European Parliament Clashes Over Software Patents

Could be worse... by Gortbusters.org · 2003-09-23 10:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

at least it's a clash and not everyone for the patents!

Ah, hopefully things will go well and all these great software projects (and their home pages) will go back to normal!

--
--------
Free your mind.

Re:Could be worse... by Spy+Hunter · 2003-09-23 11:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm rather confused. If you read the article, you see people claiming "The aim of this directive is neither to abolish nor to extend the patentability of pure computer programs", and if you read the directive itself, it does not appear to make it any easier to patent software. In fact, most of the stuff I read was simply clarifying existing statements that "computer-implemented inventions may be patented" (not software itself, but inventions that incorporate a software component), adding additional clarification on when it would not be appropriate to consider pure software or business methods "computer-implemented inventions". To me, this amendment only makes it harder to patent software, algorithms, and business methods.
An example: some inserted text reads:
"Computer-implemented inventions must be claimed with reference to either a product such as a programmed apparatus, or to a process carried out in such an apparatus. Accordingly, where individual elements of software are used in contexts which do not involve the realisation of any validly claimed product or process, such use will not constitute patent infringement."
Remembering that "Computer-implemented inventions" are quite clearly already patentable under current law, this passage only restricts their applicability. The amendment itself is full of such restrictions, and doesn't add any new ways of patenting computer programs that I can see. "The open-source community" is mentioned specifically in a part of the amendment. There is even a new passage making it legal to implement patented methods for the sole purpose of software interoperability, and protecting reverse engineering! Where exactly is the problem with this legislation? You might disagree with the fact that it is possible to patent "computer-implemented inventions" at all, but you can already do that now. This amendment only makes it harder. If you want to strike this concept out of current law, you should lobby for a different amendment and leave this one alone.

--
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Re:Could be worse... by \/\/ · 2003-09-23 12:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

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...
Re:Could be worse... by rhysweatherley · 2003-09-23 12:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

In fact, most of the stuff I read was simply clarifying existing statements that "computer-implemented inventions may be patented" (not software itself, but inventions that incorporate a software component), adding additional clarification on when it would not be appropriate to consider pure software or business methods "computer-implemented inventions".
And herein lies the slippery slope. The current version makes it illegal to patent software on its own, but not software used as one component in some otherwise physical product. The standard example given, regurgitated by some of the MEP's in the referenced article, is that of mobile phones.
However, the mobile phone argument shows exactly why this is still a bad law. Mobile phones these days are essentially "software plus an antenna". So what happens when we allow people to patent "algorithm X plus an antenna"?
What we get is this: some open source programmer writes algorithm X, and deploys it in a usual fashion. Some patent miscreant then jumps up and says "hey, you're running algorithm X on a laptop with a wireless network card! You're infringing my patent and owe me royalties!".
No, the current "clarifications" are no good. Software patenting must be abolished completely, in all of its forms. If the physical device does not have some unique and novel feature of its own, sans software, then the device should not be patentable. Period.
Re:Could be worse... by Spy+Hunter · 2003-09-23 12:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ah, I see. I was reading this amendment wrong. I thought it was amending current law, but it is only amending a proposed law. I agree that this proposed law, even as amended, does appear to authorize a lot of software patents.

--
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Re:Could be worse... by Serious+Simon · 2003-09-23 20:08 · Score: 1

"Computer-implemented inventions must be claimed with reference to either a product such as a programmed apparatus, or to a process carried out in such an apparatus. Accordingly, where individual elements of software are used in contexts which do not involve the realisation of any validly claimed product or process, such use will not constitute patent infringement."
How would this prevent e.g. the Amazon one-click patent? The software itself would not be patentable, but the process implemented by the software would. By actually using the software, you are potentially infringing on a patent.
So the practical effect is the same as when the software itself had been patented. Where the directive says software "as such" will not be patentable this is not much more than playing with words.
The whole original directive gives the impression of being constructed for deception. It can only be repaired with amendments that clearly and unequivocally prohibit any patents on software (and the use of software) running on general purpose computers, for example operating systems, office suites, data bases, etc.
Re:Could be worse... by kogs · 2003-09-24 00:09 · Score: 2, Informative

You were more correct initially.

The current law is EPC and national laws that are based on the EPC. The European Patent Office is not related to the EU.

All EU states are EPC contracting states but not all EPC states are EU states, e.g. Switzerland and Turkey.

The EU cannot change the statutory definition of what is patentable because this would conflict with the member states obligations under the EPC or creating a situation where nation patents are granted on a different basis to European patents, which would not make things clearer. However, it can change the law in EU states that relate to enforcement and can exclude some acts from the definition of infringement, e.g. acts for ensuring interoperability as proposed and private non-commercial use in UK law.

Theoretically, the EPC member states are meant to harmonise their interpretation of Art. 52(2) EPC. However, in the absence of EPO Board of Appeal decisions being binding precedent, there is a tendency for different countries to interpret Art. 52(2) EPC differently. The UK is a real culprit in this respect and has some decisions that are out of step with the EPO Boards of Appeal but binding on the UK patent office and lower UK courts.

The EU legislation is aimed at harmonising the interpretation of Art. 52(2) EPC and equivalent national law provisions in respect of computer-implementing inventions in the patent offices and courts of the EU states.

The basis of the standardisation is the interpretation established by the Boards of Appeal of the EPO.

The distinction is subtle. The aim is not to get everyone singing from the same song sheet, they do that already, but to get everyone singing in tune. Tbis is all explained here
.
Re:Could be worse... by Spy+Hunter · 2003-09-24 06:56 · Score: 1

Thanks for the explanation. I can see why interpreting this junk is a full-time job.

--
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}

The citizens are coming after them with pitchfork. by Delron+Da+Thugg · 2003-09-23 10:59 · Score: 4, Funny

"because they are suddenly also being lobbied by numerous concerned citizens, rather than solely by industry representatives as usual." Let's see if the citizens have as much sway as the real lobbies...probably only when they come with pitchforks and torches.

Heaven forefend! by Atario · 2003-09-23 10:59 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

Imagine that -- contacted by (ugh) commoners. Oh, the ignominy!

--
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt

Re:Heaven forefend! by moonbender · 2003-09-23 11:23 · Score: 4, Informative

What are you referring to? He cited a MEP - MEPs are elected by European citizens, as far as I know. The European Commission isn't directly elected, but then, it's the executive, not the legislatory part of the European government.

--
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Re:Heaven forefend! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-23 11:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Symptoms: "...some MEPs even claiming to feel harassed..."
Diagnosis: results of /. effect hitting a real person, not a computer
Re:Heaven forefend! by amorsen · 2003-09-23 11:35 · Score: 1

The Commission is the only body in the European Union with the power to propose new directives. Therefore it is a legislatory body - and arguably the most powerful legislatory body in the EU.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:Heaven forefend! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2003-09-23 12:29 · Score: 4, Informative

He cited a MEP - MEPs are elected by European citizens, as far as I know.

Correct.

The European Commission isn't directly elected, but then, it's the executive, not the legislatory part of the European government.

Unfortunately, that's rather misleading. The European Commission are essentially appointed (though by elected governments, one hopes) whereas the European Parliament consists of directly elected MEPs. Unfortunately, we have here a rather bizarre system where the EC probably holds more real power than the EP. There are other players involved here as well, but when it comes down to it, hearing a commissioner state that some of the EP's amendments are "not acceptable to the Commission" is a fairly chilling warning that they're going to over-rule them.

Of course, given the frequently misunderstandings about what is and is not being proposed here, and the fact that idiots trying to be clever appear to be alienating the very elected representatives who needed to be convinced, this could all be for the best anyway.

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Heaven forefend! by Groote+Ka · 2003-09-23 20:19 · Score: 1

The European Commission isn't directly elected, but then, it's the executive, not the legislatory part of the European government
Oh yes, it is. Even more than the parliament (like the other poster indicates).
Furthermore, there's the European Counsel (of ministers). Can be heads of state (France), but usually prime ministers or, in specialised cases, ministers of e.g. agriculture. This counsel has large powers, perhaps even more than the European Commission. Furhtermore, it is difficult to control. Those blokes can only be controlled by their own parliaments, but are usually that vague about what is being discussed that everything is continuously covered in clouds.
What is important to know, is that the Commission and Parliament are only competent is matters relating to the European Community, which is one of the three pilars of the European Union. The other three are police & security and foreign policy (or something like that, it's been a while since those lessons). Those two pilars the turf of ministers only, vaguely controlled by national parliaments.
Well, fortunately, this issue (software patents) is a European Community issue. Or unfortunately, as a lot of Members of Parliament know just about zip about software or patent, let alone about a combination of them. And we've seen that in the arguments the bring.
Re:Heaven forefend! by misterpies · 2003-09-23 23:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Re:Heaven forefend! by rking · 2003-09-24 00:04 · Score: 1

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.

That doesn't make sense. The House of Commons in the UK can't pass legislation by itself (even using the Parliament Act to bypass the House of Lords any legislation still needs Royal Assent), that doesn't mean that the House of Commons isn't a legislative body.

If the only way to pass legislation in the EU is for it to first be approved by the European Commission (which is what saying it must be proposed by the European Commission means) then the European Commission is PART of the legislature, though not the whole thing.

If legislation could also be initiated by the European Parliament without European Commision involvement then I could see your point, but if their involvement is a necessary condition of legislation being paseed then of course they're a legislative body. How could you define 'legislative body' in such a way as to exclude them?
Re:Heaven forefend! by Rich0 · 2003-09-24 05:07 · Score: 1

I find it interesting that the EU uses a two-house legislature patterned after the original US house and senate. The original US congress had two houses - the house of reps which was popularly elected and distributed in proportion to popluation, and the senate, which had two memebers appointed by each state. The reason for this system was similar to that in the EU - wanting the appearance of democracy without too much risk that the people in power (the state goverments at that time) would lose their grip on the whole system. The US did, however, have an elected president.

A long time ago somebody realized this system wasn't fair and an ammendment to the constitution was passed which makes senators popularly elected, although they are still appointed by governors in the event of a vacancy.

I'm not sure which system is better, but in my observation the true parilmentary system seems to yield a government where the people have the most control over what happens, and where parties do not have a strong grip on what goes on. Usually coalitions of many parties have to be formed to maintain a majority. On the other hand, the speaker for such an institution (the PM) does not have the same popular backing as a president which is directly elected. Presidents can lecture congressmen - PMs tend not to. I'm not really sure which is better...
Re:Heaven forefend! by misterpies · 2003-09-26 01:37 · Score: 1

>>I find it interesting that the EU uses a two-house legislature patterned after the original US house and senate.

Certainly the similarity is striking -- but don't forget that the US was not the first two-house legislature. The American structure was closely modelled on the British legislature, which since the middle ages consisted of the lower, elected House of Commons, the upper, unelected House of Lords -- made up of the most powerful people in the country, as with the original US senate -- and a head of state (the king) with the power to veto legislation passed by both houses.

Also many European countries have a US-style 2-hosue system where one house is elected & distributed according to the population, and the other house represents each region equally, for example Germany. So it's probable that the founders of the EC system were looking closer to home for their inspiration -- although doubtless they were informed and inspired by the US.

--
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.

Interesting. by BitterOak · 2003-09-23 11:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

Re:Interesting. by s20451 · 2003-09-23 11:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Describing your opinion over a $200 dinner and a 1965 Merlot = Lobbying

Describing your opinion to an aide in the lobby after waiting for hours to talk to someone = Harassment

--
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Re:Interesting. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-23 11:24 · Score: 5, Informative

READ THE ARTICLE YOU CRETINS! Only Arlene Macarthy complained of harassment for reasons that are perfectly obvious to anyone who knows ANYTHING about the situation. Who the hell is modding this shit as insightful?
Re:Interesting. by iabervon · 2003-09-23 12:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

There are a whole lot of citizens, and MEPs only expect to need a relatively small staff. MEPs, even if they don't favor industry representatives, really prefer hearing from representatives over hearing from the entire represented group. On most issues, concerned citizens organize or join existing organizations, which lobby on their behalf. This has become important to a lot of people pretty suddenly, which means that a lot of people are talking to their MEPs directly. It doesn't really give the MEP a good idea of the argument; if that many people are trying to talk to you individually, you can't even figure out what side each one is on, let alone sort out the different arguments or notice arguments you haven't heard before.

In such situations, the correct thing to do is really to deal the legislation, so that the citizens can sort themselves into groups based on their views and make coherent presentations of their concerns.
Re:Interesting. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-23 12:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

I guess the "harrasment" came from this comment:

Joachim WUERMELING (D), [...] He regretted the sometimes personal and irrational lobbying that had taken place. [...]

Just for the record: I am an EU citizen, I wrote an Email to Mr. Wuermeling, and he took the time to reply personally, explaining his position and adressing my concerns.
So him feeling "harrassed" doesn't seem to hit the nail here.

Also, after being against this EU derective for long time, I had to change my viewpoint somewhat.
This directive will not allow to patent business processes and pure software. Conversely it will stop the current EU-Patent-wild-growth (the EPA in Munich has alreday granted 30000 software related patents).

Yes, there may be legal loop-holes, and these have to plugged over time.

Most definitly the brain-dead US approach is not adopted.
Re:Interesting. by fname · 2003-09-23 12:26 · Score: 4, Informative

Geeze, RTFA. Or at least search TFA. The article says,
Arlene McCarthy regrettably added that in all the years that she had been an MEP, she had not been treated in such an aggressive manner. She said she and her staff had been bullied and harassed.
Ok, apparently the submitter of the story has a much better idea of what makes the MEPs tick than the write of the real article does. I mean, she says she was harassed-- maybe there were dozens of people lobbying her about the patents while walking to her car. I don't know. But the article clearly does not state that she feels harassed because, "they are suddenly being lobbied by numerous concerned citizens." The idea that she considers lobbying by citizens to be harassment is just a BS statement thrown in as redmeat to the anti-patent Slashdot crowd. It worked.

Obviously, the writer has an agenda, which is clear based on the link for the software patents. By knowingly mis-representing and mis-stating the complaint of the MEP, he only serves to call into question his own ethics. Ya, the story submitter seems like just the type who might actually bully an MEP, because he knows he's right. Slashdot lives down to its reputation once again.

And yeah, software patents seems like a bad idea (at least as implemented in the USA). That doesn't excuse the deliberate misrepresentation of facts (or, obviously, actual harrasment) by its opponents.
Re:Interesting. by asscroft · 2003-09-23 13:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's so sad that you're calling the US brain-dead and I can't disagree. It's mind boggling. The internet and world wide media was supposed to show the rest of the world how great we are, but it's done a lot to show me how f-ed up we are.

Just today on Fox News Oreilly had a big thing comparing America's teen pregnancy and STD rated to Europes, and then comparing America's Abstinence as the only option approach versus Europes Libertine sex-ed approach. We have four times the pregnancy rate as France and 12 times the ghonnorhea rate as Denmark. F-in Amsterdam where prostitution is legal, and there are more STD cases per 100000 here. WTF? Something isn't working.

Same holds true for binge drinking rates at college and underage drinking rates in the US versus alchohol use and abuse in europe. Suprisingly, toleration of alchohol creates a healthier mentality versus abolition (for those under 21). Exact same issue as sex.

The same holds true for Marijuana use/abuse. Not to mention the waste of money the war on Marijuana is.

Software Patents aren't an idealogy problem like these. They are instead a business vs. consumer problem. Yet, the business vs. consumer stance of europe makes so much more sense than America's sell-out policies.

I'm so disappointed in this puritanical corporate-sell out country. ( I know, if you don't like it, leave). Well maybe I will. I'll live where I'm free to code without fear of the DMCA and where I'm free to read without the government looking up my library records and where my children will get education and we'll all get health care and where my neighbor can smoke a J and it's no big deal because it really isn't a big deal and all that drug war money is instead spent to make life better. Imagine a land where you're free to tinker, and where we're brave enough to allow personal choices. Hmm, how ironic, home of the free and the brave. That should be HERE. That should describe America.

oh well. maybe someday.

--
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
Re:Interesting. by Wolfbone · 2003-09-23 14:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Software Patents aren't an idealogy problem like these. They are instead a business vs. consumer problem. Yet, the business vs. consumer stance of europe makes so much more sense than America's sell-out policies."
Actually old bean, at least from where I stand, it is indeed a matter of ideology - the ideology of free speech, freedom to engage in the arts and sciences, freedom to communicate ideas and culture, freedom of thought.

It has been a long time since the failure of your great compatriot, Phil Salin and others to prevent the tragedy of ideas patenting in the U.S. and we Europeans have had the opportunity to prepare for this inevitable onslaught on our fundamental human rights. Yet it looks likely that the forces arrayed against us will prevail anyway.

I call them 'ideas patents' because that is what they really are - I am not primarily a software developer or a businessman but a mathematician and I see software patents from a rather different perspective than has been customary in the 'debates' in the E.U. Parliament. Ever since I first came across the abominations that are the RSA patent and the DHT transform patent and others like them I have become more and more disgusted and horrified at the level of intellect displayed by those charged with the responsibility of formulating and enacting laws on my behalf.

Every debate has centred on the economic consequences of patenting with no attention whatsoever paid to the rights of which I speak. Of course you'd think I needn't worry when a quarter of a million people (mostly programmers) signed a petition against software patents and an organization representing half a million European S.M.Es stated their opposition to them too. So it must be obvious to the MEPs that there isn't even an economic case to be made for patenting software - right?

Wrong! Unfortunately we have to contend with a level of disingenuity, stupidity or underhand venality - I don't know which - capable of making statements like this:

"With regards to calls for abolishing, within the EU, all patents on computer-implemented inventions, EU companies would be at a severe disadvantage in the global market place if they were not able to apply for a patent over their invention."

(From Arlene McCarthy's website). Even a child would laugh at such a cretinous non sequitur - not so your average MEP.
Re:Interesting. by EvilAlien · 2003-09-23 14:43 · Score: 2, Funny

I'll live where I'm free to code without fear of the DMCA and where I'm free to read without the government looking up my library records and where my children will get education and we'll all get health care and where my neighbor can smoke a J and it's no big deal because it really isn't a big deal and all that drug war money is instead spent to make life better. Imagine a land where you're free to tinker, and where we're brave enough to allow personal choices.
You just described Canada... except you missed the part about the bears, coyotes, and other assorted wildlife roaming freely in our cities ;)
We're not so big on the personal choice thing (our government likes to take away choice so that we don't hurt ourselves), but otherwise its pretty accurate.

--
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Re:Interesting. by MickLinux · 2003-09-23 16:04 · Score: 1

...is really to deal the legislation...

I'm sorry, you completely lost me here. I'd love to know the correct thing to do, but the answer doesn't seem to make sense to me. Could you explain further, what you mean?

--
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Re:Interesting. by aastanna · 2003-09-23 16:38 · Score: 4, Funny

You just described Canada
I was thinking the exact same thing, but I wonder how many people won't know that the bit about bears and coyotes roaming the cities is a joke.

Also, I'd like to throw in the obligitory comments about being able to walk down the streat and not get shot, and being able to visit other countries with your flag sewn on your backpack and not get shot...and...just generally not get shot.
Re:Interesting. by dontbgay · 2003-09-23 16:41 · Score: 1

In such situations, the correct thing to do is really to deal the legislation, so that the citizens can sort themselves into groups based on their views and make coherent presentations of their concerns.

What the EFF are you going on about? If they hear from just a FEW representatives, then they can't feel the actual gravity of the situation at hand. Isn't that what your elected official is there for? To bring the insights of their district to the table? My hat goes off to anyone who actually spoke out to your MEP.

--
Sig not found.
Re:Interesting. by Saeger · 2003-09-23 19:04 · Score: 1

( I know, if you don't like it, leave)
NO! -- if you don't like it, fix it!
What kind of patriot turns tail and runs? I can't stand it when flag-hugging idiots spout that shitty "love it or leave it" copout.
--

--
Power to the Peaceful
Re:Interesting. by pork_spies · 2003-09-23 21:25 · Score: 1

I want to read the article, but the server is busted
Re:Interesting. by nyquility · 2003-09-23 21:41 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, Europe has spent the last 10 years in a haze of envy, seeing the dotcom bubble grow and burst and wishing its companies could get into the fray. Which means that even if sound minds here in Europe still get more of a say-so, politicians are bending over faster than prisoners at a soap-dropping contest to try and close the gap to the states. Turbocapitalism is coming to Europe and guess who is bringing it? If you check through any of the lists of already existing software patents the european patent office has already (illegally) issued youll find mainly large US IT companies as the patentees. In that you have to give these US companies credit for being very smart about lobbying the tender sweeties over in Brussels; they use the local subsidiary to present themselves as "more of a local company" which has "little to do with its US parent" and use the usual arguments of increased jobs and economic upturn mixed into a style of personal lobbying which is much different from that found in the States -campaign financing is a much more touchy subjecgt here in Europe, so you often get companies making donations in form of goods and services, see for instance the scandal about Air Miles in Germany last year-. It all leaves a shallow, bitter taste in the mouths of voters in Europe who are especially fed up of Neosocialism which at times tries to "out-capitalism" traditional consevative politivs. Without a doubt the UK is the breakaway example for this, a country whos soil I will try my best to avoid ever touching again because my former patriotism has been replaced with deep despair. The question we in Europe are staring to ask ourselves is: Where to run to once the US Corporate Invasion (tm)(c)(r) has taken place. I for one may well be welcoming my new Sino Overlords.
Re:Interesting. by Darren+Winsper · 2003-09-24 00:32 · Score: 1

Eh? You seem to be implying the UK is running into the arms of America, yet I'm only seeing the opposite. Yes, the UK backed America with the Iraq war, but the backlash from it seems to have shown the government that we won't tollerate another disaster like that. We've already sided with Europe wrt the latest bee in Bush's bonet (Iran), ruling out military action. We've gone against the US and have condemed Isreal over their attempts to kick out Arafat.

If it were 2000, I'd possibly agree with you. There was a very anti-Europe and pro-US vibe, but that's been more or less turned on its head now. While I wouldn't say we're pro-Europe now, we're growing more and more anti-US and anti-what-the-US-stands-for as the days go by. While Blair may still have his head up Bush's arse, the British public is growing more and more pissed off with it and Labour are certainly beginning to feel the pressure of it.
Re:Interesting. by ratamacue · 2003-09-24 01:04 · Score: 1

Not to mention the waste of money the war on Marijuana is.
Yes, drug prohibition is a complete waste of the taxpayer's money, but more importantly, drug prohibition creates violent crime. Just as alcohol prohibition gave rise to organized crime, drug prohibition gave us the bloods and the crips, and drive-by shootings. Of course the government would never admit this; instead they will claim that the people are the problem, not the law. But, it's hard to argue with the fact that nobody is out in the street killing each other over caffeine and nicotine. In the black market, the rules of voluntary association are simply invalidated, and thus it is possible to adopt force as a business model. Eliminate the black market, and these people will have to abide by the rules of voluntary association like everyone else.
Re:Interesting. by iabervon · 2003-09-24 03:20 · Score: 1

They can understand the gravity of the situation from the number of people the representatives represent. It can also help if people call them and say, "I support this group on this issue." But calling them up and trying to explain the dangers of software patents just takes up their time.

Read the text! by TwistedSquare · 2003-09-23 11:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

regarding a draft Directive to legalize Software Patents

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?

Re:Read the text! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-23 11:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

The problem is that McArthy is a liar and will twist and turn to say whatever she needs to get software patents legalised. Some of the others listen to her and believe she has good intentions.

The fact that she's having to claim to be against software patents IS a good thing, it means she'll have a harder time opposing amendments that are genuinely designed to keep software patents illegal. She WILL continue to oppose all such efforts though. The longer she plays her two-faced game the more people will see through her. Hopefully it'll be enough.

I For One... by dduardo · 2003-09-23 11:04 · Score: 1, Funny

I for one welcome our software patent overlords.

you gotta love the European Parliament... by The+Lynxpro · 2003-09-23 11:04 · Score: 5, Funny

If I were an EU citizen, I'd certainly run for office. How can you not win a constituency when less than 10% of people turn out for the voting?

10. Gain EU Citizenship through the liberal citizenry laws in the Republic of Ireland.

20. Move to an EU country, err, excuse me, "Member State."

30. Run for the EU Parliament. Have 2 people vote for me and I win my seat!

40. PROFIT!!!

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*

Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by gl4ss · 2003-09-23 11:19 · Score: 2, Informative

less than 10%????
wtf?

most votes would be deemed illeagal under such a low turnout.

and yeah i do live in eu, and yeah the partys(that i vote regularly) representive isn't in favor of software patents.

it certainly isn't "easy" to get elected as there are no shortage of candidates(if not for any other reason then because they get nice pay).

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by enos · 2003-09-23 11:57 · Score: 1

Only a programmer would even dream of numbering their lines in multiples of 10.

--
boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by The+Lynxpro · 2003-09-23 11:59 · Score: 2, Informative

"less than 10%????
wtf?
most votes would be deemed illeagal under such a low turnout.
and yeah i do live in eu, and yeah the partys(that i vote regularly) representive isn't in favor of software patents."

Which EU *Member State* do you live in? If I am to believe what the Financial Times reports, the turnout for EU Parliament elections in the U.K. are frequently at or below the 10% threshhold. I would also imagine that in other EU Member States that have a low regard for the Eurocracy also poll quite low as well (Sweden perhaps?)...

While it is completely off-topic, I would have to agree that had the EC and the Central Bank came down hard on France and Germany for breaking their currency treaty requirements, the Swedish voters would've endorsed adopting the Euro... As it stands, the Euro is in danger of becoming funny money in the long term if France and Germany are not forced to meet their treaty obligations...

As for the other thing you said:

"it certainly isn't "easy" to get elected as there are no shortage of candidates(if not for any other reason then because they get nice pay)."

So in essence, critics of the California Recall should look to European elections before claiming it has no legitimacy due to the large number of candidates for the same elected position. I personally think we'd be better off in a parliamentry system myself...

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by Delirium+Tremens · 2003-09-23 12:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

You are obviously not a programmer.
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by citog · 2003-09-23 15:28 · Score: 1

Perhaps you would like to explain: "Gain EU Citizenship through the liberal citizenry laws in the Republic of Ireland."

I think there are quite a few people who would disagree with you on that one.
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by gl4ss · 2003-09-23 18:49 · Score: 1

i live in finland. eu and emu member(and yeah we did meet the requirements too).

the turnouts for european parliament voting last time was around 35-40% iirc(under 10% would be considered total fiasco on the marketing side of the poll and i'd imagine heads to roll just because of that), can't be very sure though. the eu parliament votings are a bit hard for to motivate people(because it's not on the news all the time like the local parliament and it's politicians are, and since uk has had the crazy system with nobles and shit i can't really blame them for not thinking that their vote doesn't matter) even though they are the votings that _really_ matter, the local parliaments have to more or less do as they say anyways in the long run.

-

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by ahillen · 2003-09-23 19:13 · Score: 5, Informative

Which EU *Member State* do you live in? If I am to believe what the Financial Times reports, the turnout for EU Parliament elections in the U.K. are frequently at or below the 10% threshhold. I would also imagine that in other EU Member States that have a low regard for the Eurocracy also poll quite low as well (Sweden perhaps?)...

Why dont you just inform yoursel before just writing some wild guesses and thus givin a wrong impression? A simple Google search ("europarl European Elections") gives you as 4th link the UK office of the european parlament with information on the election turnout (http://www.europarl.org.uk/guide/textonly/Gelectt x.htm#facts) (please not the word facts at the end... ;) ).

To quote some numbers:
UK turnout has been between 24% and 36% in the last 5 elections, which is not at or below the 10% threshhold.
Sweden had a turnout of 41.6% and 38.3% in the 2 elections it took part.
Denmark had between 46.1% and 52.9%.
Belgium had aturnout alway >=90%.
EU average had been between 49.4% and 63%.
Unfortunately there is a negative trend, so in 20 years your statement might become true (which is especially sad because the EU parlament becomes more and more important...)

if France and Germany are not forced to meet their treaty obligations...

As a German I can say that at least the fact that Germany is breaking the stability pact for the second year in a row is not due to unwillingness, but due to inaptitude
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by CGP314 · 2003-09-23 19:44 · Score: 1

10. Gain EU Citizenship through the liberal citizenry laws in the Republic of Ireland.

20. Move to an EU country, err, excuse me, "Member State."

Wow! I'm only two steps away from profit!
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by ives · 2003-09-23 19:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Belgium had aturnout alway >=90%.

That's because in Belgium voting isn't a right but a duty. If you don't turn up during elections you can get fined (although judges have been very easy going on people who don't turn up to vote during the last couple of elections).

The idea is to protect the weaker groups in society as they usually are the first to forsake their voting rights. By forcing them to vote, you make sure that politicians will take them into account in their programs instead of just listening to more militant groups in society.
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by ahillen · 2003-09-23 20:10 · Score: 1

If I am to believe what the Financial Times reports,...

Sorry, I didnt quite get that you were refering to the Finacial Times. So forget the wild guessing part of my reply, sorry. But then the answer is: No, you are not to believe the Finacial Times... ;)
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by ahillen · 2003-09-23 20:13 · Score: 1

Ah, thanks, that explains this numbers, of course. It looked a bit suspicious... ;)
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by The+Lynxpro · 2003-09-24 06:18 · Score: 1

*Perhaps you would like to explain: "Gain EU Citizenship through the liberal citizenry laws in the Republic of Ireland."
I think there are quite a few people who would disagree with you on that one.*

Certainly I will. The Republic of Ireland is very "liberal" (IMHO) in terms of granting citizenship to descendents of people who were born in Ireland, whether it be from the North (the Ulster province, aka "Northern Ireland" which is part of the U.K.) or what is today the Republic (Erie, Southern Ireland, the Celtic Tiger, etc.). Ireland will grant citizenship to someone if they can prove that a great-grandparent of theirs was born in Ireland. Someone can correct me if this is incorrect, but I think Italy will only grant that to people who can prove their grandparent was born in Italy. Or, for an even more conservative example, look at British citizenship. The U.K. will grant someone British citizenship if their parent was British. I found this out when I inquired about applying for British citizenship because I am proud of my English, Scottish, and Cornish ancestry. However, that goes back much further than my great-grandparent since my ancestor came over to the New World in 1635. I do have a great-great-grandparent who hailed from Northern Ireland so to get EU citizenship, I'd have to get my father to apply for Irish citizenship and then I myself would have to apply after he received his.

Ergo, Ireland has a much more liberal standard for granting citizenship to descendents of people born there than Britain does...

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by The+Lynxpro · 2003-09-24 06:26 · Score: 1

"I think the parent was implying that one does not program in BASIC (the act of creating BASIC programs can hardly be called "programming", perhaps "procrastinating" approaches it more closely)."

Wait, are you suggesting someone who *programs* using Visual Basic is not an actual programmer? Next thing you'll be suggesting is an MCSE is not really an engineer...err, wait a minute... :)

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by The+Lynxpro · 2003-09-24 06:35 · Score: 1

"That's because in Belgium voting isn't a right but a duty. If you don't turn up during elections you can get fined (although judges have been very easy going on people who don't turn up to vote during the last couple of elections)."

I envy your country (Member State) then... Australia does that as well (or is it New Zealand?). Unfortunately here in the U.S., we do not require people to vote (although you have to sometimes question the intelligence of some voters, especially ones in Florida who voted for Pat Buchanon thinking they were voting for Gore back in 2000 but I digress). In California, we had an attempt through a proposition (a ballot iniative, plebiscite, etc.) a few years ago to include the voting selection of "None of the Above" as a choice for each item to vote on. The purpose was to spoil any candidate's chance of claiming a voter mandate when they failed to gain a 51% majority of the vote. A more radical version of the proposition would've invalidated any candidate who failed to gain a clear majority of the vote and called for a new election. However, a majority of the voters considered this too radical and cynical and defeated the proposition. Had it been passed, then a few years down the road, it would've been ethical to pass a law requiring voter participation because the proposition would've invalidated the argument that there was a lack of choice which is generally a reason why people fail to vote in the U.S. The Green Party also tried to secure a proposition to create a limited form of proportional representation in our crippled Legislature here in California but I don't think it ever received enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by The+Lynxpro · 2003-09-24 06:52 · Score: 1

UK turnout has been between 24% and 36% in the last 5 elections, which is not at or below the 10% threshhold.
EU average had been between 49.4% and 63%

Well, using Britain as my example for the 10% score and the Member State I'd want to run in, the 10% score is closer to the proported voter participation statistic of 24% in comparison with the EU average which you quote as being between 49.4% and 63%. An American holding dual citizenship with Britain would probably favor a better chance of being elected than an American with German citizenship trying to run in Germany.

The EU's pandering to Germany and France is the very cause for concern about the Euro's longterm stability and only feeds into politicians and groups with an anti-EU bend. How can someone sell the merits of fiscal union in a place like Britain when France and Germany break their own treaty obligations whenever convenient? So instead of a currency with sound financial footing with something backing it up, it reduces the Euro's strength in faith in the currency. That is dangerous. The reason why us in the U.S. have been able to do that for so long with the Dollar is because we've had an economy that kept growing, mainly due to productivity gains as well as foreign investors who felt the U.S. was the only safe investment. Had the Euro had the credibility, we would've seen a strong impact on the Dollar and forced our government into some fiscal reforms of our own. As it stands now, there won't be serious reform in the EU until France and Germany are outnumbered by the new members and sacred cows such as the CAP are stripped bare. Norway and Iceland need to be actual members but until France and Germany are humbled a bit, that isn't going to happen. The Eurocracy needs to get to work with improving the continental economy and stop scheming to create a Federal Government above the wishes of the majority of its collective citizenry. The strategy should be wide integration, not deep integration.

Of course, this is opinionated.

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by The+Lynxpro · 2003-09-24 06:58 · Score: 1

"Sorry, I didnt quite get that you were refering to the Finacial Times. So forget the wild guessing part of my reply, sorry. But then the answer is: No, you are not to believe the Finacial Times... ;)"

No prob there, my virtual friend. I cannot quote which day the story ran back in 2000, but it seemed like the article was implying that British participation in EU Parliamentry elections were incredibly low and that is why members of the Conservative Party (I believe their European counterpart is the "European People's Party" or something like that in the EU Parliament) were so heavily represented amongst British MEPs. Similar to how Republican Party members tend to do better in elections in the United States when voter participation slides because there generally is more unity amongst that party than say the Democratic Party when it comes to "getting the vote out", although that does not apply here in California. I personally would think it was funny if the Monster Raving Loony Party were able to capture a lot of British MEP seats...

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by The+Lynxpro · 2003-09-24 07:12 · Score: 1

and since uk has had the crazy system with nobles and shit i can't really blame them for not thinking that their vote doesn't matter

How can you claim the British system is crazy when its governing structure has lasted a good 800 years? Compare that with France which since 1789 has had 5 1/2 Republics, 2 Monarchist Regimes, and 2 Dictatorship/Empires? Just because someone was born a noble does not make them crazy or less fitting to sit in the House of Lords. Were there crazy Lords? There were some. But can you demonstrate that the percentage was larger than in the House of Commons who are elected outright? Nope. Tony Blair eliminated the hereditary peers not based upon principle but for political gain. Had the hereditary peers been mostly affiliated with the Labour Party and not the Conservatives, he wouldn't have eliminated them. How is giving someone a life term (peerage) in an unelected chamber of parliament any different than granting someone a hereditary right? They are both unelected.

Since Tony Blair's tinkering with the British system, the House of Lords is now demanding a larger role in Parliament. Beforehand, the Lords rubberstamped the will of the Commons and debated the finer points of the *unwritten* British Constitution. There is only one case (up until today) where the noble house bucked the will of the Commons, and that was prior to World War I when they reversed the will for Irish Home Rule (which all of Ireland would probably still be *British* had they had the foresight to grant it). So I do not see how the Lords had demonstrated a lack of legitimacy in the modern era (except for that one case) when it largely consisted of hereditary peers.

Now why is an American (me) defending the British system here? Where are the true Brit voices in this forum?

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by ahillen · 2003-09-24 07:55 · Score: 1

How can someone sell the merits of fiscal union in a place like Britain when France and Germany break their own treaty obligations whenever convenient?

I agree that it is a major problem, that France and Germany are breaking the stability treaty. But again, since you make it sound that Germany deliberately disrespects this treaty (at least thats how breaking whenever convinient sounds to me) let me say that it is not unwillingness to fullfill the treaty, but rather the inaptitude of our politicians (and the lobby groups) to do the reforms necessary to bring state finances and economy back on track. In some sense I hope for the additional pressure due to the stability pact that our politicians finally get their act together...

I dont know the situation in France, but it might be similar.
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by The+Lynxpro · 2003-09-24 08:54 · Score: 1

"But again, since you make it sound that Germany deliberately disrespects this treaty (at least thats how breaking whenever convinient sounds to me) let me say that it is not unwillingness to fullfill the treaty, but rather the inaptitude of our politicians (and the lobby groups) to do the reforms necessary to bring state finances and economy back on track. In some sense I hope for the additional pressure due to the stability pact that our politicians finally get their act together..."

Ahillen, I'm not claiming the German public is at fault for breaking the Stability Pact, but when I refer to Germany in this setting, I mean the elected government which are the politicians. They are the ones that are lacking the political courage to make budgetary cuts necessary to fulfill the treaty obligations. The politicians believe they will not be re-elected if they cut funds to popular programs. While it might cost the German citizen more money by cutting programs in the short term, they would benefit by a Euro that is fiscally sound long term in terms of better interest rates and purchasing power. Hey, we have the same problem here in America. Our officials won't make necessary budget cuts so we keep blowing up our budget deficits which eventually will mean interest rates will rise, thus homeowners will be paying more money out-of-pocket because of the collective stupidity of our elected officials.

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... by citog · 2003-10-01 18:53 · Score: 1

That's better, your original post suggested that just about anyone could gain citizenship of Ireland. There is a very simple reason for the Irish government adopting a policy similar to what you outlined. A large number of people left Ireland when they wouldn't necessarily have chosen to do so. This gives them something along the lines of a 'right of return'.

Open letter from SuSE by FonkiE · 2003-09-23 11:06 · Score: 5, Informative

SuSE wrote an open letter [german] today. Translation is here.
They are of course against software patents...

Re:Open letter from SuSE by Kumkwat · 2003-09-23 11:14 · Score: 2, Funny

Anybody got a translation that's in English?
Re:Open letter from SuSE by Ricin · 2003-09-23 14:05 · Score: 1

short version: it looks OK
Re:Open letter from SuSE by Kumkwat · 2003-09-23 14:29 · Score: 1

Thanks, I feel a lot better now.
Re:Open letter from SuSE by Ricin · 2003-09-23 14:32 · Score: 1

Hehe

Boo hoo hoo by Esion+Modnar · 2003-09-23 11:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

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...

Re:Boo hoo hoo by kcbrown · 2003-09-23 11:30 · Score: 1

Apparently they're not used to actually representing their constituents, as opposed to just their industry lobbyists.

Yes, it's been clear for some time now that many/most European governments are 0wn3d by the corporations just like the U.S. government is. The only difference is which corporations can claim 0wn3r5h1p.
It's funny, in a sad sort of way, how many people in Europe (that post here, at least) believe their government is immune to the corporate ownership crap we in the U.S. put up with all the time. Now they're learning the truth: they're no more immune than we are.
It's too bad they didn't figure it out sooner. They might have been able to do something about it earlier. Now it's probably too late, just like it is for us here in the U.S.

--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Re:Boo hoo hoo by nsample · 2003-09-23 11:32 · Score: 4, Informative

This is complete crap. I'm a Linux user, not a fanboy, so maybe that's why I read the article and can see it for what it was.

It was the European People's Party (aka, "Christian Democrats") that had some WAY over-zealous advocates harassing MPEs. Yes, that's an accurate word, "harassing." I believe it's accurate because of you read the article (and the poster clearly didn't), the EPP rep. APOLOGIZED for the extreme behavior of its zealots.

Joachim WUERMELING (D), for the EPP-ED group, broadly supported the rapporteur, and he alluded to the technical and legal difficulties surrounding the issue. He regretted the sometimes personal and irrational lobbying that had taken place.

He apologized because they were out of control. Showing up at an MPEs residence and hurling insults at them on their front door step in the name of OSS (or whatever) isn't "lobbying." It's harassment. Plain and simple.

Arlene McCarthy regrettably added that in all the years that she had been an MEP, she had not been treated in such an aggressive manner. She said she and her staff had been bullied and harassed.

And they were bullied. Hurling invectives in the name of OSS is still rude and over the top. Contrary to what /. readers believe, acting like an idiot isn't restricted to the folks from Redmond...
Re:Boo hoo hoo by alext · 2003-09-23 11:36 · Score: 1

You do realise that to regret something is not the same as to apologise? I don't see from where you are inferring all this stuff about the behaviour of EPP members.

Malcolm Harbour MEP by alext · 2003-09-23 11:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Malcolm HARBOUR (EPP-ED, West Midlands) stated that patents played an indispensable role in making the EU the most dynamic knowledge based economy in the world. Patents, he said, help to stimulate investment and encourage invention. Protecting genuine invention and creativity would help business to develop products that people want to buy.

Needless to say, this guy has a page to himself on the FFII site.

My impression from this (admittedly brief) note is that even the most aged and out-of-touch members of the (British) House of Lords would have managed a more coherent debate on this. Still, it's not gone all the megacorps' way.

Just look at the U.S. by Ikeya · 2003-09-23 11:15 · Score: 5, Funny

I mean, software patents work so great over here with no problems at all! They should just model their system after the U.S.!

--
---- Move SIG...For great justice!

Re:Just look at the U.S. by tschodt · 2003-09-23 23:42 · Score: 1

Is sarcasm patentable?

Re:The citizens are coming after them with pitchfo by adamsan · 2003-09-23 11:17 · Score: 3, Informative

"because they are suddenly also being lobbied by numerous concerned citizens, rather than solely by industry representatives as usual."

Total nonsense. All MEPs get lobbied by the public, stop trying to make them out as ivory tower-dwelling bureaucrats. Only Arlene MacArthy, the sponsor of this whole mess, complained of harassment. Seeing as she has been the focus of this whole mess and been unnecessarily painted as a heartless crone, it's not surprising some compaigners have gone over the top. Other representatives, especially my MEPs receive regular feedback from their constituents and at least listen to what they have to say.

EU == US? by The+Ape+With+No+Name · 2003-09-23 11:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

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."

Heavens to Murgatroid! The Humanity! I'd expect this sort of contempt from a US Representative but not from such a democratic body as the EU Parliament.

--
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.

Re:EU == US? by TwistedSquare · 2003-09-23 11:48 · Score: 1

The general opinion in the UK is that the EU parliament is not very democratic as though we elect MEPs, we have little control beyond that, and all it ever seems to do is churn out annoying regulations.
But then again, the UK is the only country to view the EU maximum working hours regulations as an annoyance rather than a boon...
Re:EU == US? by easter1916 · 2003-09-23 12:12 · Score: 1

Ah, yes, the standardised bananas myth. This has long been debunked.
Re:EU == US? by EtherealSys · 2003-09-23 12:40 · Score: 1

Heavens to Murgatroid!

OH the nostalgia!!!

--
Re:EU == US? by K3lvin · 2003-09-23 15:30 · Score: 1

Bullshit. Curvy cucumber (as any other deformed vegetables) must be sold as Class II vegetables, as described in the regulation concerning quality standards of cucumbers (PDF).

The class system for vegetables is basicly for large restaurants etc. which want standard quality raw materials.
Re:EU == US? by bears · 2003-09-23 21:30 · Score: 1

And (certainly in the 90s) the UK government was active in the Council of Ministers - which is where the real power lies - in preventing the EU Parliament from acquiring greater powers.

While simultaneously - for domestic consumption - decrying the EU as undemocratic

At least one MEP seems to understand by Hamster+Lover · 2003-09-23 11:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:At least one MEP seems to understand by benja · 2003-09-23 12:28 · Score: 1

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?

Hm, do you realize that the directive is not about legalizing software patents?

It claims to clarify how the law should be interpreted; it is very clear on that it does not make anything legal that wasn't legal before, and nothing illegal that wasn't illegal before. (The EU isn't allowed to do so, in this case, different treaty.) The problem, of course, is that you can "clarify" the law into so many different meanings ;-)

E.g., I do hope that Amendment 11 by the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (to Article 2(b)) goes through:

The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a technical field. The processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes.

Source. (Only "technical contributions" are patentable.)
Re:At least one MEP seems to understand by Lonath · 2003-09-23 15:24 · Score: 1

What exactly is the point of "legalizing software patents" if software itself cannot be patented?

To let greedy people find a legal way to lie and cheat their way into money without producing anything that people would actually pay for.

--
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!

Harrased by who they represents?! by node159 · 2003-09-23 11:22 · Score: 1

Have they forgoten who they are actualy representing? This is very sad.

--
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?

Re:Harrased by who they represents?! by mumbler · 2003-09-23 11:40 · Score: 1

No, they know exactly whom they're bought by. They are polieticians.. It's only a bit more hidden than in the US where those lyars are openly supported by the industries they protect.

Bullied and harrased by GoofyBoy · 2003-09-23 11:28 · Score: 1

> Arlene McCarthy regrettably added that in all the years that she had been an MEP, she had not been treated in such an aggressive manner. She said she and her staff had been bullied and harassed.

I would really like to find out what exactly those actions were. Although, if they were serious I'm quite sure that she would get the law involved.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.

Re:Bullied and harrased by penguin7of9 · 2003-09-23 12:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't know, but here is my guess. She probably got a lot of angry phone calls, to the point that other calls weren't getting through. Perhaps people also figured out her home telephone number and called her there.

However, I think whatever happened, as long as it was legal and didn't involve threats, that's something that an MEP should put up with without whining about it or calling it "harassment". If McCarthy had received such a response at something, oh, on some directive on child pornography or retirement benefits, I suspect she would not have considered it harassment but mainstream, widespread outrage. If you look at McCarthy's web site, you'll see that this issue isn't featured there prominently (in fact, I didn't see any reference to it at all on the web site).

MEPs need to come to understand that this is something that geeks and technologists are genuinely outraged over. It is something that matters to a lot of people, and it is something they need to take very seriously.

Of course, people trying to contact them should also realize that MEPs still just don't quite get it and perhaps adjust their behavior accordingly.

For one thing it's not a non issue to them by Ricin · 2003-09-23 11:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

There *is* discussion. There *is* a stir up. There *are* delays. It hasn't been passed as, err, suggested by a certain lobby, without any debate.

If all that matters is the mere glorious victory, well, then find a cave and have your victory there. It's not going to happen. A small win is a win even if it only means less of a loss.

So perhaps we can finally be a little positive about this. OSS has a lobby. It is being heard. More importantly it's being listened to and more people seem to be understanding what's at stake. That's quite something.

Re:For one thing it's not a non issue to them by curious.corn · 2003-09-23 11:51 · Score: 1

Getting to smoke a cigarette before being shot isn't exacly what I call "something"...

--
Mi domando chi Ã il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Re:For one thing it's not a non issue to them by Ricin · 2003-09-23 12:17 · Score: 1

'Getting to smoke a cigarette before being shot isn't exacly what I call "something"...'

If you're a smoker (I am) I'm pretty sure it will be "something" at such a point.

Which was my point. I wasn't cheering.
Re:For one thing it's not a non issue to them by Ricin · 2003-09-23 13:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

I understand how you feel, I never said we should be satisfied with it as is (or rather as it's going to be).

But you never win in big leaps. At least normal people don't. And they're at their best when being pushed around. Frankly, that's where my hope is. Not at short term all-or-nothing thinking.

I'm talking about that there are turning points (which are always small otherwise it would be shove rather than turn) and that they shouldn't be overlooked nor deemed insignificant. Especially when the alternative is what?

I am *very* well aware of what's at stake but are you pulling out a gun yet? Neither am I so we're gonna have to make do with what we *can* do. And certainly the OSS voice is being considered a force to reckon with by now.

Sure many still don't have a clue. And diversity within the OSS community all to often leads to unneeded flamefests. No one's perfect. And expectations should be accordingly. A people thing will have a people signature. Nothing wrong with that.

For one thing, the OSS community should preach Humanity. That includes not being able to turn around a massive and increasingly repressive force easily. That includes a community developer fucking off because he's having a hard time privately, it includes people making human errors. It's not "get victory fast" by nature and that should be accepted both personally and more generally IMHO.
Re:For one thing it's not a non issue to them by Goalie_Ca · 2003-09-23 17:36 · Score: 1

Or in other words, Democracy in action.

--

----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
Re:For one thing it's not a non issue to them by shaitand · 2003-09-24 06:05 · Score: 1

Alas in the lawmaking world things are a bit different. If you don't get victory fast, you never will. If this war is lost then the rest of the fights will be about the terms of surrender. Under what conditions you can get software patents, etc.

Just as you no longer hear much about getting rid of the DMCA anymore, now you hear about amending or adjusting it. If laws like these are ever to go away completely as they should, it won't be until they are as irrelevant as the new developments with the commadore 64.

In other, related news... by Pope+Raymond+Lama · 2003-09-23 11:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

There was supposed to be a presentation of Free Software at Sao Paulo's congress tomorrow - Sao Paulo being the richest and most populated state in Brazil.

I just got an e-mail from an entity that was responsible for part of the presentation taliking of a last minute change: instead of presentation there will be a debate, and the people invited to debate are, instead of free software advocates were experimented proprietary software advocates.

--
-><- no .sig is good sig.

Balance of power - State vs People ( go EU ! ) by SlashingComments · 2003-09-23 11:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is very interesting and I am following the story for last few weeks.

I never realized that so many sites could be / would be affected and will join the protest against this.

I would not have been aware of this unless there is this thing called INTERENET and EU people contributed a major portion of GPL Software.

If this works out, then, it will show that the "Europe" is still probably the place where people have the voice and can make a difference.

Balance of power between state and people is getting one sided in US--unfortunately. Before the IRAQ war more than 40% of the people in US actually thought that there is a connection between IRAQ/WMD/Terrorist etc. etc. Govt. is too strong compared to the people at this point to pull this and still stay in power.

(I supported the war anyway--this type of dictators need beating--well so is Pakistan/North Korea but that's another story).

So, congratulations EU people--you did well.

P.S.

Probably does not make much sense here, but, If you just happen to visit a bookstore, pick up the last issue of Foreign Policy ... read and get depressed.

--

- People who believe other people have no right to live, got no right to live ...

Re:Balance of power - State vs People ( go EU ! ) by Halo1 · 2003-09-23 13:57 · Score: 1

Especially if they stay until 4 am and later in the Parliament to finish a final voting list and put it in the MEPs offices for the vote of the next day :)

--
Donate free food here

Speling by ActiveSX · 2003-09-23 11:39 · Score: 1

He was also particularly concerned that the directive would properly protect the open-source community including Linnux.

The absolute first thing to catch my eye.

To all native speakers: by GeekDork · 2003-09-23 11:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

For Antonio MUSSA (I), who spoke on behalf of the UEN group, "computers are the backbone of development in all countries of the world and innovation is predicted through patentability".

Is it just me or is the "innovation/patentability" part not making sense at all? Is this something like "war is predicted through declarability" or more like "rain is predicted through cheese"??

--

Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.

Mod down by alext · 2003-09-23 11:44 · Score: 4, Informative

Arlene McCarthy proposed this legislation and is responsible for drafting it. She cannot in any sense be described as taking an anti-patent position. On this basis, the "uninformed opinion" award goes to the parent.

Re:Mod down by klokan · 2003-09-23 21:38 · Score: 1

Actually, the Commission proposed the draft directive and McCarthy as member of the Juridic Commitee was appointed by the same Commitee as rapporteur to prepare a report on the draft proposal. The report suggested amendments and was then presented to the Parliament for discussion and vote.

watched it live by rjkm · 2003-09-23 11:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:watched it live by evilviper · 2003-09-24 01:15 · Score: 1

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.

Funny thing is, every year there's another big story about Europe wondering how to stop the "Brain-Drain" (Scientists going to the USA) and yet they continue on with things like this.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Publicise this BS by Unregistered · 2003-09-23 11:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

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."

When election time pass this around to the candite of your choice running against the reps that said this. I'm sure the opposition would be happy to have those quotes.

Re:Learn to read, micheal by ed__ · 2003-09-23 11:47 · Score: 1

the submitter said that not micheal.

go go gadget kneejerking!

Ok... here's a solution. by nitrocloud · 2003-09-23 11:56 · Score: 1

LYNCH MOB!

--
Karma: Good, or bust!

Re:Ok... here's a solution. by cdn-programmer · 2003-09-23 18:39 · Score: 1

Mod parent up. While I personally am not in favour of violence I think it is important that the pollies realise that a basic human right is the right to work and make a living.

Software patents are a direct attack on programmers.

The VAST majority of programmers do not want to be involved with the patent system in any way. Those that do are simply naive or stoopid or both.

Unfortunately sometimes wars are necessary when one group tries to steal the property of others. This is what the patent system does... it attempts to prevent programmers from using their own ideas.

If the patent system actually lived up to its promise of only patenting novel ideas then perhaps it would be acceptable. But the patent system cannot pass this test. Even if it did it we should not support it.

Richard Feynman [Nobel prize in physics (1965) - Quantum ElectroDynamics] gave a lecture where he talked about freedom to pursue ideas. His comment is that any country that restricts the freedom of its people cannot hope to compete in a free world. [ I chose to use Feynman's comments in place of say Stallman's because Feynman predates Stallman. Examples are everywhere. Intelligent people realise that freedom benefits everyone ]

Well - the US has chosen to restrict the freedom of its programmers and I say they should be left to enjoy the fruits of their decision. Instead the pollies in Europe threaten to shoot themselves in the head and criple their own economic advantage... and for what purpose? To kiss Mr. Shrub's asshole???

But perhaps this is about power - the power to control what we programmers can create. If so then it is even more important that all of us band together and condem them.

Let the USA stand alone in its attempt to enslave the creative abilities of its programmers. The rest of the world should just say no! And if Europe is so foolish to try this - then Asia and India will 20 years from now control cyberspace.

We all know that of the technologies that will drive economies IT technology is of paramount of not primary importance. The consequence of software patents is that China and India may rule the roost in a decade.

Lets look forward. We do not have widely deployed voice recognition for the simple reason it ain't good enuf. We do not have visual pattern recognition systems that are practical except in very restricted cases. We are perhaps as far away from building a practical robot as we were when Asmov wrote "I robot".

China is planing on a moon mission. If China or India builds these machines first (and they likely will) then they will gain a technological advantage that the Western World cannot match.

Software patents are a brick in that pathway. Lord - how short sighted these pollies are!

Are you a troll or what? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-23 11:59 · Score: 1, Informative

These things have been discussed a dozen times already. If you want to know 'what can possibly be so wrong about it' read http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/prop/ index.en.html

Re:Learn to read, micheal by rjkm · 2003-09-23 12:06 · Score: 1

Wow, people really fall for her double talk ...

She is not against patents. She pretends not to propose US-like software patents and that this is the reason she is for the new law. Actually, by doing this, software patents will be legalized while they are not actually allowed right now.

one speaker talked about "Unix, which is free" by Ricin · 2003-09-23 12:40 · Score: 1

Well that's excellent. Let people think that "UNIX is Free". Pour it onto them. "UNIX is Free".

Bye SCO
Bye HP
Bye Sun
Bye IB ... err, wait...

Well seriously, the more people thinking "UNIX is free" while perhaps pointing at Tux -- who cares -- each and every one of them would be just excellent. It will plant the idea that *NIX belongs to "the" community. That's good. We need mind share. At any level.

works out better here in the US... by commodoresloat · 2003-09-23 12:41 · Score: 2, Funny

10. Gain US citizenship

20. Move to California and become body-building movie star

30. Run for governor without even bothering to wait until the last one's term is up

40. PROPHET!!!

Re:works out better here in the US... by The+Lynxpro · 2003-09-24 06:22 · Score: 1

30. Run for governor without even bothering to wait until the last one's term is up
40. PROPHET!!!

Hey, I like Arnold too and will vote for him, but that does not mean I think he's a Prophet! That title belongs to people like Ezekiel, Isaiah (sic), John the Baptist, Jesus, Mohammed, and Nostradamus... I think you meant "profit." But that's not much profit. The elected position of Governor of the 5th (soon to be 4th) Largest Economy in the World is not much more than a Member of the European Parliament...someone please check that figure... :)

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*

statement on McCarthy's site by penguin7of9 · 2003-09-23 12:41 · Score: 1

Actually, there is a statement on McCarthy's site after all: here.

Mod Up Parent Up - Not Quite 100% Off Topic! by theodp · 2003-09-23 12:42 · Score: 1

"Mrs McCarthy...stated that she was against going down the US route of patenting software and cited the "one click" Amazon patent as an example of a bad patent law."
Nice of the USPTO to issue another arguably bad Amazon patent on the eve of the EU vote.

Re:It does in English by alext · 2003-09-23 12:53 · Score: 1

There are few exact synonyms in the English language and Roget's has certainly never pretended to identify them.

Try looking up the word "Thesaurus" in a dictionary.

"innovation is predicated upon patentability" by ajks · 2003-09-23 13:06 · Score: 1

It's possible that they meant innovation is predicated upon patentability.

Meaning that patentability is necessary for innovation to occur.

Not sure many of us agree about that :)

do you know why Mc Carthy and co by Aloctus · 2003-09-23 13:24 · Score: 1

wnat to make this vote so quickly ? What is the less expensive/most benefits creative activity ? Computer programming of course ! now take in consideration that there is 10 country who are going to reach EU and i won't think they would like a law that could restrain a market that could makes big money (if actual EU have difficulties to pay patents rechearch cost , what would that be for 'em ?) As soon as those countries would have reach EU this will be too late for this vote . Anyway , that's just my thought ;)

kurious? by Ricin · 2003-09-23 14:10 · Score: 1

Read the line about the mailaddr...

kurious

sounds like a debatable KDE app :-)

(sorry)

Re:kurious? by curious.corn · 2003-09-23 19:30 · Score: 1

given the amount of spam that hits it I might as well disclose my email in uncrippled form; it wouldn't make any difference. Actually my email isn't kurious but curious etc at katamail... how did you get that wrong? It's named after an Ozric Tentacles album... cool stuff...

--
Mi domando chi Ã il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan

patenting a configuration by Dan9999 · 2003-09-23 14:24 · Score: 1

If I were to use a lathe, would I be able to patent the settings that I apply to the lathe so that it can perform in a certain way?

I know that I can patent the physical end product, but if these types of patents are not possible, why should how you configure a microprocessor to function be any different?

I know that works that come out of this can be patented, like music, drawings and works of text, but is source code a patentable work of text or is it the configuration of the tool that is being used?

Re:patenting a configuration by kogs · 2003-09-24 00:33 · Score: 1

Yes you would, assuming no one had used those same settings before and the setting were not obvious from what had been done or described before.

You might have a claim like this:

A method of producing a widget, the method comprising:
setting up an Lathe Co. XXX lathe as follows
[list of settings]
processing at workpiece with the lathe until a widget is produced.

Re:Why not do a Ghandi? by Wolfbone · 2003-09-23 15:03 · Score: 1

Why not?

Perhaps because in those days there was only one General Dyer and his evil actions made the British Government ashamed. Today there are many Dyers and the Governments have no shame.

Re:SuSE betrays the Free Software movement by Dever · 2003-09-23 15:21 · Score: 1

--
If that were indeed their position, why don't they say clearly in the letter that allowing software patents of any kind if a huge mistake!?
--

Becasuse perhaps they see it as being worthwhile to ask for something more achievable / realistic, given the present climate and mood of those involved who will soon be voting?

I mean, shit, I think they should just ask for every reasonable policy we can think of. I mean, it's reasonable!! There's no need to not demand it! Doesn't everybody agree with our reason?!?!

It's not like asking for things that have a tiny probability of actually happening might make them seem ill reasoned or unable to accept the reality of the situation.
--

I think we have just witnessed a major GNU/Linux vendor betray the Free Software movement.
I used to be a customer of SuSE. I will not buy from them again.
--

Good, go away then and save me from this absurdity.

Dev

--
- I'd prefer not to.

Re:Canada and software patents by cdn-programmer · 2003-09-23 17:47 · Score: 2, Informative

The easiest way to get a software patent in Canada is to patent it in the US. Canada has a reciprocal agreement so that patents awarded in the States are apparently valid in Canada. In Canada it would not be possible to obtain the patent.

Now... that having been said I have approached my legal counsel on this issue - directly - and I have not at this point received a direct answer.

It is possible that the reason is because a court may have to make a ruling on this issue.

Concerned Citizens by Bartmoss · 2003-09-23 18:59 · Score: 1

If it's enough to make "concerned citizen" lobby against the law, then - considering the apathy for politics here - it should give them a reason to think.

Arlene by SlashDread · 2003-09-23 19:06 · Score: 1

"Arlene McCarthy regrettably added that in all the years that she had been an MEP, she had not been treated in such an aggressive manner. She said she and her staff had been bullied and harassed."

Thats bad, but he, Arlene, Imagine working for a helpdesk eh? You know, theres a problem, they call you, you fix it.

You have just been helpdesked about a MAJOR problem. Now fix it. If you dont like the heat, get outta the kitchen etc. /Dread

will of the people by alizard · 2003-09-23 19:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

NO! -- if you don't like it, fix it!

What kind of patriot turns tail and runs? I can't stand it when flag-hugging idiots spout that shitty "love it or leave it" copout.

From the evidence I've seen, a country where the decisions are made by "benevolent" multinationals is exactly the kind of place where Americans want to live. Some of the evidence of this comes from our own community.

Why don't we have a PAC capable of going head to head with "the big boys"? Because all of our high-tech millionaires, including the ones who read slashdot would rather put their money into things that give them immediate rewards instead of making the investment required to build a free country that might make it possible to build more profitable products in the future.

Democracy got sold in America to the highest bidder a generation ago. Unfortunately, the highest bidder is run by CEOs whose time horizon is whatever will increase the short-term value of his company enough to trigger his options in the next 90 days.

America is heading for the cliff, and the reaction of the average American voter is to blindly trust the mass media which says that the cliff doesn't exist and that The Man In The White House knows what he's doing and will look after our interests.

Fix it? This isn't "fighting the weather", this is fighting long-term climate change. A democracy whose citizens aren't interested in preserving democracy isn't going to stay one.

You and I can't make citizens want to think for themselves.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

Re:will of the people by Saeger · 2003-09-23 19:51 · Score: 1

America is heading for the cliff
Hey, I just want to "fight the weather" long enough to make it to a different kind of cliff which makes the nation-state irrelevant anyway.
I've pretty much accepted that the world will get much worse before it gets much, much better. The pendulum still hasn't started swinging back toward freedom...
--

--
Power to the Peaceful

Could it be Entropic ? by o'reor · 2003-09-23 19:47 · Score: 4, Informative

From the notebook :

Mrs McCarthy rejected the criticisms from small and medium sized enterprises, stating that she had received letters from SMEs calling for such legislation to be introduced. A company from the South West of England, specialising in voice recognition technology, had written to her welcoming her report.

Could it be the Cambridge-based Entropic company, specialized in speech recognition? I do not suppose that there are many SMEs specialized in that field in the South West of England.

Now here's the beef : Microsoft acquired Entropic in 1999.

So unless the SME mentionned by McCarthy was another one (which I doubt), she's probably been telling us another whopper of a lie.

--
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.

Too many laymen with too much vote by Groote+Ka · 2003-09-23 20:08 · Score: 1

What amazes me is the enourmous amount of nonsense arguments.

Just stumbled across an article in an on-line paper (sorry, Dutch only) that puts forward two really ridiculous arguments:

Developpers would have to pay for using common words(?) and constructions in software for use in for example vacuum cleaners and laundry machines
WAKE UP! A patent cannot keep you from using a word. This sounds more like a trademark isssue and trademark protection has been there for already a long time.
Furthermore, there already are patents for constructions in vacuum cleaners and laundry machines, albeit not on the software that's being used. Everything on a vacuum cleaner and a laundry machine is patentable, just as long as it's new and it provides a solution to a technical problem (well, at least in the civilised world (Europe, China and Japan)) and that prevent other people from using such simple constructions as well. Example? One word: Dyson. And there are no software patents involved here.
Please bear in mind that something obvious or known is not patentable and that procedures to prevent this kind of patents are in Europe far better than in US and a lot cheaper as well.
When you use a simple 8051 microcontroller in you laundry machine now with a simple algorithm, extensive European software patent legislation cannot stop you using it.
But what struck me most is the following argument by nobody less than Richard Stallman. He should have known better. Quote: (translated from Dutch) "Imagine the EU would have made it possible to patent combinations of tones; in that case, only seldom a music piece could be written".
Well, you can already protect combintation of tones. Or to be more precise: combintations of tones are protected by definition, just like combintations of computer code. It's called copyright and lasts usually about 100 years instead on the mere 20 years of patent protection. Furthermore, this kind of protection is already being used as a tool for spreading free software under the GPL, of which the same Mr. Stallman is a well-known supporter.

My first conclusion is that we are all talking emotions here, hampering clear sight and reasoning on what this is all about. I think this is all mainly about a big company located in in Redmond. We need to treat this one carefull, but anti-trust regulations handled by a wise government might be a better way.

Also keep in mind that the European Patent Office is not bound by decisions of the EU. It is independent. And has quite a good policy to keep the real business patents from being granted.
And software patents: I write applications for them every day. Well, in the broadest sense, as everything you build with transistors can be build with software. When you patent the method performed by the transistor - resistor - capacitor circuit, the software performing the same function is protected as well. Duh...

On last remark before you flame me to my toes:
Yes, I know the absence of patent protection is a good way to help a booming technology. Two major companies of The Netherlands were able to compete with companies from other countries in the early days of the 1900's because The Netherlands were lacking patent protection. So it might help here, but let's keep the discussion and arguments sane.

Re:Too many laymen with too much vote by Groote+Ka · 2003-09-23 23:47 · Score: 1

No one complains about copyright.
Exactly (well, not, I do, be it not in this particular case).
So when Stallman tries to explain to the horrible things software patents would do in his opinion, he refers to an example where copyright protection is already applicable for a long time, without those horrible effects he describes (no more music being written), he totally misses the point.
Or he succeeded to prove the opposite of what he tries to prove: he proves (inductively) that software patents will at all not stiffle innovation, as music is still being written.
Re:Too many laymen with too much vote by infolib · 2003-09-24 01:52 · Score: 1

What amazes me is the enourmous amount of nonsense arguments.

Don't worry, they're probably equally bad in fields you don't know about :-)

an article in an on-line paper (sorry, Dutch only) that puts forward two really ridiculous arguments

First of all the meat of it is anti-swpat arguments filtered through an MEP and a non-tech journalist. (My impression) What did you expect?

Then there is the Stallmann quote. I think you're too quick at condemning it. "Combinations of tones" can mean simple chords as well - where copyright doesn't apply. (Except perhaps very theoretically.) Anyway, bad choice of words (or something lost in translation)

My first conclusion is that we are all talking emotions here, hampering clear sight and reasoning on what this is all about. I think this is all mainly about a big company located in in Redmond.

If we're talking emotions it's a lot more about "protecting free software" than about "stopping Redmond". (Need not be equivalent). In fact, Microsoft got slammed pretty hard by the eolas case, just like Bill predicted in 1991. There's also the e-tailers. And when it comes to non-slashdotters, the emotions may pretty often be pro-swpat as well.

--
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
Re:Too many laymen with too much vote by nagora · 2003-09-24 03:17 · Score: 1

Well, you can already protect combintation of tones.
No you can't. You can protect a sequence of tones but not a combination. I think Stallman is asking the question "How many tunes would be written if chords could be copyrighted?" The answer, of course, is "very few".
TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"

Re:Of course by LeftOfCentre · 2003-09-23 20:16 · Score: 1

Of course the EP has real power. In many topics (though not all) a law HAS to be passed by the European Parliament to make it -- this is regulated in the treaties.

Mirror anyone? by Serious+Simon · 2003-09-23 20:34 · Score: 1

The page you are looking for is currently unavailable.
The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.

Re:Mirror anyone? by pommaq · 2003-09-23 21:14 · Score: 1, Informative

Here's a mirror.

[OT] source of the evil by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-23 20:42 · Score: 1, Interesting

Your comment made me thinking about what started this evil. My conlusion was that we shouldn't see companies and institution as juristical persons.
You can't go against a person, which consists of several thousand people. An single persons don't do that much evil, because they can be made responsible then.
Imagine if SCO wouldn't be a juristical person, so Darl McBride had to sue in persona. It wouldn't be Microsoft, it would be our beloved Mr Gates personally.
A company could fire 1000 people but imagine one single person had to take the responsibility for this.

Fixing this would mean numerous changes in the law and the society, so it is totally out of reach.

ignominy by f64 · 2003-09-23 20:51 · Score: 1

according to dictionary.com

1. Great personal dishonor or humiliation.
2. Shameful or disgraceful action, conduct, or character.
--
i was wondering, so i figure others might as well. i hereby declare 'ignominy' to be the "new word of the day".

f64 : informing the ignorant, envying the enlightened

music, drawings, and text cannot be patented by dido · 2003-09-23 21:09 · Score: 1

Works that come out of a lathe, or microprocessor, or some universal Turing machine, like music, drawings, and works of text, can be no more patentable than the configuration of the lathe or Turing machine tape. They might be copyrightable, but patentable? They're expressions of ideas, not inventions, so they don't qualify, not even under the twisted US patent regime.

--
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.

The harassment continues... by JaredOfEuropa · 2003-09-23 21:16 · Score: 1

I'm getting a 500 Internal Server Error on the link.
Nice going guys, you slashdotted the EU!

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...

This is only part of the process by pork_spies · 2003-09-23 21:32 · Score: 1

In all of this the role of the national government's has been ignored. In essence European legislation works like this: The commission has the power of initiative, the parliament then has to agree to the commission's proposal, the council of ministers then has to agree (by qualified majority) to the measure passed by the parliament.

Hence if the parliament agrees something the council of ministers can still block it

Re:Could it be Entropic ? by troc · 2003-09-23 23:50 · Score: 1

Cambridge is in the South East of the UK. Not the South West.

So I guess the SME was a different one.

So no beef. Completely cow-less and without bovine.

troc

--
Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net

So much for protests by Bisqwit · 2003-09-23 23:50 · Score: 1

According to Finnish online newspaper ITviikko, EU accepted the directive with a few (~200) changes.

364 voted "yes", 153 voted "no" and 33 voted void.

It's left to be seen what are those changes.

Re:So much for protests by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-24 00:48 · Score: 1, Informative

364 voted "yes", 153 voted "no" and 33 voted void.
According to this the vote was 361-157-28.

Uninteresting slander by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-24 04:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

Score:5, Informative, huh?!
If you had done your homework instead of insulting the submitter, you'd have found countless reports like this:

[... Arlene McCarthy] complains about the "huge amount of disinformation" in a statement to her British representative fellows. Her most suspicious sources for the misinformation seem to be open-source-driven groups and small and mid-sized companies, who temporarily closed down their web servers last week "due to software patents" and demonstrated against the directive in Brussels. "This is a dishonest and destructive campaign designed to cause confusion about what the Parliament is trying to achieve", she outraged. The unexpected lobbyists and demonstrants would assail the representatives with factually incorrect claims and organized phone call campaigns in the representatives' offices. If they succeeded, this would "sound the death knell for our brightest and best European inventors, whilst the US and Japan will demand licence fees from European companies for the use of their patents." [...] The strong opposition against software patents seems to be simply unforseen by the makers of the directive and therefore unplanned. [...]

Or this...

[...] Demonstrations and fierce lobbying have led Arlene McCarthy, UK Labour MEP and the leader of the European Parliament's legal affairs committee, which is reporting to Parliament on the draft Directive, to state that she had never been treated so aggressively over her years as an MEP as she has in the preparation of this report. [...]

Here's another one (in German though; use the fish).

Re:Of course by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2003-09-24 12:24 · Score: 1

In many topics (though not all) a law HAS to be passed by the European Parliament to make it -- this is regulated in the treaties.

However, in this case, after numerous readings and intermediate votes including some in the European Parliament, it's basically going to come down to the European Council of Ministers, IIRC. That's how the codecision process works, and means that if the Ministers prefer the Commission's view to Parliament's, then that's how it's going to go.

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.

Slashdot Mirror

European Parliament Clashes Over Software Patents

145 of 213 comments (clear)