European MP Responds on Software Patents

Wolfbone writes "The Guardian newspaper has a contributed article from the European politician Arlene McCarthy in which she responds to a previous article in the same organ by RMS and Nick Hill on the issue of software patents. If the appalling mixture of misrepresentation, non sequitur, solecism and faux-naivete does not make your blood boil, you are a cold fish indeed."

Comments

Boiling

[jabbadabbadoo]

" If the appalling mixture of misrepresentation, non sequitur, solecism and faux-naivete does not make your blood boil,"

That sentence was enough to make my blood boil.

Oh, please...

[Noryungi]

Everybody knows European MPs (Member of Parliament) are next to useless anyway... I don't even need to read the interview to tell you she is a fscking moron.

Seriously, though, almost *anyone* can get elected to the European Parliament, and the *real* decisions are not made in Strasbourg (Euro Parliament home town) they are made in Brussels, Belgium, either through the European Commission or through high-level talks between the different European governments.

Of course, this might change in the near future, with the new European 'Constitution', but it will probably change for the better, by making sure more intelligent people are elected.

Just my Euro 0.02...

Re:Oh, please...

[oogoliegoogolie]

Everybody knows European MPs (Member of Parliament) are next to useless anyway.

Unlike Canadian MP's, Australilan MP's, and members of the US Congress, which always represent the people that elected them and never ignore the little guy in favor of big business, lobbyists, and their own political interests.

Re:Oh, please...

[BenjyD]

http://www.europarl.eu.int/factsheets/1_3_2_en.htm

The parliament's powers:

-"Parliament takes part in the drafting of Community legislation to varying degrees, according to the individual legal basis. It has progressed from a purely advisory role to codecision on an equal footing with the Council."

-"The Treaty of Rome made provision for a motion of censure against the Commission (Article 201 (144) EC). It requires a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, representing a majority of Parliament's component members, in which case the Commission must resign as a body."

So, the parliament is now equally important as the Council and has the power to force the Commision to resign. Just because most of the electorate don't bother reading about or even voting for the European Parliament doesn't make it meaningless.

GNU a monoply?

[brettlbecker]

We have an obligation to legislate not just for one section of the software industry who seeks to impose its business model on the rest of industry, which moreover is not "free", but is actually a different form of monopoly by imposing a copyright licence system on users.

Interesting... this seems to be saying that, through the use of the GPL, the FSF is, perhaps unwittingly, attempting to create a monopoly. I'm not sure her statement holds water... how does the GPL stifle competition and innovation? I mean, releasing software under the GPL is the choice of the developer... and as for "imposing" the license on users, aren't *all* licenses imposed on users? Isn't that really part of the definition of a license? It's still the user's choice whether or not to *use* the software. Simply because they can't take GPL'd software and package it without the source and sell it doesn't mean that the software is part of a monopoly... geez! The GPL certainly is another form of *contract*... but monopoly? Give me a break.

B

Re:GNU a monoply?

[JaredOfEuropa]

"We have an obligation to legislate not just for one section of the software industry who seeks to impose its business model on the rest of industry, which moreover is not "free", but is actually a different form of monopoly by imposing a copyright licence system on users."

Heh, my guess is that Stallman pissed her off. He seems to do that to people a lot... She's confused about the difference between patents and copyright though.

The GPL forbids me to take an interesting bit of software with a GPL licence attached, and use its code in my own closed source program. However I am free to duplicate the programs functionality by re-writing it, using the GPL'ed software as an example. That means I can freely use other people's ideas, but I cannot freely use their work.
However, software patents actually cover algorithms and/or business methods. I am not allowed to freely use a patented bit of software in my own product, but I am also not allowed to duplicate the functionality. That means I cannot write my own 'one click shopping' routine.

Anyone who wants to can get out from under the GPL licence... if they are willing to do the work. Not so with patents.

Re:GNU a monoply?

[rnapier]

What else is a monopoly but the exclusive control over the rights to something? You have copyright on the things you write. That gives you monopoly control over them. That's what copyright means (monopoly control over copying). It doesn't mean "stifle competition and innovation." That comes later.

The point you are trying to make I believe is that the GPL does not create an abusive monopoly, or perhaps that it does not create an undesireable monopoly (depending on who desires what), but it absolutely creates restrictions on what can be done with software under it. And that isn't freedom (but then I never said total freedom was good).

In response to "aren't *all* licenses imposed on users," the answer is yes. So to have total freedom, you have to have no license. We have a name for that: the public domain. That is total freedom.

As far as "It's still the user's choice whether or not to *use* the software," this is true of Windows as well. Does this mean that Microsoft does not have a monopoly? Would things change if some core piece of technology that everyone used were under the GPL? Given that we're headed that direction, it's a valid thing to consider. The "if you don't like it, you don't have to use my stuff" has always been the argument of monopolists (and they've always been right in their way).

Re:GNU a monoply?

[ichimunki]

That is my prime concern with what she said. She doesn't seem to understand the danger patents pose to free software (which I won't reiterate because you did so perfectly). She says Linux grew 50% marketshare. So? If I go from 1% to 1.5% that's a 50% increase... and while that's exciting, it's hardly a big win in terms of that marketplace. The question is, long-term, will the growth continue at 50% rate of increase or at the .5% absolute increase?

We already have ample example in the patents that encumber GIFs and MP3 and the various video technologies. I imagine the next step the RIAA/MPAA will take is to use patents to encumber their DRM schemes. If breaking CSS were not only a DMCA issue, but a case of violating a patent, then DeCSS would potentially get hit from both sides. So the future for free software is (and this would be fine with me, except that it doesn't promote either fair use or interoperability) a ghetto of free formats like Ogg.

Really, I don't see how software patents protect "inventions" in any sense of the word. The computer is already a device. The point of a computer is to handle a changing streams of bits and bytes... some of which are this thing called "software". But software is not distinguishable from data at the device level... they're both just bits and bytes (1s and 0s if you prefer). And the idea that a binary program or a piece of source code could violate a patent... well, what's truly to distinguish them from a file containing the text of the patent itself? And when it comes down to it, is a specific compression algorithm (or other software patent) anything but math?

At least she is aware of the issues involved in granting business method patents. Which is all the scarier. She seems have most of a clue and certainly seems to be saying that what she's pushing for isn't going to be as bad as the US system... and that it will prevent specific countries in Europe from getting as bad as or worse than the US in this area.

Re:GNU a monoply?

[TheMidget]

This would require a reimplementation of the libc, the rendering toolkit, all required libraries

Wrong. The libc falls under the LGPL (lesser general public license, or formerly known as the library general public license), which explicitely allows linking. Many libraries are covered by the LGPL for exactly the reason you state: allow people to actually use it (i.e. link programs against it), even in a proprietary setting.

Even programs which are covered by the GPL may be used in a proprietary setting, if done right: put the GPL'ed codes and the proprietary codes into different address spaces (which communicate with each other using pipes, command parameters or network sockets), or define a plugin-based architecture. Now the only sources that would need to be published would be the "wrapper" code that transforms the code into a plugin, or that allows the code to communicate with the proprietary parts.

Re:GNU a monoply?

[Cyberdyne]

We already have ample example in the patents that encumber GIFs and MP3 and the various video technologies.

Ah yes, the GIF patent. That stopped any free software using GIFs.

The MP3 patent's licensing terms don't even prohibit legal Free Software implementations - you pay a one-off licensing fee, and you're fine. There seem seem to be plenty.

The reality is, those patents haven't killed MP3 or GIFs. If anything, it's Ogg Vorbis and PNGs which are an endangered species - not from litigation, but disuse. (The MP3 patent, by the way, is Fraunhofer's - a German group, not US.) Patents or no patents, MP3 and GIF are still the format for that application, and supported by plenty of free/open source programs.

So the future for free software is (and this would be fine with me, except that it doesn't promote either fair use or interoperability) a ghetto of free formats like Ogg.

Unlikely. As I said, we've had MP3 and GIF patents for years without this result - the former from a German company, not a US one - without the result you predict. Why would Europe adopting the US system have this result, when it hasn't happened in the US?

Re:GNU a monoply?

[Alsee]

I agree with you in general, but have to question one point:

use patents to encumber their DRM schemes. If breaking CSS were not only a DMCA issue, but a case of violating a patent

I don't see patents as being a particularly effective weapon against breaking DRM. The whole goal of DRM is that no one knows how to defeat it. In order to get a patent you are requiried to make full disclosure of the means of implementing the patent. The last thing they want to do is disclose how to crack DRM.

Patents are useful for preventing commercial use of something, but DRM is trying to prevent individuals from beating the DRM.

-

Re:GNU a monoply?

[blibbleblobble]

"What the GPL does is essentially *force* derivative works to be under the same pseudo-public domain ownership as the original. (thereby prohibiting proprietary derivatives..)"

Ever tried to release your own product based on the Windows Media Player source-code? Oops, got forced into a license, what a shame.

A Free program doesn't force the GPL license: you can go to the authors and ask them for an alternative arrangement, same as with all software. It might cost a little more, and you might have to ask quite a few people, but that's the power which copyright law gives people.

Anyway, this isn't about GPL, it's about software patents. They close off entire sectors of innovation, and leave a bare wasteland of ideas which nobody can use. Does the MEP even realise she's trying to give the European software market on a plate to american companies?

Huh?

[JaredOfEuropa]

She certainly doesn't sound as evil as the submitter of the article would suggest.

"It is infinitely better for the EU to harmonise laws across the EU with a view to limiting patentability, than to continue with the mess of national courts and European Patent Office (EPO) systems, and the drift towards US patent models."

Sounds sensible to me, but then again, no one has ever shown me a computer program or business method that merited a patent, so I'd like to see the strictest possible limits on such patents.

In the end, it's EU directive that will have to speak for itself. I'll try and dig up a copy of the draft.

Re:Huh?

[Alan Cox]

Thats doublespeak. There is no muddle on software patents. They are not currently allowed. There is a drift towards US type problems - paying the EPO on the basis of patents approved not reviewed, inability to spot prior art etc

A computer program and a business method are the same thing. Its dishonest to claim otherwise IMHO. A software patent is a defined series of steps with conditions performed by the box on your desk.. A business method is a defined series of steps with conditions performed by a human at the desk.

Reality gets even murkier.

A DSP decodes MP3 audio. Is that a hardware patent on the DSP, a software patent on the code in it or neither

A human sits down with a calculator and decodes the MP3 by hand. Is that a hardware patent, a software patent, or a business method ?

Re:Huh?

[Alsee]

A human sits down with a calculator and decodes the MP3 by hand. Is that a hardware patent, a software patent, or a business method ?

I appologize for mixing issues here, but you just brought up my favorite objection to the DMCA. What if a human sits down with a calculator and circumvents DRM by hand? And you don't even need the calculator - the entire process can be done completely mentally. The DMCA anti-circumvention provision makes it a crime to think certain thoughts!

In a similar vein, software patents give a monopoly on thinking certian thoughts. Any software that can be run on a computer can also be run purely mentally by thinking through the program line by line. At least violating a patent isn't a criminal act, but you can still get sued in civil for it.

There should be absolutely NO restrictions on thinking - on doing math - on software - on processing information. They are all fundamentally the same thing.

(Just to clarify, software can still be coyrighted. I was reffering to patent and criminal type restrictions.)

-

Huh?

[BenjyD]

So, she does the normal M(E)P thing of speaking without saying anthing. Looking at this report, though, it appears that what she is trying to say is that the rules will only allow software to be patented as part of another system.

So, patents like the Amazon one-click patent wouldn't be allowed, but you could for example patent a novel ECG machine along with the software that is 'part' of it.

provenance of monopoly FUD?

[midgley]

The newspeak description of Free/Libre Software as "a different sort of monopoly" suggests to me the phrase passed through the Rt Hon MEP having come from a briefer.

So can anyone pinpoint the briefing person, company, or interest concerned?

I recently followed up such a lead in one of the 12 references to Linux in the record of the Houses of Parliament (Hansard) and determined that the Shadow Minister for Media etc had got his disinformation on DeCSS from the Daily Telegraph but I have yet to track it back through the Torygraph to wherever it was injected.

Cold Fish

[yanestra]

As I understand, Ms. McCarthy tries to promote her modified draft of EU directive as the least damage variant, saying that if they do nothing, it only gets worse.
(This I believe is true, you can see the patent offices in the EU's national states approve less and less technical "inventions".)

It appears, EU wants to link a certain technical device with its software, which could be patented for the use in this case, and only in this case, together with the device, but which is not covered by the patent.

The main problem with the US patent laws is likely that the officials are ignorant laymen; not patents per se are evil, but their (lack of) interpretation is.

Parliament

[nepheles]

This article is, generally, totally irrelevant. The European Parliament holds virtually no power, and is, generally, merely a talking-shop. The Council of Ministers, and, to a larger extent, the Commission hold all power. There are attampts to change this with the work-in-progress that is the Constitution.

This lack of power of the Parliament leads many single-issue candidates, washed-up politicians, and other power-hungry novices to run for election to European office in the Parliament. Very few serious politicians will be found there, bar those who lead the political factions present. As such, we can safely ignore the warblings of this MEP.

If only we could find a similarly talkative Commissioner. It's what the EU needs

Re:Parliament

[JPMH]

This article is, generally, totally irrelevant. The European Parliament holds virtually no power, and is, generally, merely a talking-shop. The Council of Ministers, and, to a larger extent, the Commission hold all power. There are attampts to change this with the work-in-progress that is the Constitution.

I think you are somewhat out of date. Parliament now has amendment rights and a veto on proposals coming out of Brussels. If Parliament doesn't vote to pass a Directive, it doesn't happen. This MEP, Arlene McCarthy, is the chair of the committee and draughtswoman of the report which is responsible will advise parliament how to vote and what to recommend re the software patenting directive.

This committee is where the parliament discusses the directive in detail clause by clause. The report matters, and could well be decisive. And this Monday, soon after 3 o'clock, the committee votes on which amendments it will or will not recommend to parliament.

Re:Only one problem with that article

[Uber Banker]

His article may have boiled her blood, but it seemed pretty spot on to me, the quote from Bill G especially.

His point is this law was written by the Business Software Alliance in such a way and to use such vague language that it will be up to 'interpretation' only to the richest corporates with the most expensive lawyers. I.e., they are taking a space where there is a need for a law and plugging their law - dress up as "free and good" to placate those with a call for it but engineered to benefit only them.

Also, she mentioned "With many of our traditional industries migrating to the Far East leaving behind job losses, we Europeans are having to rely on licensing out inventiveness to generate income and create jobs."

Since when does Amazon having a patent secure that patent to the country it was registered in?! Either she is grossly incompetant, plain stupid, or cunning and devious.

I think you're missing the point.

[l-ascorbic]

Euro MPs are next to useless because the European Parliament is virtually powerless.
That's not to confuse them with MPs in the individual member states' parliaments, who occasionally do have some power.

Re:I think you're missing the point.

[cabalamat2]

Euro MPs are next to useless because the European Parliament is virtually powerless.

This may be true in general terms, but they do have considerable powers to amend European legislation, which is most of the legislation that could harm free software (e.g. Copyright Directive, Software Patent Directive).

Re:I think you're missing the point.

[Free Bird]

No, they don't. The only area where the European Parliament has any real power is the E.U. budget. In all other cases, all it can do is give advice, which in turn can be ignored...

Re:I think you're missing the point.

[cabalamat2]

No, they don't. The only area where the European Parliament has any real power is the E.U. budget. In all other cases, all it can do is give advice, which in turn can be ignored...

This is wrong (whoever modded the post up shouldn't have). The powers of the EP are laid out here.

Basically, it jointly decides EU laws on a co-decision basis with the Council. It has powers over non-compulsory expenditure only, which basically means the EP can't stop the Common Agricultural Policy.

free software won't be harmed?

[cabalamat2]

In her article, she says that:

this directive will not have any adverse effects on open source software development

So I've written her a letter, suggesting that open source software explicitly be made exempt from patent enforcement. If what she says in her article is true, this would have no effect, so she's got no legitimate reason to oppose it.

My weblog has an article that goes into this in more detail.

If you want to contact Arlene McCarthy, and politely tell her your views, she has a website.

Re:Only one problem with that article

[rnapier]

Her comment "is not "free", but is actually a different form of monopoly" was misjudged

Perhaps, but it does seem a debatable point. The GPL specifically imposes restrictions on what can be done with software under it. In order to extend any of the software, you have to agree to those terms, some of which are quite restrictive. It could be argued that the GPL community holds a monopoly on GPL software development. You're free to join, but you have to do so under their rules, some of which are more restrictive than some commercial contracts. Is that fair? Sure. But it's not total freedom. The BSD license is much more "free" in that sense, and putting things in the public domain is even more so.

That said, I completely agree that her article seemed quite factual. Her assertion that she is trying to prevent US-style business-method patents is extremely encouraging. Nothing RMS said directly challenged this claim. He just argued "patents bad; EU doing patent stuff; bad bad bad." I didn't see any specific claims about the current EU directive under consideration except one unsubstantiated claim that the BSA wrote it. What does he mean "we detected it?" Based on the radioactive signature perhaps? Maybe the smell?

Re:Only one problem with that article

[albalbo]

The proposed directive was written in a Word file, and the original author information appeared in the metadata - that's how they know the BSA were involved.

I thought Arlene's response was more anti-Free/Libre/Open Source Software than anything I've seen in a long time, and it's bizarre because rms and Nick Hill didn't raise that issue at all. Her article wasn't factual in any way, shape or form - she said she was against business methods, for example, but offered no actual example of actions which back that up - in fact, her previous actions indicate she's in favour.

Useful URLs for people in the UK: FFII UK, More info on software patents. We can still stop them putting these things in place.

Here's a short precis, no need to read the article

[thatguywhoiam]

Stallman: "Patent system's got problems!"

Some MP: "Does not!"

You may think I'm being facetious, but I'm actually just being concise. She literally doesn't say anything else.

Our company is not touching the European market

[DeadVulcan]

We're a US company with a development office in Canada (which is where I write from). We're staying out of Europe partly because of the multitude of languages, but mainly because (I'm told) it's a morass of different regulations; I have no doubt patent law is one of them. The complexity is not worth our trouble of going there. The first ocean we crossed was the pacific, to Japan.

I have very ambiguous feelings towards software patents, but the European Parliament is probably going in the right direction if they're harmonizing business regulations.

She doesn't get it

[Halo1]

If we fail to offer European industry the possibility of patent protection, we will hand over our inventiveness and creativity to big business, who can cherrypick ideas and patent them.

So what she's saying is "If we don't allow (software) patents in Europe, big businesses will patent every thing". Hello, this is you wake-up call: if there are no software patents, big businesses can't get them either!

It's exactly the reverse: if there are no software patents in Europe, then European businesses (and inventors and every one else) can still get software patents abroad (e.g. in the US), while foreign businesses can not enforce their software patents here in Europe. So if there are no software patents in Europe, the Europeans actually have an advantage over foreign (big, small and everything in between) companies.

Different /. opinion

[halftrack]

To me, she seems to make some sense. I know software patents are bad on slashdot, but maybe that's because slashdot's only familiar with the insane US patent system. She actually makes it clear in the article that she doesn't want a US system.

I don't think software patents are evil by nature, it can be applicable in a few cases. However I see a problem of patents limiting the users legal rights to contents. Say firm M gets a patent on a fantastic text compression algorithm which they use as a part of a de-facto file format that stores formatted text. Now developer S can't legally develop a reader of this format to use on his operating system that isn't supported by M.

Maybe if someone could solve this problem then software patents could be feasible. Maybe - as someone else proposed here - open-source should be excempted from patents. Some sort of a patent system limited to commercial activities. Patent infridgement would be easy though with the code legally as open-source.

Btw.: "... non sequitur, solecism and faux-naivete ..." gDict only knew 1.5 of those words, but I'm assuming it's a fancy way of saying anyone being pro software patents are morons. Did the poster notice that the article was pretty moderatly worded and forthcoming? Did he RTA?

contact her ...

[geeklawyer]

If you think she needs to have it explained I suggest you email and explain why she is wrong about free software and software patents.

In the heat of the moment I was very rude to her but can I suggest others be moderate.

amccarthy@europarl.eu.int or
arlene.mccarthy@easynet.co.uk

I'm never getting used to this kind of junk...

[Sunnan]

She's calling a system with more opportunities for imposing patents more "liberal" and a less patent-drenched society more "restrictive".

That's pretty weird. If I were to choose such politically loaded words to describe patent systems, I'd have 'em switched the other way around, but I probably wouldn't use them at all.

She also writes: "With many of our traditional industries migrating to the Far East leaving behind job losses, we Europeans are having to rely on licensing out inventiveness to generate income and create jobs."

That's pretty silly and not likely to work in the long run. Imagine a future where non-european countries provide all goods and services needed - why should they want to trade with Europe? Because we have "inventions?" That's supposed to be Europes schtick, that Europeans are "smart"? Even if we'd have a fraction of the worlds inventiveness, what's to stop the aforementioned Asian countries from declaring our patent system null and void? (Along with some other IP practices like say, copyright.) Because "otherwise we won't trade with them?" That's just silly. If all we have to "offer" is slick ad campaigns and ruthless corporate practices along with a few good "ideas" - basically "ownership of ideas" - why should they want to trade? They could just copy it (assuming their own inventions weren't enough - there's plenty of good ideas coming out of Asia).

(And please don't talk of using military might to enforce an IP system internationally. My every fiber and cell tell's me that's not a just cause.)

Just saying that "we own this!" and pointing at words, ideas... you might argue some intellectual property practices are just but you can't expect everyone to agree (I certainly don't, and I even live in Europe), especially not when it could be a dumb move in international economics for a country to blindly abide by another's IP claims.

And if she's not talking about IP as an export product, then why bother? Selling each other "air" would jack up the GNP but it sure wouldn't raise living standards, it would only be a pointless excercise in number juggling. Same would apply to selling "ownership rights to ideas". Note that I'm not saying that the ideas themselves are without value - having someone on the payroll to sit and make up ideas might be worth it - but once the cat's out of the bag the ideas are easily copyable. Preventing that /bin/cp doesn't exist might be an appealing idea to some but it is just a game of pretends these days. Things can be copied. Deal with it.

Lastly, she's calling free software (she seems especially focused on copyleft software) "[A] form of monopoly by imposing a copyright licence system on users".

That's just not true.

Unlike patents, anyone's free to reimplement copylefted software any way they choose.

And unlike plain copyrighted proprietary software, anyone can use the copylefted software (both the program and source code) as long as they don't prevent others from doing the same.

Sure, the GPL has some practical problem (for example enforced warranty disclaimers, and problems with compability with other copylefted licenses) but it's definitely not a "monopoly". More like an "omnipoly" where every man, woman and child on the planet has the same right to the program.

Guess what?

[Free Bird]

The European Council doesn't have any real power either! However, unlike the parliament, it *does* get taken seriously...

Re:Only one problem with that article

[squiggleslash]

As opposed to RMS, whose basic position is never reasonable.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress relies upon the unreasonable man.
&nbsp:&nbsp:&nbsp:&nbsp:&nbsp:&nbsp:-- George Bernard Shaw

Say what you like about the guy, the computer industry would be a colder, harsher, proprietry place without what he's done to open it up.

Re:Patents are good!

[Halo1]

Most people are not against patents, but against the way patents are implemented in reality (the USPTO is a very good example of how it should not be done, and the European patent office isn't much better, fortunately there are still stricter rules in Europe regarding what can be patented) and against software patents.

The reason for being against software patents is that software is fundamentally different from classical "inventions". RMS equates it to composing music. Suppose there were musical patents when Beethoven lived. Although he was no copycat at all and was actually quite revolutionary in his time, he wasn't that great that he reinvented music from scratch and still could make something that people liked to listen to. He used a lot of "musical techniques" used by other people before him.

However, just like you can't just throw a couple of existing "musical techniques" together and get something that sounds good, you cannot throw just a couple of algorithms and data structures together and get a great program. As such, allowing patents on these components doesn't make sense because that way, they hurt innovation instead of encouraging it.

They make you scared to produce anything, because almost everything you think of, has probably already been thought of by someone else before. If e.g. IBM would enforce all of its software patents, I don't think a lot of companies would be left making/selling software in the US. Some of the bigger ones would be, because they also own a lot of patents and they could cut software licensing deals. The rest would be out of luck.

GPL - Monopoly?

[Jezza]

I find it amazing how many people have a "problem" with the GPL and see it as "restrictive" - when it's aim is quite the converse.

We have an obligation to legislate not just for one section of the software industry who seeks to impose its business model on the rest of industry, which moreover is not "free", but is actually a different form of monopoly by imposing a copyright licence system on users.

So are we expected to believe that the GPL restricts the rights of users? Firstly the GPL doesn't restrict what you can USE the software for - business, is quite acceptable.

It doesn't even restrict the rights of developers, they can extend the software however they feel. What it does do is PROTECT the rights of users and developers to have the same rights from derived works.

So if I extend some GPL program that's fine, if I wish to distribute the derived work that's also fine, BUT I must make my changes under the GPL. If I don't want that then I can't work with that product. Seems easy.

Compare that with "traditional" software (actually open source is older than the closed model, but you know what I mean), here I can't extend the product because I don't have the source, and I am not allowed to decompile it (for any use).

In short the GPL restricts a right that traditional software DOESN'T give me! Even that restriction is only that I cannot take that right away in derived works.

You can make money from GPL software, it is not "anti-business" you can charge for services, and additions to the software, but you make those in the environment of the GPL.

I am not saying I think the GPL is the right way to go for ALL software, clearly it isn't - but the GPL is not evil, and end users have nothing to fear from it. Developers should understand the legal impact any license they agree to (but this should not be a problem, as long as one takes care to check the details).

Re:Only one problem with that article

[squiggleslash]

The only thing the GPL does is grant rights by default that would otherwise not exist.

This is a point that seems to be lost on many people. If you choose to use a GPL'd piece of software, you generally have three choices: You can agree to use it under the GPL, you can limit yourself to "fair use" of the software, or you can contact the copyright holder and negotiate a seperate licence.

With proprietry software, the first of these options is absent. Indeed, quite often the second option is also absent because most commercial software requires the agreement to of an EULA which further restricts "fair use".

The GPL is an addition of a package of extra rights that's entirely optional. If you want to use software like GNU, Linux, MPlayer, etc, without ever agreeing to it, you're welcome to do so.

I don't see how it's the replacement of one monopoly with another.

As of the parliamentary hearing...

[Anonymous Coward]

In her article, Arlene McCarthy wrote:

Numerous people from small to medium-sized enterprises have written to me in support of my proposal.

To me, this is the most blood-boiling point. I was there at the parliamentary hearing in Brussels in early May. Arlene McCarthy was not. The hearing was a forum for SMEs (Small-to-Medium Enterprises) to present their take on the proposed software patent directive. The prevailing opinion was so unanimous it was boring: software patents are bad. Enterpreneurs and investors pleaded lawmakers to stick to and reaffirm the spirit of the 1973 Munich convention. Yeah, supporters of Free Software were there too (strong Debian contingent, hi, guys!), but by no means in the majority.

I could hardly muster the willpower to talk to anyone during those two days, it was so depressing. No one of the opposing viewpoint showed up, effectively reducing the conference and the hearing to a feel-good get-in-our-of-your-systems-then-go-home kind of event. The only supporter of the directive was Elly Plooij van Gorsel (chairwoman of one of the three committees in charge of the directive), who showed up for the last thirty minutes, took some notes, evaded answering any questions, then left. An enterpreneur even said to her face: I'm the one who's supposed to be protected here, and I'm here to tell you, I don't want your protection. This went wholly unanswered.

So allow me not to suspend my disbelief in Ms. McCarthy's comment quoted above. BTW, Ms. McCarthy is also a chairwoman of a committee handling the directive (of the most powerful of the three). What I saw and read and got to know so far all point into one direction: she's entirely aware of what she does, she just doesn't care about flushing the European SMEs down the toilet. The American multinationals sure can pay for more educational opportunities taking place in Hawaii.

Posted as AC on purpose.

Re:As of the parliamentary hearing...

[louee]

The EU-Direcorate for the internal market conducted a survey in re. to software patents during the consulting process end 2000. They got 1450 responses, 1200 of those were in opposition to software patents. The only possibility they found to manipulate this into a positive result was to invent the concept of "economic majority" since the few positive responses came from cash-heavy companies.

The report that came out of this, stated that while 91% of the individula responses were negative, and "economic majority" of the respondents favoured the introduction of software patents.

EU & IP

[peatbakke]

The EU really does need a universal intellectual property regulation system. In order for businesses to operate efficiently in Europe, there really needs to be a common court where intellectual property issues can be addressed.

In theory, patents are needed to protect those who can't compete financially with larger, more capable corporations. A patent is the intellectual stick you can use to beat off unfair business competition in a market place. In theory, of course.

In practice, it's a little different. I'm sure we're all aware of the potential for abuse with poorly designed IP regulations (the Stallman/Hill article does a good job outlining some of those issues).

What we needed are universal IP regulations designed to protect the the individual who doesn't have the financial resources to fend of giants like Microsoft or IBM, AND a much narrower definition of what can be patented in software.

Re:EU & IP

[Alsee]

Not only does a patent assign property rights, but the patent itself (the document) is also a legal property. Ditto for copyrights.

I am going to use copyrights as a stand in for all flavors of IP (patents, copyrights, trademarks). I am also going to reffer strictly to the rights assigned by a document - and not to ownership of the document itself. Actually I'll say one thing about the document aspect - the closest thing to 'theft' in relation to copyrights is to forge a document of transfer of the copyright. And even that is actually fraud, not theft.

Copyrights assign copy rights, not property rights. The rights of copy are very different than the rights of property. They are covered by entirely different sets of laws and operate in very different ways. One applies to information, the other applies to physical objects. Information and physical objects have extremely different properties. 'Intellectual property' is a oxymoron. It is impossible to own information.

When the word 'property' shows up in copyright arguments people often assert that the copyright holder owns every copy of the information. They claim he owns the bits on my CD or the bits on my harddrive. They claim that decrypting DRM is like picking a lock, breaking and entering, and tresspass. Using a property analogy on information leads to completely false conclusions like those.

US copyright law states that if I buy a copy it is my property. I can sell it if I like. I own it, not the copyright holder. Section 106 of US copyright law grants six exclusive rights to the copyright holder, but they really amount to three different rights - the right to make copies, the right to distribute copies, and the right to perform the work publicly. Those are the ONLY rights the copyright holder has. And those rights are subject to all sorts of limits and exemptions. And those rights expire. It is extremely different that owning a thing. Copy rights are very different from property rights.

Copy rights and property rights are so different that one is protected by civil law and the other by criminal law. If I violate your property the police will arrest me and the government will prosecute the case. If I violate your copyright all you can do is sue me in civil court. And you have to prosecute me yourself. Any you can only do so on the grounds of those three specific rights - making copies, distributing copies, or public performance.

Another piece of disinformation commonly spread by the RIAA/MPAA is that is is a crime to download copyrighted files. They are flat out lying. It is a crime to receive stolen goods, it is perfectly legal to receive copyrighted information. It is only the person who is sending the file who may (or may not) be violating the law.

-

Re:Get them out of the EU. NOW! (flamebait)

[nagora]

Do we really need the UK? I'd say dump 'em.

Please do! It's been a total waste of time and money being a member of the EU. For a few billion quid a year we get told how to run our country for the benefit of French farmers. Whoop-de-fucking-do!

Meanwhile, it's hard to go shopping without getting several items made in China and huge whacks of the service industries are under threat from cheap labour in India.

What are the advantages of being in the EU that the poor Chinese and Indians are missing out on? They must be kicking themselves for having to only trade with us and missing the opportunity of having their laws overruled and their fiscal policy interfered with by a bunch of witless jerks on six figure job-for-life salaries.

TWW

And *YOUR* MEP

[Moderation abuser]

If you're going to contact her, for fucks sake be polite and professional.

Contact YOUR MEP as well. It will help them vote against any legislation...

In the UK anyway, you can find out who your MEPs are here:

http://www.europarl.org.uk/uk_meps/MembersMain.h tm

Mail her and cc: all of your MEPs.

Re:Get them out of the EU. NOW! (flamebait)

[El Cabri]

U.S support and trade when we need it

You mean, like when the US pulled steel tariffs on you ? Like when they scrapped the UK-backed landmine treaty ? Like recently when they publicly exposed BAe Systems' bribery practice in the Czek Republic ? Like in Suez, in Granada ? Like when they themselves killed the majority of UK casualties in Iraq that were not in accidents ?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:you're confused

[greenrd]

Unless, of course, the open source product kills off the closed source alternatives for some reason, presumably because at the time it's a better (or better marketed) product.

There is nothing wrong with competing on merit, nothing much wrong with marketing (if it is truthful). However, MS didn't just compete on merit - they repeatedly broke the law, such as when they sabotaged DR DOS.

This was a bad thing when it led to Microsoft gaining effective monopolies in the desktop OS and office suite markets, and open source advocates spend all day bitching about that.

If the only problem with Microsoft was that it had effective monopolies, we wouldn't be complaining about how it got there - we'd just be talking about how to make open source programs competitive with closed sourced ones, and how to better advocate for them being used.

However, what we really object to is MS's consistent and galling pattern of misbehaviour. Competing on merit is not unethical. Faking error messages to kill a competitor's operating system (DR DOS) certainly is unethical. Purposefully breaking a contract to kill the write-once-run-anywhere promise of Java is unethical. Etc.