Slashdot Mirror

e-Mail per se has the same level of security as a postcard. Any company rellying on the mail being kept secret are just complete idiots.
As you point out, the only solution is to keep the data safe. In case of e-Mail, any critically confident information should be PGP/GPG crypted,

That makes it safe not only on the server, but in transit as well which may be more of a benefit.

Interestingly, this very topic came up recently and you might find the following interesting:

" 29. Urges the Commission and Member States to devise appropriate measures to promote, develop and manufacture European encryption technology and software and above all to support projects aimed at developing user-friendly open-source encryption software;

30. Calls on the Commission and Member States to promote software projects whose source text is made public (open-source software), as this is the only way of guaranteeing that no backdoors are built into programmes;

31. Calls on the Commission to lay down a standard for the level of security of e-mail software packages, placing those packages whose source code has not been made public in the "least reliable" category;

32. Calls on the European institutions and the public administrations of the Member States systematically to encrypt e-mails, so that ultimately encryption becomes the norm; ..."

European Parliament resolution on the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system) (2001/2098(INI))

(my emphasis above)
That's an EC resolution - a finished decision. We've known about the problem for years and years, we've had the solution at hand since PGP/GPG, and even the politicians have caught on: EU member states are called on to use encryption for e-mail, not only use software which can be independently code audited. Now, why aren't we following it yet?

Freedom and democracy mean that the people are able to choose whatever they choose, including communism, capitalism, something in between, or something very stupid.

I recently learned that Benito Mussolini's granddaughter Alessandra Mussolini (who is also a fascist) has a seat in the European Parliament.

In a free society you can't prevent people from being assholes; even elected to democratic institutions.

You're nearly right. The European Union has the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which the UK has recently adopted into national law. There's the European wide Court of Human Rights which is a higher authority than national courts when it comes to cases that come into its jurisdiction.

Article 10 of the Charter provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.

In effect, by adopting the Charter, the UK now has a constitution for the first time in its history, though as you say, Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights laid out many of the fundamental rights we take for granted today.

Intresting truth is also that Reporters without Borders received a Sakharov prize for Freedom of Speech by the European Parliament just after the European Parliament voted in favour of data retention laws. And Reporters without Borders had no position, and voiced no protests at all.

Information rights activists felt scared about Reporter sans Frontier. They knew the battle was lost but RWB had a strong position as they were to receive the prize. And RWB of course praised the EU Parliament when they took their prize.

Isn't that also a case of self-censorship or just ignorance?

http://www.europarl.eu.int/news/expert/event_by_da y_page/50-2005-348/default_en.htm

1.30-11.50am Votes: Data retention - Alexander Nuno ALVARO (ALDE, DE)

12 noon - 1pm Award of the 2005 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought
Damas de Blanco (Cuba)
Hauwa IBRAHIM (Nigeria)
Reporters without Borders

Connect the dots there. Encryption of e-mail has not come into use, but other measures are being adopted.

Agreed eldavojohn, but I think the whole part about the government getting carried away is the wrong way to put it. Like ezzzD55J said, "they are, in fact, already carried all the way."
Furthermore, its more than just merely getting carried away, you can actually call it a concerted effort. In a document called revolution of military affairs put out by the US army war college in, i think, 1989 (not sure tho), the army outlines how the government could instill an environment of fear by creating an illusion of danger with things like terrorism. This was being discussed in the context of how the military could use next-gen energy weapons (ie. high powered radio frequency to affect the environment and people: weather modification, mind control, population control. All of which is openly documented in American and EU legislation and has been) without the public getting all freaked out. The idea was that if they instill this sense of fear and doom in the hearts and minds of the masses then they would readily lay down their liberties in exchange for protection. I guess they accomplished their goal, ie the patriot act. You think these technologies I speak of dont exist, think again... I'll cite two sources: one from the U.S. House of representatives and another from the E.U. Parliament.

1. "Space Preservation Act of 2001" by Rep. Dennis Kucinich -> Look for HR 2977 (look under "exotic weapons")
2. EU resolution A4-0005/99 resolution on security disarmament (specifically, note item 30 of this document)

For a bureaucratic body, like the EU parliament, it takes a tremendous amount of proof and documentation for them to evem to even give any thought to including such wording in their resolutions. The inclusion of item 30 was a direct result of a demonstration of an infrasound device that (creates a low frequency sound) has the resulting effect of sound information being sent into the nervous system where you can percieve that voice in the head.
Similarly, the EU resolution mentions an american project called HAARP. If you do a google search, 20 seconds is all it'll take to get the gist of what it's about.

We're talking about some very serious stuff, as admirable the efforts of the ACLU are, it's doubtful they'll have much of an effect. If the EU can't get the US to cease and desist, i'm sure some pittly civil rights organization will accomplish much except drive the offenders deeper and deepr into "black ops" status. It's not possible to fess up to this kind of stuff either because the potential liability would be too much to deal with. Anyone with a runny nose will be suing the government for their ills.

In Europe that expectation is formalized in the EU charter on fundamental rights. (See art. 8, p.10) At the same time, neither can we rely on that to safeguard our privacy. Still, I think "privacy by default" is an idea to emulate.

In Denmark it's simply illegal to hold and spread data on others without "legitimate reason". Too bad the government watchdog in this area isn't working too well :-/

Most countries in europe do not recognize the right to free speech.

Please read this post and the replies to it. See also articles 11 and 21 of the European Declaration of Fundamental Rights. As that poster said: if rights conflict, you have to make a choice.

New Zealand is relatively good.

Yeah, I know facts aren't as much fun as speculation and fear mongering but...

http://www.europarl.eu.int/news/expert/infopress_p age/019-3536-348-12-50-902-20051206IPR03225-14-12- 2005-2005--false/default_en.htm the press release

Details:
- The directive covers traffic and location data generated by telephony, SMS and internet, but not the content of the information communicated.
- MEPs also establish that access to retained data should be limited to specific purpose and on a case by case basis (push system): each time, the authorities would need to request to the telecom company that the data related to a concrete suspect, instead of having granted access to the whole database.
- Spanish MEPs strongly supported the Council position to include the retention of unsuccessful calls, since the terrorist attacks in Madrid were prosecuted thanks to the investigation of specific lost calls from mobile phones.
    (phone goes boom!)

http://www.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade3?L=EN&PUBREF =-//EP//TEXT+TA+20051214+ITEMS+DOC+XML+V0//EN&NAV= S&MODE=XML&LSTDOC=N&LEVEL=0&SAME_LEVEL=1
  Actual Text

By "connections" to the internet, Amendment 77 defines this clearly as:

(c) [...]

(2) Concerning Internet Access, Internet e-mail and Internet telephony:

    (a) The date and time of the log-in and log-off of the Internet Access service based on a certain time zone, together with the IP address, whether dynamic or static, allocated by the Internet Access Service provider to a communication, and the User ID of the subscriber or registered user.

    (b) The date and time of the log-in and log-off of the Internet e-mail service or Internet telephony service based on a certain time zone.

(e)..

3) Concerning Internet Access, Internet e-mail and Internet telephony:

    (a) The calling telephone number for dial-up access;

    (b) The digital subscriber line (DSL) or other end point of the originator of the communication.

With that information, if someone posts a message on a bulletin board, or sends an email, using the IP address would reliably backtrack to the person who controls the computer used. It seems that for the most part, this must already be possible, given how quickly recent virus/worm authors have been caught.

So basically, what this covers (for internet access) is retaining RADIUS logs, DHCP logs and SMTP logs - for *Public* communication systems.

The real substance of the bill is for cell phones and SMS messaging... the main complaint or concerns about cost are that some telcos currently do not log uncompleted calls on landlines, as they generate no billing record.

Yeah, I know facts aren't as much fun as speculation and fear mongering but...

http://www.europarl.eu.int/news/expert/infopress_p age/019-3536-348-12-50-902-20051206IPR03225-14-12- 2005-2005--false/default_en.htm the press release

Details:
- The directive covers traffic and location data generated by telephony, SMS and internet, but not the content of the information communicated.
- MEPs also establish that access to retained data should be limited to specific purpose and on a case by case basis (push system): each time, the authorities would need to request to the telecom company that the data related to a concrete suspect, instead of having granted access to the whole database.
- Spanish MEPs strongly supported the Council position to include the retention of unsuccessful calls, since the terrorist attacks in Madrid were prosecuted thanks to the investigation of specific lost calls from mobile phones.
    (phone goes boom!)

http://www.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade3?L=EN&PUBREF =-//EP//TEXT+TA+20051214+ITEMS+DOC+XML+V0//EN&NAV= S&MODE=XML&LSTDOC=N&LEVEL=0&SAME_LEVEL=1
  Actual Text

By "connections" to the internet, Amendment 77 defines this clearly as:

(c) [...]

(2) Concerning Internet Access, Internet e-mail and Internet telephony:

    (a) The date and time of the log-in and log-off of the Internet Access service based on a certain time zone, together with the IP address, whether dynamic or static, allocated by the Internet Access Service provider to a communication, and the User ID of the subscriber or registered user.

    (b) The date and time of the log-in and log-off of the Internet e-mail service or Internet telephony service based on a certain time zone.

(e)..

3) Concerning Internet Access, Internet e-mail and Internet telephony:

    (a) The calling telephone number for dial-up access;

    (b) The digital subscriber line (DSL) or other end point of the originator of the communication.

With that information, if someone posts a message on a bulletin board, or sends an email, using the IP address would reliably backtrack to the person who controls the computer used. It seems that for the most part, this must already be possible, given how quickly recent virus/worm authors have been caught.

So basically, what this covers (for internet access) is retaining RADIUS logs, DHCP logs and SMTP logs - for *Public* communication systems.

The real substance of the bill is for cell phones and SMS messaging... the main complaint or concerns about cost are that some telcos currently do not log uncompleted calls on landlines, as they generate no billing record.

According to their own Press Service: Deal on EU data retention law; more comprehensive version in German: Ja zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung bis zu zwei Jahren - Keine Speicherung der Kommunikationsinhalte. Incidentally, even the latter "limitation" (allegedly no storage of the contents of communications) is void in particular with respect to URLs - these being identifiers for the contents transmitted anyway.

Loopholes aplenty have already triggered plans e.g. in Poland to extend the storage even further, to a staggering 15 years (!), and remaining safeguards (if any) are not expected to last: The media industry wants access to that data, too (and a further directive is in the works, cf. the EU Legislative Observatory).

According to their own Press Service: Deal on EU data retention law; more comprehensive version in German: Ja zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung bis zu zwei Jahren - Keine Speicherung der Kommunikationsinhalte. Incidentally, even the latter "limitation" (allegedly no storage of the contents of communications) is void in particular with respect to URLs - these being identifiers for the contents transmitted anyway.

Loopholes aplenty have already triggered plans e.g. in Poland to extend the storage even further, to a staggering 15 years (!), and remaining safeguards (if any) are not expected to last: The media industry wants access to that data, too (and a further directive is in the works, cf. the EU Legislative Observatory).

According to their own Press Service: Deal on EU data retention law; more comprehensive version in German: Ja zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung bis zu zwei Jahren - Keine Speicherung der Kommunikationsinhalte. Incidentally, even the latter "limitation" (allegedly no storage of the contents of communications) is void in particular with respect to URLs - these being identifiers for the contents transmitted anyway.

Loopholes aplenty have already triggered plans e.g. in Poland to extend the storage even further, to a staggering 15 years (!), and remaining safeguards (if any) are not expected to last: The media industry wants access to that data, too (and a further directive is in the works, cf. the EU Legislative Observatory).

Link to the actual proposal scheduled for final approval on december 14
http://www.europarl.eu.int/oeil/file.jsp?id=527503 2

So, Brown's been doing popular things wherever possible. He was very big on the whole debt-cancellation move during the summer, for instance. He's trying to look as good as possible to voters. He's not likely to endorse law changes along the lines of 'hey, people I'd like to have vote for me at the next election: you're not allowed to copy CDs to your iPods!'

And while we are all chatting about this subject, the European Parliament are about to pass draconian anti-privacy laws against all forms of electronic communications.

While these laws have been mooted for some time, it seems that 13 December 2005 is the crunch date, and the UK are pushing for it !

From the FFII newsletter -

PRESS RELEASE FFII -- [ Europe / ICT / Information Society ]

EU introducing "Big Brother" anti-privacy law, warns FFII

5 December 2005 (Brussels, Belgium) The EU is passing a "Big Brother" law to track every electronic communication, warns the FFII, an international information rights group based in Munich.

"Imagine a world in which the state follows everything you do. A world where computers watch every step you make. A world in which privacy is dead and the machines can track down every dissident in minutes. A world ruled by unelected agencies, working hand-in-hand with powerful commercial interests. A world in which citizens have no rights except to consume. Science fiction? The Age of the Machines? No, this is Europe, coming to you in 2006."

So warns Pieter Hintjens, president of the FFII. He says, "the EU is about to pass a directive to track every communication you make. This law makes the old Soviet spy states look like amateurs."

He continues "This law goes against our European traditions of civil liberty. It appears to break Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It will destroy small ISPs and raise prices. To enforce it, the EU will have to shut or monitor every cybercafe, web mail access, and wifi hotspot. Such a regime would be more authoritarian even than China. Even the US, after 9/11, does not have such oppressive laws. The EU does not need this law: it is a bad law, pushed through without respect for the democratic process."

Erik Josefsson of the FFII says: "We are entering into an era of 'I don't have time' legislation. With the expanded competence of the Commission (see consequences of the ECJ Judgement September 13, case c-176/03 Commission v. Council), the underarmed and weakened Parliament stands no chance to do its job properly. The 'sausage machine' is far too easy to abuse."

The Big Brother "data retention directive" makes Internet and telephony providers record "communications traffic data" for up to several years. These huge amounts of detailed personal data can be easily leaked, stolen, and abused. The forces - mainly the UK government - pushing the Big Brother law claim it will prevent terrorism. The FFII does not accept this simplistic argument. The real targets, it appears, are ordinary citizens, going about their daily business.

The FFII president points out, "almost everyone carries a mobile phone. With this law, your mobile phone and web browser becomes Big Brother's way of watching you. You will never be alone again. If you do not like this idea, contact your MEP today, urgently, and explain why it worries you. On 13 December 2005, personal privacy becomes history."

Background Information

News, position papers on and analysis of the directive

How Parliament is denied a chance to properly evaluate the directive

Procedural overview of the directive

MEP contact guide

Permanent link to thi

All the activist documents and webpages say that the European Parliament will be voting on this on the 13th of December.

However, I just had a look at the parliament's own pages, dealing with the plenary session in question (12th to 15th December 2005), and it looks to me like the matter will be up for voting already on the 12th. I'm no great genius at figuring out the (deliberately?) Byzantine structure of the EU's documentation, but that's what it looks like to me.

Draft agenda for the plenary session, 12 December 2005

If you disagree with this, e-mail the EU representatives (MEPs). Complaining at slashdot won't help. Here's a list of all the email addresses from http://www.europarl.eu.int/ .

List of emails

I have already e-mailed and called my countries. You should do the same.

Hard to say if any one country did anything - since they're not grouped according to national lines in the European Parliament.. It's like Congress - they just have more political parties.

http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?L=EN&OBJID =97868&MODE=SIP&NAV=X&LSTDOC=N&LEVEL=1

Here. It's the first vote.

Roll Call Votes in the Parliament are recorded in the minutes. The large(1.2Mb) PDF document is at...

http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-// EP//NONSGML+PV+20050706+RES-RCV+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&LEV EL=2&NAV=X

Those voting against the Rocard amendments, and therefore in favour of the Software Patents Directive were...

ALDE: Ludford, Newton Dunn
IND/DEM: Lundgren
PPE-DE: Roithová
PSE: Fernandes
UEN: Aylward, Crowley, Didziokas, Krasts, Ó Neachtain, Pavilionis, Ryan, Szymanski, Zile

Warning: Scary huge and slow DOC/PDF file ahead!

Votes and names of today


oh how I love this perfectly structured EU homepage..

http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?SAME_LEVEL =1&LEVEL=2&NAV=X&DETAIL=&PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+PV+200 50706+TOC+DOC+XML+V0//EN

ALDE: Ludford, Newton Dunn
IND/DEM: Lundgren
PPE-DE: Roithova
PSE: Fernandes
UEN: Aylward, Crowley, Didziokas, Krasts, O Neachtain, Pavilionis, Ryan, Szymanski, Zile

***

List of the 18, who abstented (or forgot to vote):

ALDE: Birutis, Bonino, Busk, Duff, Duquesne, Jensen, Lax, Pannella, Riis-Joergensen, Samuelsen, Sbarbati, Takkula, Toia
PPE-DE: Brezina, Cabrnoch, Fajmon, Jordan Cizelj
UEN: Vaidere

"Differences exist in the protection of computer-implemented inventions offered by the administrative practices and case law of the different member states"

"Therefore, the legal rules governing the patentability of computer-implemented inventions should be harmonised so as to ensure that the resulting legal certainty and the level of requirements demanded for patentability enable innovative enterprised to derive the maximum advantage from their inventive process and provide an incentive for investment and innovation"

Here is a link to the offical EU press Release:

http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-// EP//TEXT+PRESS+DN-20050705-1+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&L=EN &LEVEL=2&NAV=X&LSTDOC=N#SECTION1

Some really good comments in there from some clued in and angry MEPs...

Pablo

If this is a constant battle, it's time to fight!

Calling all European slashdotters to the front lines. Contact your Members of the European Parliament and educate them on the economic costs of software patents.

• All MEPs: http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep6/owa/p_meps2.repar tition
• UK MEPs by region: http://www.europarl.org.uk/uk_meps/
• Ireland MEPs by region: http://www.europarl.ie/meps/

If this is a constant battle, it's time to fight!

Calling all European slashdotters to the front lines. Contact your Members of the European Parliament and educate them on the economic costs of software patents.

• All MEPs: http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep6/owa/p_meps2.repar tition
• UK MEPs by region: http://www.europarl.org.uk/uk_meps/
• Ireland MEPs by region: http://www.europarl.ie/meps/

Most of these amendments are meant to ensure that software might be part of a patentable invention, while the software as such cannot be patented.

If I was going to write my MEP today, I would urge them to support Michel Rocards amendmends, while opposing the amendmends by Toine Manders and Malcolm Harbour (the last two being "IP" policy extremists with little support in the Parliament anyway). And I would urge them to vote on this matter, as an absolute majority is needed for the Parliament to do anything now.

What matters now is what happens in the European Parliament. The expert hearing they recently held or the amendments proposed (pdf in english) are a lot more interesting than a UK software patent workshop.

Nonsense. 5M$/day is the maximum fine. Maybe they want to increase it, but they can't.

Don't forget that majority in EU parliament and commision are leftist parties (socialists, greens).

The EU Parliament has 729 members, 201 (Socialist Group) + 42 (Group of the Greens) + 41 (Confederal Group of the European United left) = 284 members = 39% can be considered 'Left'. That's not a majority. Check Members of the European Parliament it yourself.

<SARCASM> 39% ; in the US of A they call a group that large a 'moral majority' </SARCASM>

In fact you can read the examination guidelines of the EPO how it is done. Some scholars complain about it and the European Parliament has to correct the mess now.

Currently the EPO even takes part in many Microsoft Softwarechoice/compTIA lobbying events. The EPO is no EU body but totally independent. It will be difficult to get the system back under legislative control but the European Parliament will try. Now the Committee on Legal Affairs works on the directive.

What kind of support can YOU provide?

* US citizens may get subscribed in the us-parl mailing list. software patents are an international problem, so we have to get rid off them internationally.
* EU citizens can have a look at this list
* EU citizens shall make an appointment with their MEP
* Donate to the FFII
* Register as a supporter via aktiv.ffii.org, members unlike supporters additionally pay membership fees.

EXCO Lisbon 2002
REPORT
Special Committee Q132 - Computer software, information networks, artificial intelligence and integrated circuits

(...)

2. As regards question 3 and the definition of the term technical, it seems that practically no country has a clear definition. However, those countries which suggested a definition, seem to follow a definition suggested by the Spanish group (citing Professor Bercowitz [one of the experts to appear before the EP Committee on Monday, BTW!]). He states that what is meant by "technology" encompasses the following: "Today, "technology" is used ... as an ensemble of man's means of action on the forces of Nature" and also "Society has begun to consider the expression "technical" as a synonym of "industrial technology" [not a workable substitute either, though, as "industria/el/l" has vague and widely diverging meanings in various European languages]".

3. As regards question 5 of the Questionnaire: "Is the definition of "technical" useful according to your group in defining the patentability of an invention?" 10 groups (AR, EC, GE, DE, IE, KR, ZA, ES, SE and US) answered "NO". 4 groups (BR, FR, CH and GB) have a qualified response. 6 groups did not answer. Only 14 responses out of 34 are an unequivocal "YES" (AU, BG, CA, CH, CS, FI, GR, IN, JP, LT, LV, PL, PO, RU and UA). This last number is particularly low. Usually, in our association, when we ask whether a question should be submitted for further study, the response is generally "YES" by a high majority. This seems to show that a majority of the groups considers that trying to define the words "technical" or "technology" is a dead-end, despite the difficulties caused by the use of these terms.

here. Its in PDF format, and makes a *really* good read. Rocard outlines the issues with uncommon clarity - if they end up following his recommendations it will restore my battered faith in the European Union.

beware of the pdf.
5 pages of bureaucrat speak i am not going to post on slashdot.

English language version of Rocard's paper is here

The paper is available here.
It is interesting because it shows that forbidding software patents is non-trivial. In particular, it raises interesting questions:
- What is the boundary between patentable and non-patentable (how do you define it in such a way that it doesn't have side effects on other industries)
- What is the "technical domain" that should be patentable
- If sofware is _part_ of the patented process should it be allowed?

So whilst writing a letter to my local MEP, I did a little research around the subject - and stubled upon this speech.

"Before concluding, I would like to say a few words on the substance of the proposal, since Parliament will now need to turn its attention to this. The Commission proposed to clarify the legal rules on patentability for software-related inventions. This does not include computer programs or other software as such. It means inventions that make a technical contribution and that are truly novel. Such inventions are present in a number of everyday consumer goods such as cars, mobile telephones and domestic appliances. The Commission's intention in making its proposal was to avoid the patenting of pure software and make a clear distinction between the European Union and the United States. Nothing that is not patentable now will be made patentable by the directive.

The current rules in the European Patent Convention leave patent examiners very wide decision-making powers. There can be different interpretations as to whether an invention can be patented. This leads to uncertainty for businesses. Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular are negatively affected by the lack of clarity in the existing rules.

I would like to remind Members that, in the absence of a directive, patents will continue to be granted. If patent offices decide to grant patents for pure software, then expensive procedures before the Courts will be the only option for those who wish to object.

Those of you who have been directly involved in working on this proposal know as well as I do that this is a very complex area. Any modifications will need to be carefully examined. The directive cannot be turned on its head. We need to maintain a proper balance between stimulating innovation and making sure competition is not stifled."

I'm a little confused...

and your emails, faxes, telexes, phone calls, google searches, the ads you click on, the google news links you follow. read the european parliament's report on echelon and be amazed.

At first they personal responses and were rather optimistic. The last one was send as a reply to messages from a whole bunch of people. It glanced over the procedural 'shortcuts' the EC made, while focussing more on further action to take. It didn't respond well to the bitter frustration this dossier created, and tried to make a case for adoption of the EU 'constitution', by stating that this would make the whole process clearer. Well, the current process is clear enough for everyone to see that we got screwed over and that didn't stop them, so why should a 'constitution'? I can only refer to Open letter to the EU: Constitution, we have a problem

The nearest I can find (ffii's archives don't go back that far) is a reference to Parliament's Legal Affairs committee considering the question in July 2002.

Agenda

Register story (letter from Alan Cox).

The software patent proposal hurts closed and open source developers. That much is in the news every day. Software patents would also hurt any business wishing to use computers to make money.

Sure it may only cost between $50 USD and $50 000 USD per year per patent license, plus attorney's fees, but your company's web site probably violates over 50 by now, all of them either obvious or prior art. Some are even ripped right out of old RFCs.

Or you can fight them in court. It costs only about and average of $4 000 000 USD per patent to get them overturned.

So your choice is pay them and go bankrupt or fight them in court and go bankrupt. The non-producing patent portfolio companies come out ahead on average and only the attorneys win flat out.

yeah, because using google is like hard and stuff

developments: Computerised inventions: the Commission refuses to budge

• Full details on FFII's wiki (with links to articles, JURI speeches, &c--good starting point)
• The story on the European Parliament's news site
• Infoworld article
• More stories on Google News
• FFII transcript of the JURI meeting (in progress--help out)
• FFII: more details of recent JURI happenings (before this decision)

And here is the EP's Rule 55 (for those wondering whether the €C will argue that it is not bound by the it):

The President shall, at the request of the committee responsible, ask the Commission to refer its proposal again to Parliament

• where the Commission withdraws its initial proposal after Parliament has adopted its position in order to replace it with another text, except where this is done in order to incorporate Parliament's amendments; or
• where the Commission substantially amends or intends to amend its initial proposal, except where this is done in order to incorporate Parliament's amendments; or
• where, through the passage of time or changes in circumstances, the nature of the problem with which the proposal is concerned substantially changes; or
• where new elections to Parliament have taken place since it adopted its position, and the Conference of Presidents considers it desirable.

Also, see FFII's (interesting but hopefully no longer needed) explanation about reversing council decsions

I'm unable to find this issue on the JURI agenda. Am I looking at the wrong agenda, or was the Rule 55 restart issue added too late for it to be listed?

I don't doubt that the decision was taken in proper order, but with all that talk about fishy last-minute changes to council agendas, you may think that JURI would know to be a little more prepared. Maybe these agendas on the Web are all written several months in advance, meaning we shouldn't expect last-minute changes to appear on-line..?

Let's call a spade a spade. Patents on software, patents on mechanics, patents on business models, patents on tools, patents on architecture, patents on nature -- no matter what type of patent, the core concept is that it is not only possible, but moral and just, to own an idea.

I'm not convinced that software patents are any more counter-productive and unjust than any other type of patent.

Like prohibition, patent law did not arise because human nature demanded it -- it arose because the powerful elite demanded it.

Well, Rule 55 is the parliamentary equivalent of rebooting.

So, you could say the current status of the patent initiative is like BSOD.

But who knows what will happen next time around?

Probably do not even remember when people used to put words like "bomb" and "whitehouse" in their .sigs in a protest to the governemnt's automated filtering of electronic communications which is a direct violation of Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America

The way out is to avoid these vendors and use only Free or Open Source Software. Check the code yourself or hire someone you can rely on to do so. See points 29 - 32 in the European Parliament resolution on the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications.

That applies to all software, not just mail.

Done the FaxYourMp thing already, but it seems that the EU parliament website is really not set up to make it easy to find your MEP at all. Any suggestions on how to go about this?