wrote a column where he said "What if we could process credit cards over a global network and sell books as eTexts or..." It seems like common knowledge. The problem is no one thought to patent it (probably assumed someone already had, and they were right).

SeaFox

Oct 15, 2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Fender2112
Interesting point. Apple only charges for the download. What you do with it after that is up to you. Perhaps Apple was aware of the patent and this how they got around it.

Still, without the specifics of the patent, it's hard tell what the scope of use might include.

But I think the hard disk copy would constitute a physical copy, too. It's a static storage medium after all. Computer goes off, it's still there.

SeaFox

Oct 15, 2003, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by VerseGuru
"tranmission to" could be a key phrase as well, it implies a sender initiated transmission (e.g. PUSH), much like someone elses example of a fax, rather than a recipient intiated reception or download (e.g. PULL) which would be "transmission from".

That sounds like an arguement for File Sharer vs. RIAA.

"I didn't force them to take the file. They initiated the download. So they are responsible for the piracy. I own the CD, the fact the file was available doesn't make me the culprit."

VerseGuru

Oct 15, 2003, 04:04 AM

That sounds like an arguement for File Sharer vs. RIAA.

"I didn't force them to take the file. They initiated the download. So they are responsible for the piracy. I own the CD, the fact the file was available doesn't make me the culprit."

Copyright infrigment is a different kettle of fish, in the instance you cite someone has made a file available to share without taking precations to protect their rights to it (quite the opposite), under law they should be prosecuted - not the network (for why isn't RIAA suing ICANN for giving users IP addresses or the US DOD for creating arapanet?) so technically I beleive a P2P network should not be held responsible especially if it is either autonomous (the current crop) or has a contract distancing it from its users actions (I think napster did?) so it still beats me how they managed to shut it down legally, bullying no doubt.

Nonethless the distinction between the sender and the messenger has always been vague, but like the saying goes "Don't shoot the messenger." The messenger is inevitably easier to shoot though.

In either case the the vaguaries of describing a tranmission are open to debate as all transmissions have an origin (from) and a destination(s) (to) but either one could be passive (e.g. with radio the destination is effectively everywhere but not everybody actually intends to receive it so there are passive recievers).

In the patent instance the quote was essentially saying "tranmission to" without mentioning a "from" thus my presumption of an implied PUSH implemenation.

maka

Oct 15, 2003, 04:58 AM

The problem is that what is being patented are ideas or concepts. If someone else finds a diferent means to get to the same result, then it should be no problem.

Software patents are used in Europe (see the mp3 compression) but it's not the same to patent a very specific way of compressing audio to patent "the act of reducing audio information in size by removing information that is not normally audible" or however it could be written down. The latter is general and would make open source formats like ogg impossible.

If you read the info that donkeydonkey posted, specially the horror gallery (http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/index.en.html) you'll see that some of the patents companies are trying to get are very common computer concepts, with no specifical implementation details. This is very dangerous and things like open source would be in grave danger, but it seems the EU didn't submit to the pressure of the big corporations :) so it's quite a relief...

Patents are being used to eliminate competition, and/or to get money from other people's efforts, so they should be replaced by something that meets their original intent.