Slashdot Mirror

The .eu domain name is currently in the process of being created by the European Union: see The Registers story and the EU's own poorly formatted paper about the issue.

Eh. Counterpoint.EU involves giving up a bit of sovereignty.

Internet government is an interesting idea for us voters, but I don't see sufficient reasons for governments to give up their sovereignty in this case.

"The sender cannot know whether a message will be received on a mobile or fixed terminal because of the convergence.
That is a technological fact.
Banning unsolicited commercial SMS messages while allowing unsolicited electronic messages based on other technologies is therefore not a workable solution."

What makes you think there will be other such nations to begin with?

Article 5 Exceptions to the restricted acts
3. The person having a right to use a copy of a computer program shall be entitled, without the authorization of the rightholder, to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do.
Article 6 Decompilation
1. The authorization of the rightholder shall not be required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of Article 4 (a) and (b) are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met:[...]

Toute stipulation contraire aux dispositions prévues aux II, III et IV du présent article est nulle et non avenue.

If you think you can do better, create your own superpower.

We're on the case.

That contradicts your previous statement, you fucking dumbass. You said "Here in Europe", yet here you claim to be in the Czech republic?

No contradiction. Czechy is on the continent of Europe but is not part of the European Union.

BUT if you_own_ 80% of the desktop market anyway who will stop you?

The European Union maybe?

You can download the directive itself as a pdf file from here
here. This could help you comparing the actual Ideas of an government with the possibilities of interpretation.

In Germany the implementation of this directive is nearly finished. The Government already agreed to it. Now it's up to the parlament to modify it.

luckily the error doesn't change the territorial bugbear it illustrated.

The bugbear is the same. That is, how the (non)exhaustion of rights at first sale and commercial import interact.

I am not fond of community exhaustion, as set forth in the EUCD. It sounds too much like creating a 'Festung Europa' for copyrighted works.

in about '94/'95 my boss at the time ordered laserdiscs from the US. They were stopped at the border because the discs hadn't come through the official release channels and weren't officially available in NZ.

That sounds like an example of parallel import laws.

can you tell us if the EU 'fair terms for consumers' directive applies in Norway?

The directive is 93/13/EEC

According to the EFTA Surveillance Authority database, this directive is implemented in Norway.

If the case against Jon Johansen initially stems from the resctrictment that the user used only autorised playback equipmen is it "reasonable" to claim a consumer is prohibited playing a legally purchased dvd on a linux box ?

_I_ would say that it is unreasonable. :)

Please note that the Økokrim indictment does not claim that a customer is contractually bound to only play DVDs on 'authorised' players. It claims that the DVDs were sold with the expectation that they would only be played on 'authorised' players.

I don't know what Økokrim is thinking, and to me it seems like they have an extremely weak case. After all - there is no contract. Once you buy a DVD record you should only be bound by copyright law regarding what you can or can't do with the content of that DVD.

A judge might not agree, though, and that scares me.

What would be your advice to his legal team?

Focus on two questions:

- The question of legitimate/illegitmate access. If you own a DVD, why would you not have legitimate access to the content?

- Ask the MPAA to show why some DVD players are more equal than others. That is - why are only DVDCCA-licensed players authorised to access DVDs? Why and how is it possible that the 'right to access' is attached to the DVD player and not to the DVD record?

Levi recently took the major UK supermarket to court in the UK to prevent them buying jeans legitimately in the USA and importing them, on copyright grounds. Levi won.

Levi claimed trademark infringement, not copyright infringement.

See EU Court of Justice, case C-414/99

The "Levi's" and "501" trademarks in the UK are held by Levi Ltd, a UK company.

The court held that, by importing Levi jeans from the US, Tesco and Costco infringed on the trademarks held by Levi Ltd.

Here is the feeling from the outside.

Software patents are a complex subject in Europe. The law itself is clear (Art 52):

The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: [...]
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

But the law makers didn't want to rule out everything that use an algorithm. Just the thing that were only algorithms. So, they added (Art 52):

(3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.

But the industrial lobby used this "as such" clause to brings back software patent by the backdoor. First by saying that the "as such" clause is too complicated to really understand what it means, and then by providing their view of it: a computer program that have a "further technical effect" is not a program as such. For example, in the EPO examinator's guideline, it is written:

While "programs for computers" are included among the items listed in Art. 52(2), if the claimed subject-matter has a technical character, it is not excluded from patentability by the provisions of Art. 52(2) and (3).

But the guideline go further:

In the practice of examining computer-implemented inventions, however, it may be more appropriate for the examiner to proceed directly to the questions of novelty and inventive step, without considering beforehand the question of technical character. In assessing whether there is an inventive step, the examiner must establish an objective technical problem which has been overcome (see IV, 9.5). The solution of that problem constitutes the invention's technical contribution to the art. The presence of such a technical contribution establishes that the claimed subject-matter has a technical character and therefore is indeed an invention within the meaning of Art. 52(1).

But the EPO have no juridictional power. That's why, when there is patent litigation, it goes in front of a national court. But EPO could not impose its views on national court. So, in every european software patent case, the court has found the software patent illegal.

So, in order to have the Europe comply to its views, the industrial lobby, and especially our friends of the BSA, has lobbyed the European Commission to propose a new law to make software patent lawfull. My prefered line from the FAQ is about the answers they have got from a consultation he subject, and the respect they have for those answers (my emphasis):

Many of the responses supporting a more restrictive approach than at present, with fewer patents being granted, were transmitted through an open forum set up by the "Eurolinux Alliance", a group of companies and other entities supporting the development of open source software such as Linux. Although this group numerically dominated (90%) the response, the major sectoral bodies representing the information and communication technology industries, as well as many of the Member States, all supported the approach put forward by the discussion paper.

Fortunately, our gouvernment is still opposed to the idea. But how long could it stand against Europe or industrial lobbies ?

So, from outside, the feeling is that the EPO is defying the law, on the pressure of the industrial lobby. And in order to align the law to their views, they even lobby the European Commission.

And you ? What is your feeling about this ? Especially from the inside of the EPO. You are somehow in the center of the whole thing. I would really like to have an opinion "from the inside".

Here is the feeling from the outside.

Software patents are a complex subject in Europe. The law itself is clear (Art 52):

The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: [...]
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

But the law makers didn't want to rule out everything that use an algorithm. Just the thing that were only algorithms. So, they added (Art 52):

(3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.

But the industrial lobby used this "as such" clause to brings back software patent by the backdoor. First by saying that the "as such" clause is too complicated to really understand what it means, and then by providing their view of it: a computer program that have a "further technical effect" is not a program as such. For example, in the EPO examinator's guideline, it is written:

While "programs for computers" are included among the items listed in Art. 52(2), if the claimed subject-matter has a technical character, it is not excluded from patentability by the provisions of Art. 52(2) and (3).

But the guideline go further:

In the practice of examining computer-implemented inventions, however, it may be more appropriate for the examiner to proceed directly to the questions of novelty and inventive step, without considering beforehand the question of technical character. In assessing whether there is an inventive step, the examiner must establish an objective technical problem which has been overcome (see IV, 9.5). The solution of that problem constitutes the invention's technical contribution to the art. The presence of such a technical contribution establishes that the claimed subject-matter has a technical character and therefore is indeed an invention within the meaning of Art. 52(1).

But the EPO have no juridictional power. That's why, when there is patent litigation, it goes in front of a national court. But EPO could not impose its views on national court. So, in every european software patent case, the court has found the software patent illegal.

So, in order to have the Europe comply to its views, the industrial lobby, and especially our friends of the BSA, has lobbyed the European Commission to propose a new law to make software patent lawfull. My prefered line from the FAQ is about the answers they have got from a consultation he subject, and the respect they have for those answers (my emphasis):

Many of the responses supporting a more restrictive approach than at present, with fewer patents being granted, were transmitted through an open forum set up by the "Eurolinux Alliance", a group of companies and other entities supporting the development of open source software such as Linux. Although this group numerically dominated (90%) the response, the major sectoral bodies representing the information and communication technology industries, as well as many of the Member States, all supported the approach put forward by the discussion paper.

Fortunately, our gouvernment is still opposed to the idea. But how long could it stand against Europe or industrial lobbies ?

So, from outside, the feeling is that the EPO is defying the law, on the pressure of the industrial lobby. And in order to align the law to their views, they even lobby the European Commission.

And you ? What is your feeling about this ? Especially from the inside of the EPO. You are somehow in the center of the whole thing. I would really like to have an opinion "from the inside".

Ummm, didn't the EU then break their own rules in regards to this?

Example from your link:
"...A contract term is in principle regarded as unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the party's rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
For example, you might buy a household electrical appliance where the seller's standard terms disclaim liability in the event of late delivery of the product, or stipulate that the firm shall be in no way liable for consequential damage caused by one or more hidden defects."
However the page has a DISCLAIMERat the top that says:
"...the Commission accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the material on this site..."
ROFL

The eu has just put up a huge (70,000 pages)
site about europian rights
here's the link relating to unfair contracts in the uk

basicly it says you can ignore any shit or non plain language in the contracts, anything thats in contrntion lends to the side of the consumer.

all good stuff

Of particular importance is the Proposal for a directive concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (PDF) which says:

Moveover, electronic mail for direct marketing purposes other than at the request of a subscriber (so-called 'spam'), will be covered by the same type of protection as exists for faxes. This means that spamming will be prohibited except with respect to subscripers who have indicated that they want to receive unsolicited e-mails for direct marketing purposes.

"At the contrary of some declarations, this "copyleft effect" does not touch or affect other software, or software interoperating with the GPLed software. But if you really INCLUDE
significant parts of copyleft code (e.g. GPLed components) in your software, this software must be distributed under the same license (e.g. GPL license)."

"As was said in the "copyleft" comments, the viral effect of a license like the GPL is a myth in the sense that it will not constraint a
publisher to release his software as GPL if some lines of open source code where introduced in it by accident."

"At the contrary of some declarations, this "copyleft effect" does not touch or affect other software, or software interoperating with the GPLed software. But if you really INCLUDE
significant parts of copyleft code (e.g. GPLed components) in your software, this software must be distributed under the same license (e.g. GPL license)."

"As was said in the "copyleft" comments, the viral effect of a license like the GPL is a myth in the sense that it will not constraint a
publisher to release his software as GPL if some lines of open source code where introduced in it by accident."

No, all this will do is isolate the computing world in American from the rest of the world.

Afterall, folks like Monti in European government are a lot harder to please than the US government. Europe won't toe the line with this American-based dominating technology (well, except maybe the UK.

Unless of course the US starts bombing European countries saying our citizens are living in an undemocratic civilization where American companies don't have the freedom to dominate^h^h^hinnovate. :) Seriously, the rest of the world won't buy it.

Yep, and the person who cached the content can then be sued for copyright infringement.

Yep, and the person who cached the content can then be sued for copyright infringement. Not in Europe, and I doubt this is true in the US either (otherwise Google would be illegal).

Yes american media downplays the importance of the euro and many of americans barely know that it exists.

As you can see the EURO gained quite a bit against the the dollar in the last months.

My question: did you ever consider to buy euros for longterm investment ? (as we europeans bought US dollars in the past)

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. (eg whether you feel the dollar is overvalued or not, US economy will recover to 1998-99 levels etc .. (a 2nd internet bubble ? I don't believe so)

click here for infos about the euro currency

And I'm telling you that the article is not a legimate interpretation of what the court ruled. You're reading a hysterical interpretation of what the EJC ruled, that conflicts with what it actually said. The fact that it confuses the ECHR with the ECJ by itself should be ringing alarm bells. In any case, the ECJ can rule what it wants, the ECHR trumps it in those countries that have signed up. Even if the ECJ had ruled that European citizens have the "right" to be denied access to conflicting opinions, the ECHR would never allow such a thing in the countries the ECHR covers.

The court's actual ruling, which as I said ruled not that he could be dismissed because he was an EU employee (a ruling which would not bother me), but rather that the citizens of the EU have a `human right' not to here the EU criticized can be read here. The relevant passage reads:

148 In that regard, it must be recalled that the right to freedom of expression laid down in Article 10 of the ECHR constitutes, as has already been made clear, a fundamental right, the observance of which is
guaranteed by the Community Courts and which Community officials also enjoy (Oyowe and Traore v Commission, paragraph 16, and E v ESC, paragraph 41). None the less, it is also clear from settled
case-law that fundamental rights do not constitute an unfettered prerogative but may be subject to restrictions, provided that the restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general public interest
pursued by the Community and do not constitute, with regard to the objectives pursued, a disproportionate and intolerable interference which infringes upon the very substance of the rights protected (see
Schräder v Hauptzollamt Gronau, paragraph 15; Case C-404/92 P X v Commission [1994] ECR I-4737, paragraph 18; Case T-176/94 K v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-203, II-621, paragraph 33; and
N v Commission, paragraph 73).

46 In terms of Article 10(2) of the ECHR, specific restrictions on the exercise of the right of freedom of expression can, in principle, be justified by the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others. The
rights at issue here are those of the institutions that are charged with the responsibility of carrying out tasks in the public interest. Citizens must be able to rely on their doing so effectively.
47 That is the aim of the regulations setting out the duties and responsibilities of the European public service. So an official may not, by oral or written expression, act in breach of his obligations under the
regulations, particularly Articles 11, 12 and 17, towards the institution that he is supposed to serve. That would destroy the relationship of trust between himself and that institution and make it thereafter
more difficult, if not impossible, for the work of the institution to be carried out in cooperation with that official.
48 In exercising their power of review, the Community Courts must decide, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, whether a fair balance has been struck between the individual's fundamental
right to freedom of expression and the legitimate concern of the institution to ensure that its officials and agents observe the duties and responsibilities implicit in the performance of their tasks.

Another article on this matter can be found here. There was also some discussion of the matter on the floor of parliament the week that article came out, but I don't have a cite for that at the moment.

Far from breaching the will of the ECHR, these fines are mandated by the ECHR

For a similar case, see here [freerepublic.com]

And I'd like to see a real report, preferably Reuters or AP please, but a real newspaper will do, backing up your original allegation that politicians were fined by the legal system merely for criticising immigration policy. I suspect what we either have here are blatent, nasty, attacks on immigrants designed to whip up hatred, that a supporter has tried (successfully, sadly) to stir support from the American right wing by attempting to invoke the spectre of censorship.

Even more worrying, the ECHR has recently ruled that Europeans also have a `human right' not to hear criticism of government, and thus member states and EU insititutions may act against those who criticize EU actions and policies -- see this article [freerepublic.com] from the Telegraph for more.

The European Court of Justice is a constitutional part of the European Union, as you could have seen by glancing at that link I gave you. The ECHR, OTOH, is an entirely independent body. It has nothing to do with the EU, and countries answerable to it are not necessarily EU members and vice versa. Read between the (hysterical) lines that follow in the Telegraph article and you find essentially a rather bizarre spin being put on a perfectly natural conclusion - that the EU doesn't have to employ anyone who actually is working against it.

It would certainly be interesting to see what actually happened in the case of the "fined politicians", your "similar" case, if similar, doesn't exactly paint them as sweet innocents who unfairly fell on the sword of political correctness, but of hatemongers. You do need a better source of news than Free Republic, and I wish I could point you at anything specific, but reading both The Independent and The Times should give you a slightly more balanced picture than you're used to.

And personally, given the choice between a country that has minor penalties for obvious hate speech, that doesn't feel that the use of drugs implies that you should be the target of rapists and thugs, and a country that thinks the opposite (except that the KKK does have restrictions, which ironically the oh-so-PC-and-bane-of-freepers-everywhere ACLU is regularly challenging) - well, no contest there.

Answer: One. East Germany, which rejoined West Germany at the beginning of the 1990s. NO OTHER EU MEMBER IS IN WHOLE OR IN PART A FORMER MEMBER OF THE WARSAW PACT.

There's a nice list of members here. Just a reminder: The EU, as a whole, has agreed to an 8% reduction. The US originally agreed to a 7% reduction for itself. Methinks East Germany would have to completely shut down, its citizens evacuating to Poland, for that 1% extra reduction to be entirely due to it.

BTW, in what way is cleaning up Eastern Europe, including East Germany, cheaper than cleaning up the US?

Not only ISPs; all telecoms. All data. Seven years. The EU draftsman, Marco Capatto, is not happy with the data collection/retention clause, and has written a report on the proposal-- an interesting read. The problem is that this is a step away from the various governments independently deciding how to handle data collection and retention; the bill forces them to enact legislation that collects and retains in accordance with this bill. stop1984 has issued a press release on the subject.

from the EU website

I've heard some dumb things in my day (such as college students getting drunk only to bounce on their beds and fall out the window) but this is beyond my comprehension.

I am in full agreement with harsher penalties for mass producers, but this isn't what would happen if the MPA, BSA, or any other organization got what they wanted. Often times it is a large piracy ring the companies go after, but /.ers know very well they'd go after anyone they could. It's a cartel / monopoly. They don't have to worry how many customers they piss off at this point.

So basically it sounds like CD's and DVD's will becoming with a SID (Source ID) which will identify the factory that made it. How is this supposed to help prevent piracy? Suppose I'm churning out masses of DVD's in Germany. Ok... they know which plant the DVD came from. So fucking what? If the truth is being told they more than likely won't know which store I even bought the original disc from. Not to mention it wouldn't be hard to buy a disc from someplace like Norway, which isn't even a member of the EU, and have either a different SID or no SID.

Something tells me this whole SID thing is not to prevent or track piracy, but to keep small DVD / CD producers from being a threat with even more rules and regulations.

From the article:
The software and media groups also want the process of being granted civil search orders (known as Anton Piller orders in the UK) to be made easier and cheaper throughout the EU. Some countries already make the process relatively easy, said Peets, but not all. "In some member states it costs 100,000 euros to obtain a search order, and in others it can take months to process the request, by which time there could be a leak," she said.

What is wrong with that? It seems like Peets wants to be able to barge into any house he or his cronies choose to look for pirated material. The US would do good to have a large fee to obtain a search warrant. Maybe the government / police / corporations would think twice before applying for a warrant.

Also from the article:
"Pirates are using the Internet to download illegal copies of movies and then burning them onto CD-ROMs or DVD Recordables, ..."

Jesus Christ in a furnace! What if somebody used bi-pedal motion to smuggle a DVD across the street for a neighbor to copy! We must act quickly against this "walking" lest piracy run rampant! Quickly, start putting the plant ID on all shoes made so we can stop piracy and make sure nobody makes their own shoes!

the US government is trying to stop the European Commission's antitrust case against Microsoft.

Someone posted further down that this is illegal in the UK. IANAL but as far as I can see, it's also ilegal in most of the EU.
The EU laws on data protection is where you can read the relavent material. There is also a link there to mail the EU commission on abuse of these laws.

I bet lots of people had allergies hundreds of years ago [...]

Sure they had, about 1% of them in 1906, but that doesn't explain the increase in allergies today (15%-20%). The fact is that as our living environment gets cleaner and cleaner, the more fragile we become. Some 100 years ago, virtually everyone were able to pat a dog or a cat or breath freely in the spring. Today, one in three suffers from some kind of allergy. According to this report, asthma is something that 20% of Europeans suffers from (including myself).

So, yeah, it's good we're clean, but too much of a good thing is bad.

All your questions answered here: FAQ

Quote:

How would these proposed VAT rules be enforced in the case of non-EU companies?

These proposals would require VAT registration only in the case of larger operators (over 100,000 of sales to private consumers per annum in the EU). Smaller operators and those with only occasional sales into the Community would be excluded from the scope of the tax.

In the case of larger operators, it is in their own interests to be seen to be in compliance with their legal obligations (including VAT obligations) arising from Internet trading because they themselves want to ensure that others respect their obligations in respect of the operators' rights, for example as regards copyright or other intellectual property rights. Legitimate operators certainly do not want to give credence to the idea that Internet is a zone where laws do not apply - the incentive to voluntary compliance should not therefore be underestimated.

FAQ

The Group considers that only human stem cells lines which have been modified by an inventive process to get new characteristics for specific industrial application are patentable. However, that stem cell which are been isolated and cultured but which have not been modified should not be considers as patentable inventions. Quoting from the press statement.

The full report is available here (here).

The Group considers that only human stem cells lines which have been modified by an inventive process to get new characteristics for specific industrial application are patentable. However, that stem cell which are been isolated and cultured but which have not been modified should not be considers as patentable inventions. Quoting from the press statement.

The full report is available here (here).

The Group considers that only human stem cells lines which have been modified by an inventive process to get new characteristics for specific industrial application are patentable. However, that stem cell which are been isolated and cultured but which have not been modified should not be considers as patentable inventions. Quoting from the press statement.

The full report is available here (here).

To enable alternative server software to interoperate in the prevailing Windows PC and server environment, technical interface information must be known. Without such information, alternative server software would be denied a level playing field, as it would be artificially deprived of the opportunity to compete with Microsoft's products on technical merits alone. The Commission believes that Microsoft may have withheld from vendors of alternative server software key interoperability information that they need to enable their products to 'talk' with Microsoft's dominant PC and server software products. Microsoft may have done this through a combination of refusing to reveal the relevant technical information, and by engaging in a policy of discriminatory and selective disclosure on the basis of a "friend-enemy" scheme.

The Microsoft license conditions for the documentation of CIFS is precisely ``engaging in a policy of discriminatory and selective disclosure on the basis of a "friend-enemy" scheme.''..

The relevent bit of RU law, regulation 384/96 states that "an anti-dumping duty may be applied to any dumped product whose release for free circulation in the Community causes injury." (article 1(1))

And injury is defined as meaning "material injury to the Community industry, threat of material injury to the Community industry or material retardation of the establishment of such an industry." (article 3(1))

And dumping is "A product is to be considered as being dumped if its export price to the Community is less than a comparable price for the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, as established for the exporting country." (article 1(2))

So, one way or another, the price drop is probably OK. Now, 299 is not much below the US price of $299 (according to this it's $266.17 as I write this) so whether dumping is happening is questionable. And also, given that selling below cost price is standard practice in the console industry, I would be doubtful as to whether the price drop causes injury, as defined above. And of course, there would need to be some EU console manufacturers (or at least, a fledgling industry) to hurt before anything could be done.

To emphasis this, take a look at european law about copyright and patent.
First, software patents are STILL unlawfull, even if given by the European Patent Office, and so are VERY LIKELY to be broken in front of a national court, as it has already be done.
Second, it seems that the patents given by the EPO are not as broad as the US patents, so they might not be used against european developers.
Finally, the Article 6 of the copyright law in Europe, about decompilation, specifically say that any user of a software has the right to decompile it "to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs", and that any part in a license say the contrary is considered as null.

"Many of the responses supporting a more restrictive approach than at present [...]. Although this group numerically dominated (90%) the response, the major sectoral bodies representing the information and communication technology industries, as well as many of the Member States, all supported the approach put forward by the discussion paper."

So, even if 90% of the comment are AGAINST software patent, it doesn't seems to really trouble the commission.

So much for the democracy.

Why would it be different here ?

Guess again. The CE mark has absolutely nothing to do with the FCC.

The FCC is an independent United States government agency that is is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.

The CE mark is used the by the European Commission as a "passport" which can allow a manufacturer to freely circulate their products within the European marketplace

It just became a lot harder to justify patent reform imo.

From the FAQ: What consultations has the Commission undertaken on this issue?
....Most recently, a discussion document was published on the Europa website on 19 October 2000 (see http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indpr op/softpaten.htm .... bla, bla ....
The consultation produced 1447 responses, the overwhelming majority by e-mail. An analysis of these responses is available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indpr op/softpatanalyse.htm
Many of the responses supporting a more restrictive approach than at present, with fewer patents being granted, were transmitted through an open forum set up by the "Eurolinux Alliance", a group of companies and other entities supporting the development of open source software such as Linux. Although this group numerically dominated (90%) the response, the major sectoral bodies representing the information and communication technology industries, as well as many of the Member States, all supported the approach put forward by the discussion paper. Some responses argued for eligibility for patents to be widened in line with the practice in the US.

To me this translates as : "Let's just take the 10% of responses that agree with us (us being the EU), and ignore the other 90%, because those people are just hackers/crackers, who didn't even try to bribe us" Why the hell would you have a call for public comments only to ignore 90% of it?

Also, the consulting firm they hired to analyse the comments doen't seem to think much of the open-source movement either. Funny thing is the firm doesn't even have a website. I wonder what were the criteria to hire them.

Listen, in my part of the world the continent where I live is definitively called Europa. And not only in my part (Germany), but in many other parts as well (Spain, Portugal, etc.) You may visit europa.eu.int to learn more about us.

You see, my joke was meant for readers with a tiny bit of cultural background on the Old Continent. Obviously, you don't belong to that group.

Um, I think the original poster meant Europa the moon, not Europa the union.

If I didn't see it with my own eyes, I would think this was some high school student's term paper of what he considers deep political philosophy.

It says you have the "right to liberty". Yet:

- Consider article 14 "the right to education"

"This right includes the possibility to receive free compulsory education."

That is possibly the worst 1984/Brave New World NewSpeak I have ever heard. Your "right to education" includes the power to force others, at the point of a gun, to cough up cash to hire teachers, and here is the precious part your right includes the power of others to force you to partake of that education.

Every single one of these "rights" is exercised as permitted by law, which is to say, it isn't a right. Witness article 16 "The freedom to conduct a business in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices is recognized."

What the hell does that mean other than there is no right other than what the governments allow? Almost all the described "rights" are these non-rights that exist as designed by law.

"No one may be deprived of his or her posessions, except in the public interest"

"Public interest" is a nonsense phrase that means "whenever the government feels like" because the governments are defined as agents of the public. Would not a US government lawyer have dreams of a phrase like "use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest"?

Can anyone please propose any possible thing a government may do that could not be argued is in the "general" or "public" interest?

Other idiocy at random:

"The Union recognizes...the rights of the elderly...to participate in social and cultural life."

Notice the brutish absence of the right of the elderly to continue working past mandatory retirement ages. It's couched in their leading "a life of dignity and independence", i.e. you're done working now, here's your monthly check, don't try to work or we'll have to un-dignify you.

"The right of so-and-so is inviolable, as is permitted through national laws governing its exercise."

This clownish listing of "rights" does little more than wrap current national laws of EU with a piece of wet bread that justifies, indeed holds holy, the current laws. "A right to a free job placement service"? Puh-leeze.

One cannot forget that the Right to Privacy is not a constitutional right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that American citizens have a right to privacy.

Possibly because, given the technology of the time, a right to privacy made about as much sense as a right to breathe air; there was simply no need to state something so fundamental. After all, even in the most oppressive regimes, people still breathed. If you wanted to have a private conversation, just walk into the middle of a field with your friends and talk.

The fact that it does not is no reflection on the competence of the Founding Fathers, and the lack of it in the Constitution also does not mean that it should not exist.

A Bill of Rights written today, like this one does include a right to privacy. And who knows what such a Bill written 2302 will need to contain?

Philips has asked European Union Customs Authorities to impound unlicensed DVD-Video/ROM players and DVD-Video/ROM discs under the EU Council Regulation that covers goods that infringe patents.

http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/rfc/rfc_document.asp?doc num=429

For those in Europe note the link to the E-Europescheme.

Sorting out an electronic infrastructure sounds like a real nightmare when your dealing with 317 million people.

Also, as another piece of trivia; the US Navy have well high end documented uses, but the USN PSA in San Diego uses Linux for personel support.

Thank you for putting things into perspective. I have never been to Poland, so can hardly picture what life is like there. Was in USSR in the eighties, and if that was any indication...

Most of the 20th century meant wars or occupation for Poland (I personally know people who were prisoners of the extermination camps in Oswiecim (Auschwitz), so I've heard a lot of really terrible stories), but there were times, where we had an empire that reached from the Baltic to the Black Sea, being a very important power in Europe, not only as a military power, but also in the terms of culture and science. Those were times of the great Aztecs civilisation in America.

Living in the exact centre of Europe is nice, but being exactly between the Germany and USSR used to be very unfortunate.

Now we're part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and soon we'll join the European Union. I do hope that things will change for better, and that the 21st century will mean, unlike the 20th century, first of all peace and freedom, but also a fast economical and technological growth for Poland.

A good introduction to Polish history is the History of Poland on Encyclopedia.com and the History of Poland on Wikipedia.

You can find more general info on Encyclopedia.com, on Wikipedia and on Britannica.com. If you're interested, there are lots of links to information about Poland on Polska.pl (Polska means Poland in Polish).

If you are ever on the West Coast of the US, drop me a line. Email is the last bit of my URL at the domain name in front of it. I'd be happy to show you one way of providing bandwidth to a community.

The web size is estimated around 5-10 Terabytes, and text size as percentage of the web is between 12-30% depending on whose paper you read.

cd /opt/search/var/sites/26_europa.eu.int
du -sk .
7731586 .