Slashdot Mirror
European Parliament Clashes Over Software Patents
D4C5CE writes "The European Parliament's Daily Notebook reports on the turbulent final plenary debate this morning regarding a draft Directive
to legalize Software Patents (which are currently unlawful under Art.52 (2) (c) of the European Patent Convention). The Notebook quotes some truly bizarre views and arguments (which no doubt you'll take the time to point out to Members of the European Parliament before tomorrow's
vote), with some MEPs even claiming to feel harassed because they are suddenly also being lobbied by numerous concerned citizens, rather than solely by industry representatives as usual."
Interesting. So now when citizens try to express their views on upcoming legislation to elected officials, it's "harassment". Only industry reps should be allowed this privilege?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Most of the speakers emphasised that this was not about legalising software patents, and the impression from the linked article is that over half of the speakers understood what the debate was about and were against software patents.
Surely this is a good sign from the European Parliament?
Apparently they're not used to actually representing their constituents, as opposed to just their industry lobbyists.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
From the notebook article:
"Neil MacCORMICK (Greens/EFA, Scotland) warned against possible "leakage" from genuine protection of computer implemented inventions to companies being able to patent computer software. He stated that the present system, where genuine inventions are patentable and software is protected by copyright worked well. The responsibility, he underlined, lay with the Commission to find a balance between over and under protection for inventions."
This is exactly the problem with the directive to begin with. What exactly is the point of "legalizing software patents" if software itself cannot be patented?
I am not asking for software to be patentable, far from it, but I fail to see the need for this entire exercise if the end result will be patent rules that are substantially similar to the current rules with more complicated language.
It is good to see that at least one MEP understands that no matter how persuasive the language, patent applicants will attempt to find ways to patent the supposedly unpatentable. "Systems" and "processes" in a patent will cover such obvious ideas as one click purchasing and on-line auctions. If anything, this entire directive has done nothing but muddy the waters about what is and what is not patentable, something patent inspectors and the public do not want or need.
Somebody in the Linux DVB group was so kind to point out yesterday that there is a TV channel with live feeds of such discussions on http://europa.eu.int/comm/ebs/reception_en.html.
I watched the discussion on software patents this morning. I have to say that without knowing the real backgrounds you could really fall for the arguments of the proponents. No, they do not want laws like the US, they want to restrict software patents. I don't know how they can keep straight faces saying that. Luckily, some other speakers did not fail to mention that software patents are actually against the law and the new proposal would legalize those patents. Restrictions to the new law (like those discussed on Slashdot yesterday) are not needed. Simply do not pass the new law and enforce the existing ones.
The so-called harrassments by citizens also were described quite differently depending on the side the speaker was on. The speakers for patents pretended to be offended by such wild actions.
The speakers against rather described them as reasonable concerns by middle sized businesses who fear for their survival.
"Linus aeh Linux" was also mentioned. But one speaker talked about "Unix, which is free"?! Hmmm, let's not let Darl hear about this.
It's supposed to be confusing. Yes, to the unsuspecting computer guy (and MP!) it reads like pure software patents should not be allowed. What it means in reality, you can read on FFII's web site.
Especially read 4. How CEC/JURI ensure Unlimited Patentability: Some Sample Provisions from their Directive Proposal for a translation into real English: For a patent laywer, the term "computer-implemented inventions" means that everything that potentially runs on a computer (like, Software) can now be patented! Compare this to the existing law, which explicitly forbids pure software patents, yet the EPO (European Patent Office) granted ~30,000 software patents, from one-click shopping over email archiving to progress bars (so much for the "don't extend current practice" bit).
What it would mean for Linux et al. if this practice will be officially sanctioned we all know...
A quick EU primer. The EU is set up according to the classic tripartite division of power into executive, legislature and judiciary, as is found in most democratic states (including the US).
The Commission is the executive of the EU. It carries out and polices EU law. It also proposes EU legislation, but since it cannot itself pass the legislation this does not make it a legislative body. Indeed, in most democracies the bulk of legislation is proposed by the executive (including the US and UK).
The Council of Ministers and the Parliament together form the legislature. Every piece of new EU legislation proposed by the Commission must be ratified by the Council of Ministers to take effect. In many areas, the approval of the Parliament is also required. Just as in the US and UK, the legislature can amend or throw out proposed legislation.
Finally, the European Court of Justice is (predictably) the judiciary of the EU. It has the power to strike down EU legislation for being incompatible with the Treaties that created the EU, as well as ensuring that the Commission, Council of Ministers, Parliament, Member States and individuals follow EC law.
While the EU is often condemned as being undemocratic, its legislature is in essence much like the US congress. The Parliament, like the House of Representatives, is elected by the people on on a demographic basis (more populous regions get more MEPs). The Council of Ministers, like the US senate, is made up of an equal number of representatives from each member state. While members are not elected directly to the council, they are drawn from the democratically-elected governments of the member states and so are ultimately subject to democratic control.
The big gap in EU democracy is in the unelected nature of the executive, the commission. But it's unfair to blame that on the EU itself -- it was the member states who vetoed the idea of a popularly elected President of the commission at the EU constitutional convention. Why? precidely because an elected President would give the EU Commission democratic legitimacy, and therefore suck power away from individual governments. It's the same story again and again -- national governments deliberately deny the EU proper democratic accountability precisely in order that they can then denounce EU policies they disagree with as being undemocratic and so retain their own grip on power.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.