Slashdot Mirror
EU Parliament Approves Software Patents
AnteTempore writes "The voting has just ended. Few good and several bad amendments were accepted. The directive proposal was accepted: 361 for, 135 against, 28 abstentions. The precise numbers and results for each amendment will be available on
europarl.eu.int tomorrow." Reader swentel submits this report on the vote (French) with slightly different numbers (364 voting yes, 153 No, 33 abstaining) but just as bad. Watch this story for updates. Update: 09/24 15:44 GMT by T : Dr.Seltsam writes to say that the early reports are "not quite correct. The German publisher Heise states in this article,
that the vote concerned strong changes on the directive." In particular, "pure software patents will not be allowed." Google's translation engine does a decent job with the German.
Looks like lawmakers in Europe are just as stupid as US lawmakers after all.
Nice to see this virus is spreading throughout the world. Want the big bucks, become a lawyer and sell your soul.
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
...but I've patented voting, I believe you owe me some money...
My name's Darl McBride and I'm a CEO
it does just show that we citizen are no longer in control of our destiny.
J'ai oubliez tout mon francais!
The European Parliament approves the patentability of the software STRASBOURG (Reuters) - the European Parliament approved Wednesday the draft Directive very disputed on the patentability of the software inventions, after having amended it to limit its field of application to the "true inventions" having a technical range. The text, presented in first reading, was approved by 364 votes, against 153 and 33 abstentions. It specifies the European Commission proposal, which establishes a distinction between the pure, famous software nonpatentable in European right, and the "inventions implemented by computer", which would become it, with the proviso of presenting a technical projection, likely to receive an industrial application. The text of origin was considered to be "fuzzy" and "ambiguous" by considerable members of Parliament who feared that it too largely does not open the way with the taking out of patents on the software, with the risk to constitute a brake with l"innovation in this key field of the economy. Eurodeputes added a paragraph specifying that a "invention implemented by computer (a software) is not regarded as contributing a technical share only because it implies the use of a computer". In light, so that a data-processing program is patentable, it is not enough that it is new, it is necessary still that it allows a technical innovation independently of its own execution. Another amendment specifies that the use of a patented technique is not regarded as a counterfeit if it is necessary to ensure the communication between various systems or data-processing networks. It acts for eurodeputes to prevent the monopoly which certain giants of the software could exert on the data-processing networks, Microsoft being named but probably not aimed. The European Parliament being a colegislator in this field which concerns the domestic market, the text must now be examined by the Council of Ministers, before returning in second reading to Strasbourg. The European police chief charged with the domestic market, Fritz Bolkestein, had warned eurodeputes, Tuesday at the time of the debate, on the "unacceptable" character of a certain number of amendments deposited.
EU caves on intellectual rights, sees everything as economic issue.
Ministers tell yanks 'We'll bury you."
I'm going to Mars, who's coming with me?
I for one welcome our new EU overlords.
The fish tells me that;
- "...a data-processing program is patentable, it is not enough that it is new, it is necessary still that it allows a technical innovation independently of its own execution." and
;
- "...invention implemented by computer (a software) is not regarded as contributing a technical share only because it implies the use of a computer"
So what did they go for? A vague wishy-washy patenting system? I wish the fish was betterThe most positivt thought I can have is that "maybe things must go to worse before they can get better".
<sigh>
Belief is the currency of delusion.
...the only thing good to come out of Brussels is brown, bitter and sold by the pint.
Well, I've been thinking about becoming a patent lawyer in the UK, and not this seals the deal!
---rhad
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
Did they vote on the original proposal or on the amended version? That makes quite a difference in my opinion.
This is a massive success, due to a level of lobbying unprecedented at this stage of a technical European measure.
As is normal today, globo corps money speaks louder than votes. Bend over and prepare to to take your medicine.
..when so many corporations own patents on so many intangible things that a corporate dynasty like IBM can bring anyone in the world to their knees financially.
Even foreign governments.
Intellectual property in all of its various forms is being abused by the corporate world - both friends and foes of Linux and otherwise. The madness is the laws supporting this behavior continue to pass, bypassing the individual and wholeheartedly supporting the corporation.
Isn't the government supposed to be working for us? Aren't our rights supposed to be first and foremost in their minds? There is a balance to be maintained, and our rights are not unlimited, but more and more across the entire globe the individual is lost.
Not to be funny but has anyone considered the implications of all these recent intellectual property rights and how it seems more and more that we're being pushed into the draconian future of Johnny Mnemonic and Shadowrun? The only way you get information is to steal it. The only way for another corporation to get information is to hire you to steal it.
I grow more and more distressed at the world my son will grow up in, the conditions he will consider normal, the laws he will break just by trying to think.
Talonius
My reality check bounced.
anything to stop me running thru the US patents list , picking some choice patents and taking out new patents based on them (perhaps ever so slightly modified) in Europe ?
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Shit, merde, pichka, schijt, geci, cach, fan, chuj, puta, rov, vittu, scheisse and a big "vai se foder" to our representatives in Brussels...
Cynical? Me? Nah, it's just that I keep seeing the same thing over and over and have given up expecting any better.
Oh, wait...
Le parlement europeen etant colegislateur dans ce domaine qui releve du marche interieur, le texte doit maintenant etre examine par le Conseil des ministres, avant de revenir en seconde lecture a Strasbourg.
Freely translated: Because the European Parliament is a co-legislator in the domain that concerns the interior market, the text must now be examinated by the Counsel of Ministers, before it comes back for a second reading in Strasbourg.
I fear it is just a formality, but perhaps there is still some action to do... I donated money to FFII, in order to give at least a bit support.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
It seems that the struggle to avoid Europe becoming like America isn't really working. There are a lot of things happening over here in Europe which we call "American circumstances". Things such like frivolous lawsuits, higher gun-related murders/accidents, apathy and now software patents.
I believe poeple don't want to live in an "American Europe".
... governments don't understand what they're governing because it has all becoming too complicated. They go along with whatever their advisors would say.
It's not hard to see that this patent law will be used in Europe exactly as the DMCA has been used in the USA..
I.e to close websites and stiffle free speech.
And worse, it's very likely to be used to stop open source projects.
And for those that just woke up, I want to inform you that "justice" and "right" are not the things that make you win a court case.. Rather it's "money", "lawyers", and "lobbying".
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
from now on i'm going to get all my news from http://fr.news.yahoo.com/, the articles just seem to make more sense to me!
My patents became reality:
No-click purchase
All those sliding bars
how long until
From the french article, the EU ministers still have to examine it, and it will go through a second round in Strasbourg (the parliament). Although I doubt the ministers will amend the law much, maybe there's still hope (and a lobbying effort to make).
Indeed, time to leave the EU (or the EU leave us?!) .. I have enough of living in a worthless copy of USA. Go East people - a yet patent-free zone! :)
I suppose you Europeans can't hassle us Yanks as much for having draconian patent laws. Now you see how difficult it is to inform those in power what a bad idea they are.
However, it is certainly a sad day for software freedom in the EU and around the world. What is it we are not communicating effectively? Why does this keep happening again and again?
Speaking of "to close websites and stiffle free speech", see this.
The IT business seems more and more hostile..
I never wanted to do this job in the first place!
I... I wanted to be... a chimney sweep!
Leaping from smoke stack to smoke stack,
as they belch out noxious yellow smoke.
And all we'd do is.. sweep and sweep..
On a totally unrelated note, Marry Poppins is hot and I wouldn't mind sweeping.. euhm....
mynuts won, AGAIN? everIEthing's gooing up in smoke&mirrors?
That never stopped people from patenting them in the USA...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The babelfished translation makes a few comments about distinctions that make this sound not so bad.
Distinguishing between a 'true invention' implemented on a computer and an existing invention that just happens to be implemented on a computer for the first time is a big one. It means that Joe Q Random can't patent his chopstick indexing program just because noone's ever indexed their chopsticks with a computer before.
(Provided, of course, someone's come up with a chopstick sorting system at all... Um. Excuse me, I'll be right back...)
...whatever it is.
PS- this debate and voting process is now patented.
Have a nice day.
I was, like, working on this lawsuit on my, like, computer. Then suddenly, it was like beep, beep, and all my evidence was gone. It was, like, a very good lawsuit
My name's Darl McBride and I'm a CEO
Then the shit's hitting the fan. It'll make 9/11 look like a fender-bender.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Time for a global patent pool operated in the exlusive interests of open source software. Sue anyone for using an open source application, and you lose all rights to the patent pool that otherwise are freely available. Monetary donations could be used not only for operating expenses of the not-for-profit organization, but also for buying software patents where possible and economical.
Money would probably be most effectively used to hire patent attorneys in various countries to assist open source developers in patenting as many new algorithms and software methods as possible, assigning the patents to the not-for-profit pool.
If we as a community could build a big enough pool and sustain it, where the patents are available for use by anyone, royalty free so long as they do not initiate any software patent legal action against anyone, anywhere, it would be a sufficient deterrent to make software patents as close to irrelevant as can be achieved.
So where do I donate my $25?
So much for the EU crowing about how they are "the real democracy".
The EU just passed a law that affects all member states, and you had no real representation.
But hey, maybe someday, you'll be "just as powerful as the US".
The irony is rich and deep here, ut you don' see it because you won't open your eyes.
I was on a IRC channel followign the voting and that's what I've made of its log. Please don't hold your breath over it's unofficial.
:
Carried - Approved amendments:
12 - 24 - 28 - 36/42/117 - 107 - 69 - 55/97/108 - 38/44/118 -15S - 16 Part 1 and 2 - 100 Part 1
57/99/110 - 70 - 17 - 60 - 102/111 - 72 - 103/119 - 104/120 Part 1 - 76 Part 1 - 71 Part 1
81 - 93 - 94 - 89 -1 - 88 - 31 - 32/112 - 84 Parts 1,2,3 - 114/125 - 34/115 - 85 - 86 Part 1
86 Part 3 -75
Rejected amendments:
29/41/59 - 116/126 - 37/39/43 - 127 - 46 - 48 - 82 - 100 Part 2 - 87 - 76 Part 2 - 106 - 71 Part 2
30 - 123 - 124
Falled ?
105 - 50 - 91/21/90
I think I'm going to cry. Words fail me.
Watch this story for updates
Why, was the voting computerized?
not for the people who work in companies.
If I was a terrorist with my own TV show all this crap wouldn't have happened in the first place.
Consumer 2 what'll it do. It does everything your old human consumer and labour unit did but now it comes with built in DRM and unpgradable firmware.
Welcome to the future with Global Corp Plc, making the world ideal for the super rich:-)
You missed "vittu", which is there.
Lemon curry???
IBM has a patent portfolio large enough to fend off any patent lawsuits against Linux and other open source software. IBM is also one of the biggest supporters of Linux, so there is still hope that IBM won't leave us high and dry when the patent attacks on Linux begin.
I actually saw Europe as a refuge for when things got really bad in the U.S. Soon there will be nowhere to go. this really sucks.
Can someone explain for me Article 6A, "Right to use of patented techniques without authorization or royalty, if needed solely to achieve software interoperatibility"?
Does this imply that, for example, Linux MP3 encoders are now legal in the EU, without royalty or authorization [or will be]?
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Erittain hyvin sanottu.
wiza
...a Lumberjack instead?
..now all I have left to do with my life is to wait for the first DRM-error-message happening to me :(
...but I just don't get it.
Someone please explain to me why patents on software are bad. I'm not confusing it with copyright...that's something I'm for if the author desires. But seriously, I don't understand that bad thing about patenting a piece of software.
I'm serious, this is not a troll. I really want to understand.
Plant a tree in a developing country.
ala.
hyvin sanottu.
I read what I sign. Most of the time.
The devil is in the details and considering what we were up against, all is not lost. It looks like we have salvaged the critical points.
/me is listening to "The Number Of The Beast" (1:19 / 4:53 26%) by Iron Maiden from "The Best Of The Beast" (1996) [MP3 @ 175 kbps / foobar2000 v0.7]
Which were the ones we lost?
Mods: please reserve your points for the reply, do not squander it on my post. Thanks.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
For example, from the french article, it appears that any program which simply copies a procedure that can be done by hand cannot be patented in the EU.
The loop hole, as far as I understand it, is that to be patentable, a program must show a significant technical innovation (go figure what significant means). More precisely, this is phrased in the negative: A program which merely allows a computer to do something is not patentable.
So if we write a program, and can prove that it merely performs a task by computer, which could be done by hand, it can't be patentable. So for example xcalc is not patentable in the EU.
There's got to be other loop holes like that. Why doesn't the Free Software Foundation develop a knowledge base specifically containing recipes for exploiting loop holes in patent legislation? I could be writing a program, and when it's finished, I could browse that knowledge base for tips on how to argue that what my program does could be done by a couple of trained people with a stack of papers and lots of pencils.
I was about to update my mplayer installation, when I ran into this message:
:-(.
This site has been closed by the European Patent Agency (EPA), for numerous patent violations.
Seemed to be a good protest page... But now it will stay default I guess
I have patented the Patent process!
Umm, forgive me for being stupid, but can someone please explain in plain english what affect this will have on open source and the IT industry in general?
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
open4free
How does this effect none EU European countries (Iceland, Norway)? Will they be forced to follow?
When someone patents something, nobody else is permitted to use that technology.
You can't create a different product that acts in a similar way.
Imagine if someone patented the Internal combustion engine, or a word processor, or web based discussion sites.
Then nobody could do this other then them. You couldn't recreate it, you couldn't improve on it.
The next problem is patents are expensive, and difficult to fight. If a company accuses you of infringing you're basically screwed. With Free ($0) software you don't even have money to defend yourself.
"Your first deadline's tomorrow. I want to see eight thousand words. Printable words. I still remember that essay you wrote when the Beast got elected. I do not want to see the word "fuck" typed eight thousand times again." - Transmetropolitan, nicely summing up the reaction I Have to this.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
I hope the changes made by the parliament are strong enough to prevent stupid trivial patents like "One-Click-Shopping", "Online Auction" or "Progress-Bar". On the other hand, I'm not sure about MP3. If it takes a lot of effort to find the right methods and parameters for a sound compression that doesn't sound too bad, isn't it an "invention" that deserves patent protection?
Brazil is nicer. And the gubmint here is as pro-Free Software as it gets.
so the purposes of protection (duh), deterant (make criminals think twice about entering a home), providing food and clothing (hunting), and recreation (skeet shooting, etc) are not purposes at all?
Well, I saw it the same way - but we'll have to take spectacles :). Actually, I have a refuge but I'll patent it.
in theory you'll be able patent the small, novel ideas that make up every piece of software we use. like a patent on software than can display information greater than the screen size through the use of user interface devices to scroll the page left and right and up and down (slider bars).... or software that can retrieve a document from a server.....or allow one-click purchasing...
m.
With respect to patenting, probably not very much will change, departing from this press release. It looks much like the policy of the European Patent Office (!= EU, Switzerland and Monaco are Contracting States as well).
I wonder what will be done with this one:
Another amendment specifies that the use of a patented technique is not regarded as a counterfeit [an infringing product] if it is necessary to ensure the communication between various systems or data-processing networks.
Does that mean that you can implement IEEE 1394 and USB without paying licensing fees, because you are not infringing? IAAL and I have not read it all, so I am not going to make a statement. But it doesn't look good for the larger companies.
FYI:
Infringement is not dealt with by the European Patent Office, it's being dealt with by national law (European Patent Convention, Art. 64(3)). And that is governed almost directly by this directive.
This is only one step in a complex "codecision" process.
The European Parliament get a say in this, but are not the final authority. Software patents are not yet EU law, and still have more stages of debate/voting to go through before they hit the lawbooks.
I think the final decision rests with the European Council of Ministers under the process in use (those Ministers not being directly elected, but being appointed by the national governments) but I'm sure someone will correct me on that if I've lost the plot.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I wonder if there is any sane place to move to anymore. I am probably not the only one who has said that he would move if the EU becomes just as fucked up as the US, I mean I am in Holland, one of the nicer countries in this world, but it is getting majorly fucked up by both EU and the local goverment, so is there anywhere left to go ?, Canada maybe ?
Does this legislation also allow for
business methods to be patented?
In general, pretty much all important amendments to the articles were incorporated. There is a lot of patch-up work to do and in its current form, the directive is a complete mess because of this, but the basic line has been completely turned around.
Yesterday, Commissioner Bolkestein was still complaining that we (the opponents) were trying to destroyt the directive and warned against voting against the directive, because it would not fix the current legal uncertainty (software patents are being granted but not enforceable before a court of law as they are illegal). Today, rumors are doing rounds that the Commission is considering retracting the directive, because it was so successfully amended by us.
Finally, I would like to say that our lobbyiong in general has absolutely nothing to do with open source or Free Software. We simply think software patents would be bad for all SME's, independent developers and innovation/society as a whole. Of course, there are a lot of free software in the independent developers category (and especially in the Free Software category, quite a few people concerned with society as well).
Being stamped"linux junkies that want everything to be free/gratis" corner is however the last thing we want (our opponents have tried that, and failed until now since they have no basis that supports their claims), and we having backing from several commercial closed source companies (such as Opera Software).
Donate free food here
The amendments made make this law much improved compared to its original incarnation. It is way better than the US version. Software is not patentable in itself, nor are business methods.
Yeah!!!!
... is an optimist with experience.
Yes, I prefer IE to exist, as long as I can also have lynx and opera and konquerer.
Competition, even agains MS lets the better products surface instead of getting us stuck with patent protected monopoly, inferior products.
Your gun manufacturer analogy is right on the money, patents can be used defensibly as can guns, but are essentially a destructive tool.
Plus, EU software patents can only harm EU competiveness, EU companies could always register their software patents in the US while ignoring US software patents in the EU. Now US companies will rush to register their patents in the EU.
Patents may have a place, but today's systems are really out of control.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
BTW: sorry about the formatting, but it's not too bad if you narrow the page.
The speeches by Framm, Boussa, Andersson, Cappato, Gebhardt, Boogert, Courtrand and McCormick show just how strongly the message got through.
This is a real credit to all the people who contacted their MEPs -- read what McCormick (not actually McCarthy) has to say about you!
the problem is that in a year or so they might decide to change their mind. how can we stop such draconians law to pass from now ever?
software companies can pay people to lobby politicians all day long for the rest of their lives; we can't afford that. on the long run they win, unless we find a way to block such things from happen again - at all.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
After all, evil entities like Microsoft have never really intented anything or innovated, right? :-)
A much bigger threat is allowing patented technologies to become formally-adopted standards...
A new state, where code has rights, just like humans, the preparation for Artificial Intelligence. Martian uberintelligence will strike back upon the earthlings from mars will strike back upon the oppressing earthlings.
btw;. does running code have more rights than not running code?,.. (think static copy of dna, vs running version of program (human being))
Sorry, missed the linkl
http://www.futurenet.org/2Money/Lietaer.htm
United States of Europe
The main problem is a conflict of interest. Many politicians are lawyers by training and the EU is no exception. Software patents are an area where a lot of disputes will end up in court (mostly because an algorithm is less well defined than something physical like a jet engine or automobile). The guy who can pay the best lawyers will win.
See my journal, I write things there
Someone please explain to me why patents on software are bad. I'm not confusing it with copyright...that's something I'm for if the author desires. But seriously, I don't understand that bad thing about patenting a piece of software.
As I understand the issue, it's basically two-fold.
First, software patents are bad because the low threshhold for an idea to be considered novel results in things being patented which are immediately obvious to any expert in the field. And that's not the point of a patent. A patent, ideally, should provide protection for a truly new and original idea so that creative inventors can market their idea and make money licensing their idea during an initial period, while still making the inner workings of their invention publicly known. Then, after this period, everyone can benefit from knowing how this new device works. For example, you could patent the lightbulb when it first comes out, and make a few cents (in todays money) on every lightbulb sold for a controlled number of years, after which the idea becomes public domain.
Software patents typically seem to fail in that respect, and instead are used as a means of controlling and restricting access and interoperability. This does not carry the same benefit for society.
Secondly, software patents are unique in that the software world has such a short generation cycle, and conventional patent durations seem excessive in comparison. A patent on a new car engine design which lasts about 20 years might more appropriately correspond to a software patent which lasts around 5 years. But instead, software patents are often given "equal protection" of the same time length as conventional patents.
I'm sure others have their own reasons for questioning software patents.
Copyright: A book "The Life and Times of Sh0t, Slashdot reader"
Patent: THE book "A device consisting of 2 hardcovers with many pages inbetween containing words, symbols or both"
"Intellectual property is a myth" is only true in the same sense that money is a myth: the myth becomes reality so long as people believe in it. Similarly, the proposition, "you cannot own an idea," is more or less true in a metaphysical sense, but in a practical sense it's false, because there are police forces and judicial systems which happen to enforce laws which treat various ideas rather a lot like property. As to whether this ought to be the case, well, that depends on your social theory. I'm thinking that current trends are awful, myself, so it's not like I disagree with you on that one.
But, funnily enough, copyright and patents are still not unpopular ideas amongst the general public. We may be heading towards the Great Intellectual Property Revolution(TM), but we're a lot further from it than you might think. The public perception is that Copyrights and Patents exist to reward creative and inventive people, which is prima facie a Good Thing(TM), and unless the RIAA, SCO et al do us a really big favour and start p(er|ro)secuting people en masse, people just aren't going to get a sense of the cost of these laws in terms of lost personal freedom. It's too much to hope that there could ever be a general appreciation of how the laws are sliding further and further from "reward creative and inventive people" toward "give already rich and powerful corporations greater control over people and markets". This is esoteric stuff to Mr Average.
But I could rant all day, so I'll stop before I really get going.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
Europarl votes for Real Limits on Patentability
FFII News -- For Immediate Release -- Please Redistribute
See http://swpat.ffii.org/#news
Now we will have to see whether the European Commission is committed to "harmonisation and clarification" or only to patent owner interests.
Yesterday's threats uttered by Bolkestein against the European Parliament suggest the latter.
The detailed results are available on our site
http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/plen0923/
It will now be our job to help the European Parliament assert itself against attempts by Bolkestein and patent lawyers wearing the hat of national governments to crush the directive project.
The current text has some remaining contraditions in it, but basically the thrust has been turned around. It has become our directive which we must help the European Parliament to defend. This is also a question of the European Parliament's role in an emerging democratic Europe. On the whole this is very good news for the EU.
--
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation http://swpat.ffii.org/
270,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents http://noepatents.org/
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
They have to earn that money with the sales of their ideas.
No, they have to earn money by developing and selling software, not their ideas. At least that's what software shops I've been working at were doing.
And how to protect those ideas? Correctly, by patents.
98% of software patents out there are utter, nonsensical or trivial crap. There aren't really that much good ideas around worth patenting. Not enough to feed all patent lawyers for sure.
In other words: it's probably the only way for small enterprises to protect themselves against the large companies.
Wrong. Patents work very poorly against big fish: they can either over-sue you, or flood you with an impressive cache of their own patents. But small enterprises and especially individuals are extremely vulnerable.
Come on, you are a patent attorney, aren't you there for money? And whom do you expect to shell enough cash to keep you afloat? Garage shops, huh?
Imagine when graphical web browsing would have been patented by the NCSA or Netscape would have patented a lot of improvements. Who would know Microsoft Internet Explorer?
The mere suggestion that some asshole should patent something as obvious as hypertext drives me nuts.
No, I'd rather tolerate the existance of MS IE than stay locked into expensive, proprietary and patent-protected technology.
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
But there is no water on Fresh Pond, because Fresh Pond is a road, therefore I cannot drown. Fresh Pond is a road to enlightenment, or in my neighborhood, a road 2 blocks away from a topless bar, where I pay $6 for a beer, and $20 to get a blowjob from your momma.
Yeah, thats Fresh Pond.
Some points from the article (loosely translated):
1 and 2 seem to prevent most of the abuses of software patents. Taking a normal business practice and adding "over the Internet" (wait, that's old fashoned. Nowadays it's "using XML") would not be accepted.
With number 3, it would be useless to patent file formats or communication protocols (if they even are patentable), since anyone would be permitted to write their own implementation.
(But anyway, IANAL.)
WWTTD?
A big thank you!
1. Keep saying no to EU ;-)
2.Software haven! hell, BANKING software haven
3.???
4.Profit!!
I've put up a list of voting results (Will stay ~1 week)
"Vote plenary" is the result (y=yes/n=no/x=not voted). "Vote" is the FFII voting recommendation. (from - - - to +++)
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
According to heise.de software patents are not aproved.
/. storries are REJECTED.
... hundrets(nearly :-) ) of insightfull ratings on complete false comments :-) No wonder when the /. storry itself is false.
Most or all points under discussion in the latest
There are no software patents, no business methods and no algorithms patentable.
Interoperability between software, even if parts belong to patented devices, is granted.
Again
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I have always wondered whether patent lawyers were malicious or just stupid. This one seems to be both.
Ok, so I did (just a few months and I am a patent attorney in The Netherlands). But what's wrong with writing a software patent? IMO It's not the one who writes the patent who's to blame, but the one who enforces the patent in a way that bars all competition and development.One assumes an inventor creates a patent so he can receive the benefits from it.
A lot of software development costs large amounts of money and not every company is in the position to make far too much money on a crappy OS to support development of other software. They have to earn that money with the sales of their ideas. And how to protect those ideas? Correctly, by patents.Strange, I've always thought that you earn money buy selling better products and services than your competitor. Not by impeding him. Nobody forces a company to release their source code to their competitors. A head start on the competition is not enough it seems. Software patents effectively bar competitors from producing competing products at all. Unfortunately, such dirty tactics have become the hallmark of global capitalism.
And all of you out there protesting against software patents should be very happy that software protection is not included in copyright protection, because that would make protection probably five time longer (at least).Citizens should never be content with unjust law. And please don't use the word "protection". Copyright is sufficient.
In other words: it's probably the only way for small enterprises to protect themselves against the large companies. Imagine when graphical web browsing would have been patented by the NCSA or Netscape would have patented a lot of improvements. Who would know Microsoft Internet Explorer?Small companies can best be protected by insisting that governments enforce anti-trust laws to keep the Microsofts of the world in check. Sadly, we have abandoned that idea in the US. Because web browsing was not patented we have plenty of great free alternatives such as Konqueror and Mozilla. Web browsing was not invented at NCSA. It was invented at CERN Switzerland.
an ill wind that blows no good
As a Dutch EU citizen I've never been able to vote for *anything* decided on EU level. AFAIK, we can't even vote for our representatives in the Parliament. In fact, I've only got very vague ideas on who represents the Netherlands.
The problem here is that the EU makes very much laws which directly apply to the member countries. For one, we (the Dutch people) have never directly been asked to participate with the Euro.
Another problem in the past were the EU restrictions for supplying medications to farm animals in response to one of the recent plaugues (can't remember which). These restrictions have been decided on by the parliament, and then fed back to the countries' governments. With problems like the above, the governments only have themselves to blame because they send their representatives.
You see that the people are entirely left out of the responsability loop which keeps the EU parliament running. Today, a mostly anonymous parliament has again decided upon a new European law - this time with more input from the people than ever before, but this is only because we're paying enough attention.
I'm not saying that the system completely stinks. But I am wondering whether the lack of direct democracy at the EU level is a flaw of the EU "design".
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
Every time something like this happens, I swear it feels like the "Old World" is dying. The world of honesty and morals and common sense, and personal responsibility.
It's like it's all going away. Nearly anything can be bought and paid for, screw everyone else. I feel like I came from another age. And I don't like where this one is going.
It's not that I'm old or anything, hell, I'm not even 30.
Thanks a bunch, parliment.
Keep up the good fight people (though at times I wonder what the use is).
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Better yet take over a real state and rather than ceceed (good luck trying) just reduce the role of the state government to protecting from force and fraud. Reduce depence on the national government till we can say "we dont get anything from the fed, why should we pay it taxes?"
www.freestateproject.org
The detailed votes (with nominal votes) are - in MSWord format ... - at:f r/vot e/Resultats/Mercredi/Appels
http://www.europarl.eu.int/direct/documents/
nominaux 2003-09-24.doc
Contrarily to what you may hear or read from Reuters, this is truly a
victory against extension of patentability. Amendements have been voted
that completely overturn the original meaning of the directive to make
it a text that excludes from patentability any thing beyond the use fo
forces of nature to control physical effects and exclude explicitly any
form of information processing. In addition an amendment explicitly
stating than software claims can not be accepted has been voted.For
specialists 69-70-71-72 and first part of 55 + interoperability
exception have gone through.
I guess that the Green and GUE have voted against the global report
because they are afraid that this might be manipulated in the further
political and implementation proces (in particular they wanted another
version of the definition of technical - amendment 55 second half
instead of 6 to go through, but it was not even submitted to vote, based
on erroneous statement that 69 would be equivalent). I do not know teh
outcome on one important amendment (57).
This is nonetheless a historical turning point: for the first time, a
cross-party coalition has said no to the permanent extension of patents
and other forms of restrictions to free and open knowledge. Already in
1995 the Parliament rejected a first version of the biotech patents
directive, but this was a different coalition, much less clear, and
shortlived. TO measure the importance, see the detailed vote on
amendment 55 first half voted 300 to 223 with the PSE divided 2/3-1/3
and the PPE divided 1/3-2/3
The news releases announce the vote as a victory for patentability (see
Reuters). Let's hope that the truth will reach even the news.
Now let's get ready for the fights in Council. The voted amendments are
clearly unacceptable for those countries where the patent lobbies have
key influence, as well as for the Commission, so they will do anything
to get rid of them.
..is in the tree.
...it's not that bad
It is interesting how a headline can change things... German c't magazine - not suspicious of being pro-software patents - believes that the "good" (i.e. "anti-patent") amendments outweigh the "bad" ones. Their headline is something like "EU Parliament Stops Software Patents.
I would advise you not to get on to the rocket to mars yet, but wait for a thorough analysis of the laws actually passed.
Just my 0.02,
Alex
Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder
In an article from heise online (c't, ix etc.), they come to another conclusion. (several good, few bad amendments.) They also quote different people, who are pro or contra software patents, who all can live with this decision.
/.hans
The link is here (german): heise article
Read this thread
People use to blaim ms for monopoly. But now with a software patent the system itself creats a 20 year monopoly? Is that right? Shouldnt the one with the best service get the contract?
Am i missing something?
"Right to use of patented techniques without authorization or royalty, if needed solely to achieve software interoperatibility"?
Wow. The closest US equivalent (a clause in the DMCA) only applies to legitimate copy control bypassing, and only applies to interhost network protocol interoperation.
This is *incredible*, and could have a sweeping impact on patents. It's a *huge* lever.
May we never see th
Hi there
Is all of this is really as bad as some say it is,
Maybe it's a nice idea to vote against, in any EU
related referendum.
There will be a referendum on the EU constitution,
so voting against that is a way of protesting
against EU policies.
Regards,
Rob
The poster must be on crack. All the totally stupid patents as they are common in the US won't be in the EU under the new law. Only what are genuinely far reaching actual inventions receive patents.
Note: the forces of darkness are already circling around the amended directive and calling for it to be killed.
A lot of the comments here indicate that people think that this is a universally bad thing - in fact, the draft directive was so heavily amended by MEPs in support of the proposals of the FFII and related organisations, that the resulting document is actually quite supportive of realistic limits on software patents.
Full details here . Check it out!
Yeah, software patents are bad, but as an American, I love this. If European governors are all hot to trot for software patents, I can't help but believe that Americans will be the big winners in this since we have *years* of patented software available.
I'm gonna laugh my ass off if it turns out patented US software ends up dominating the software scene over there ("Whoops! Sorry Nigel, that's already been invented by someone in Utah!"). There's nothing like having another country eating your lunch to spur reform.
Gotta love lawmakers who sell out their own country to enormously powerful multinationals.
Peace,
Chuck
You're not the first person to make this mistake, and you certainly won't be the last, but I'm going to waste my time telling you this obvious thing anyway, so maybe you can correct someone else when you see it:
State-granted monopolies are not capitalism. Capitalism means that capital is controlled by individuals freely, and a patent is merely the state controlling who may use the "capital" in a certain idea.
Thus, capitalism is not collapsing under its own inertia; it's giving way to the pressures of greedy people who don't want to have to compete in a free market (and have no qualms about using police or military might to enforce their monopoly). It's a result of un-educated or brainwashed masses electing people who seek power to positions of authority.
STRASBOURG (Reuters) - The european parlement has approved on wednesday the highly contested directive regarding the patentability of software inventions, after having amended it to limit its field of application to "real inventions" having a technical reach.
The text, presented in the first reading, has been approved with 364 for, 153 against and 33 abstentions.
It clearly details the propostion of the European Commission, who establishes a distinction between pure software, known to be non patentable within european rights, and "inventions implemented with a computer", which would be patentable, with the condition that a technical advancement is introduced, which is likely to have an industrial application.
The original text was judged burred and ambiguous by a large number of MPs who were afraid that it would open a too large path of the hold of patents over software, to the risk of causing a slowdown on innovation in this key domain of the economy.
The eurodeputes have added a paragraph making precise that an "invention put in to use by a computer (a software application) is not considered to introduce a technical contribution just because il implies the usage of a computer".
Clearly, for a software application to be patentable, it is not sufficient that it is new, it is also necessary that it permits an independant technical innovation of its own.
Another amendment makes clear that the use of a patented technique is not considered to be an imitation if it is necessary to assure the communication between different systems or computer networks.
It is up to the eurodeputes to prevent the monopoly which certain software giants could exert on computer networks; Microsoft not being named but probably aimed at.
The european parlement being co-legistator in this domain which raises the domestic market, the text must now be examined by the Conseil des ministres, before returning for a second reading at Strasbourg.
The european commissioner in charge of the domestic market, Fritz Bolkestein, had warned the eurodeputes on tuesday at the time of the debate on the "unaccetable" character of a certain number of amendements lodged.
It's like farmaceutical industry (a total fuckup too by now) who need pattents to make sure they get return of investment over a period of several years. Unfortunate as it is, a lot of indistrial & technological progress would not have been made if pattents didn't exist.
Pharmaceuticals are a totally different story. First, it's *far* more expensive to test and get a new drug okayed for consumer use than to write a piece of software (unless you're overpaying your developers out the wazoo). Second, it's generally relatively trivial to clone a drug, given the legal freedom to do so. Reimplementing a piece of software takes time. If the original software is constantly improving, you have a moving target. Very tough to compete with.
I can think of very, very few niche ideas that could not have succeeded without patents. Perhaps photomosaics (which were cloned anyway). It's just not that easy to clone software.
May we never see th
tatoo GPL on your forehead?
Theres a novell concept isnt it? People inovating, researching, working and furthering their innovation. And of course NOONE except Darl McBride is making money off Open Source. Period.
You Sir have been smoking too much crack whilst developing your algorithm which cures cancer and makes wonderful espresso at the same time.
I would like to sincerely say Thank You for your hard work. Please keep it up and know that there are a lot of us behind you.
Slahdot-journalism at it lowest point ever. From FFII's PR:
FFII News -- For Immediate Release -- Please Redistribute
See
http://swpat.ffii.org/#news
Now we will have to see whether the European Commission is committed to
"harmonisation and clarification" or only to patent owner interests.
Yesterday's threats uttered by Bolkestein against the European Parliament
suggest the latter.
The detailed results are available on our site
http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/plen0923/
It will now be our job to help the European Parliament assert itself against
attempts by Bolkestein and patent lawyers wearing the hat of national
governments to crush the directive project.
The current text has some remaining contraditions in it, but basically the
thrust has been turned around. It has become our directive which we
must help the European Parliament to defend. This is also a question of
the European Parliament's role in an emerging democratic Europe. On the
whole this is very good news for the EU.
--
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance
So what did you expect? Clear and precise writing?
The story gives a completely wrong impression. Have a look at this story from the german magazine Heise (german, sorry) - the fact is, the majority voted for drastic changes of the directive and against the original draft - so actually this is very good for all of us opposing patentability of software.
Hey editors, please change the story so that not everybody claims we european get a US-like patent law system, this is (not yet) the case!
Can't somebody make sure the Slashdot article's abstract is updated to reflect that not the bad ones have won this time?
You are wrong... patents is not the same as copyright. But there is a directive project too about Itellectual Property which will be DMCA equivalent in Europe. In Spain they are trying to approve an even more harmful version of that directive, something much alike DMCA. If you are interested you can read: IP Justice.
"Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d'encule de ta mere. It's like wiping your ass with silk."
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
"I have to show a how" but you can structure a SliderBar (patent now pending) description such that you describe the interface and not necessarily the under pinnings ("i set i=0 here.") and still get a patent. witness the amazon one-click purchase fiasco. anybody with any reasonable experience in web programming could code a one-click purchase feature into a online store. but the patent was still granted. the idea was stupidly obvious to anyone with the skills to implement it but amazon owns the rights. software patents suck. m.
This time, contrarily to others, this is truly a victory for those who fight against patentability of software. Amendements 69,70,71,72, 55 first part and 57 have been voted. They exclude completely information processing methods from patentability, state a standard of accepting as technical only the use of foreces of nature to control physical effects beyong the representation of information, reject software claims, forbid to take in account non-technical features to decide on whether there is an innovative technical contribution, etc.
This is a historical turning point: for the first time a coalition has rejected the extension of restrictions to free and open knwoledge. The news release are all wrong because they can't imagine that the coalition was so wide, and misinterpret the no vote of the Green on the full report. On key amendments 1/3 of PPE, 2/3 of PSE and 1/2 of Liberals voted with the Green, the united left, and small parties to adopt this text.
The misinformation about this outcome is truly sad, but truth will emerge: the adopted amendements are those that the Commissioner Bolkestein yesterday described as "unacceptable".
I feel like I should be crying or having a funeral ceremony, this sux.
which means :
Another amendment specifies that the utilisation of a patented technique is not considered law-breaking if it is necessary for communication between different systems or networks.
I don't know if anyone knows what that means but OSS software has nothing to worry about.
Capitalism wins!!! woohoo!!! Down with Communism and Collectivism!!! Cyanobyte
Even YOU have to admit.... Apathy is a French tradition! It's been there for centuries, and will outlive all of us. Look at the facts:
WWII: France didn't show up.
Operation Iraqi Freedom: A major turning point... The French turned out in drove to protest American action on this war... They made it all the way outside, standing on their doorsteps, for all of what must have been an hour or two before getting bored.
All the while, America has been bombarded with problems directly linked to the French... Canadians! French fries (causing health problems)! Is this what the country that gave the French our own Jerry Lewis deserves?
Apathy. It's a French thang.
Do I have to install the MS-Mediaplayer now?
This is a prime example of government and business running rough-shod over the little guy. There will be no room for independent contractors or small software shops - or open source as the screws are tightened...
All actual evidence to the contrary.
1) Diamond v. Diehr, the Supreme Court case that opened the floodgates in the United States, came down almost 25 years ago, in March of 1981. Somehow, the record does not demonstrate a dearth of independent contractors, small software shops or lack of open source. Indeed, the height of the open source movement occurred in the prime of the software patent era.
2) The record verdict in patent infringement cases, when I last checked, remains STAC v. Microsoft, in which Microsoft (not the tinyist of companies), lost to the virtually bankrupt estate of tiny STAC.
3) The anti-patent movement has no serious traction among small businesses. Despite a kazillion chambers of commerce and small business associations across the nation -- all of whom have significant advocacy budgets, there is no meaningful and identifiable anti-patent constituency.
Quite seriously, the laws could use some trimming back, but so long as demagoguery such as this e-mail persists as the primary form of anti-patent advocacy, you guys might as well be donating to the pro-patent PACs. The ONLY way to be taken seriously, is to make arguments that stick, arguments that make sense, and arguments that are likely to lead to meaningful reform.
These parade of horribles arguments were laughed out of the Parliament, for one simple reason: U.S. Software remains vital despite 25 years of software patents.
By spending all of your energy making arguments that can't win, you will never stop the juggernaut, who need only make routine, defensible and pedestrian arguments to win the day. Challenge them more fundamentally -- make more modest demands and compromises -- and then you might have hopes for some change.
As has been already pointed out by people much more qualified to comment than myself, the ammendemts are pretty good from the point of the FFII. /please/ update the story so that people no long worry about moving to Mars or about the EU becoming the US.
Can an editor
Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
It should require a large majority vote from an "experts" panel who are told that the invention truly has to be innovative and new before a patent is allowed to go through (I am thinking of expert panels at least at the level used to judge finalists for high school science contests). Any patent that is easy for an expert to understand or implement should just not be a patent. To give you an idea of the high standard I would like to use, a patentable idea should be cleverer or more innovative then the ideas used either in HTML or the GIF format. A patentable idea should have the aura of obscurity and complexity; even to the expert.
Seriously, one reason this bill passed without a sweat is simple: the anti-patent advocacy sucked. Filled with ridiculous claims of a parade of horribles that havent actually happened in the US despite nearly twenty-five years of software patents, the rhetoric fell flat on its own weight. Arguments that play well on Slashdot simply do not resonate and, quite frankly, are trivially shut down in a more moderate forum. You might as well have been donating to a pro-patent PAC by lending this form of advocacy to the anti-patent movement.
The antis made the wrong move here -- it was not to oppose, but to ameliorate. Not to speak in ridiculous and unsupportable grand strokes, but to limit the argument to statements that the balance is wrong, and needs to be carefully weighed. Or, if you REALLY believed your bullshit, to set up a sunset upon the happening of the parade of horribles, as a compromise.
The move was anything but to oppose completely a well-reasoned and more moderate bill, without offering a plausible alternative.
The antis here didn't get it. IP is ALWAYS a balancing of interests -- there is ALWAYS a winner and loser -- and there is ALWAYS some cases of problems arising from the system. So what if that is the case -- that actually is the point of IP law -- to strike an economic structure that is -- on balace -- more favorable to society as a whole than an unregulated commons of ideas and invention.
What the antis forgot here, is that this was NOT a referendum on the patent system -- the assumptions that a patent system is a good thing was not only established, but fundamental to the issues -- the question was not whether patent policy is good or bad, but whether society is better off if these good policies were extended to Information Technology inventions. Thus, on the spectrum of three primary arguments:
only the second could have any force or meaning. Almost every argument focused on challenging fundemental assumptions that support the patent system, or lamenting what happens if a bad patent were issued. Neither could be persuasive in this forum. Thus, the overarching demagoguing we saw here was ignored and pointless.
The argument, really the only play, is to acknowledge that --- to argue within that structure -- and to point out how the balance may be disturbed by new or existing rules, with meaningful alternatives that would correct the shortcomings.
Another opportunity for IP moderation was lost, because children wanted to fight in their playground of ideas. Get with it -- these arguments only win in Slashdot. And slashdotters don't get to vote on the laws.
Advocacy is not only about getting motivated people to march -- it is primarily about persuading moderates and those on the other side to see clearly your position. Nothing I have seen here indicates that the anti-software-patent movement has learned anything from its now twenty-five-years of failure to get anything done.
Sure, it must make you feel better to play the cynic or nihilist and assume that: (1) you must be right; and (2) they must have been corrupted by money. I'd just as soon you set those feelings aside, stop whining, and go to the beach or do something else productive -- so that those of us who actually do have arguments that can make a difference might get something done.
I don't disagree that those are traits of the good ol' USA, but if you are blaming YOUR adoption of our bad traits on us, then you can go F yourself. Who is worse, those who originated the American trait, or those who adopt them? If you can see how bad they are, and STILL adopt them into your culture, then IMO you are bigger twits than we are.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Please could everyone calm down. Look for posts by Halo1 and JPHM, and read this
The story gives a completely wrong impression. Have a look at this FFII news: EU Parliament Votes for Real Limits on Patentability - the fact is, the majority voted for drastic changes of the directive and against the original draft - so actually this is very good for all of us opposing patentability of software.
Hey editors, please change the story so that not everybody claims we european get a US-like patent law system, this is (not yet) the case!
And who is going to fund this utopia?
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
Just wanted to add yet one more thank you.
Keep the good work.
\\Uriel
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
Look at other threads and the update to this article, while the dust hasn't quite settled yet it looks like this is a victory for those opposing software patents.
Look elsewhere - this is being regarded as a victory for those that oppose software patents, moderators please mod down these ill-informed kneejerk negative reactions.
So you mean with every software patent you'll have to submit a piece of hardware, like a PCI-card bracket or something?
If people are going to participate in a company or business to profit from the patent, then, yes, software patents should be granted.
If the purpose is just to squat on the patent, that's ridiculous. Patents are made to protect one's ability to profit from one's ideas, not to profit at someone else's expense.
No, I'm New Here
Whether you can issue a patent on a pure software invention isn't as interesting as whether you can sue someone for writing pure software with a patent. If you can get a patent on a linked list implemented in a computer system with a keyboard and monitor, then sue anyone who implements a linked list, that's just as bad as being able to patent a linked list.
The right to think, then express your thoughts in code, is out. Has been in the US for some time. Now in Europe too.
Someone wanted to sue my company once because I wrote a random number generator that involved multiple steps. They had a patent on "multistep random number generation". Turned out the RNG was mine, not my companies, and I wasn't selling it, so nothing happened.
If the worst comes to pass and all countries everywhere go nuts with patent laws, at the end of the day every piece of Free or Open Source software could end up potentially subject to royalties from countless thousands of patent squatters around the globe. The very openness of the code promotes that possibility, because patent squatters can start with the source code and work backwards to find patents that it might possibly fit. The nightmare would be unimaginable.
If the community is to survive, perhaps the only possible outcome of that (short of civil war or terrorism) would be for free and open-source software writers to go underground, with all distribution being done through anonymous injection into flooding-fill networks like Usenet.
I'm not really sure if that would be good or bad, but it would certainly be different, and it would be hard.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Official Report by European Parliament
The most important element seems to be that software and algorithms per se can't be patented, and a patent needs a "technical contribution". Even more, basically you can't violate a patent by a normal program that processes data, even if the input/output is done by technical means such as a monitor or keyboard.
I find it highly unlikely that an open source developer (or a software development company in general) can violate such a software patent (it's called "computerised invention" actually, there will be no real "software patents").
The legislative process isn't finished yet, it has to pass some more stuff, but I've got a good feeling that we're on the right track.
Very many thanks to everyone who helped, be it a demonstration, donation, lobbying or whatever.
MfG shurdeek
Writing software costs a lot of time and money. And writing a book costs a lot of time and money too.
But noone is saying that patenting stories is such a good idea. Most people will probably think it would be crazy to patent stories and point out that copyright was meant for stories.
I think you can patent new papers or new ways to bind pages into a book. And it makes sense, because you cannot copyright it. The same goes for machines, you cannot copyright machines.
So software is either a creative idea and therefore copyrightable or a technical aparatus and therefore patentable. But it cannot be both at the same time.
That's it! I'm moving to the US right away!
My first assumption what that Europe had adopted American style patent law, but with news of FFII's recommendations getting through who knows what is going on. First of all, will those recommendations survive to become law? And if they do survive, are they effective in practice? It sounds like we'll be getting even more stories on the topic with overblown headlines around here.
Really the conclusion is, 'read' and see. This article only makes me crave more information on the issue.
REQUIRE working models.
I believe at one time USPTO required working models but this requirement was eliminated many years ago; the USPTO rarely makes this request now. The various European patent offices must have similar rules.
Some may argue that requiring a working model will discourage smaller inventors from patenting their ideas. If the requirements were flexible enough to permit a working model to be supplied to the patent office within the patent application time frame of several years then I think that problem would be overcome.
I realize that requiring model models for some patents may seem cumbersome for the patent office, but honestly, I can't think of any other way to weed out patents for such intangibles as one-click purchasing and the like.
Oh please. Do you know any facts about the Exxon Valdez oil spill, details of cleanup, or just how much money Exxon spent in the process?
Let's see, according to details found throughout the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council web site, Exxon:
- spent 2.1 billion on cleanup
- employed, at the peak of the cleanup effort,
10,000 workers, and used over 1,000 boats
and 100 airplanes & helicopters
- was fined $150 million in criminal
liabilities, of which $125 million was
forgiven "in recognition of Exxon's
cooperation in cleaning up the spill and
paying certain private claims"
- paid an additional $100 million in criminal
restitution
- paid another $900 million in civil
settlements over the next 10 years
Is Exxon interested in the bottom line? Sure, any company is. But complete disregard for the people of Alaska? I don't think so. Sure, they were required to pay these settlements (among other things) but they took a lot of heat for an accident that was essentially due to negligence on the crew's part.The small town of Valdez literally exploded in size due to the army of people who arrived to aid in cleanup efforts.
What other consequences were there as a result of the spill?
- Captain Hazelwood was fined $50,000 and
ordered to serve 1,000 hours of community
service. Incidentally, he was found not
guilty of the charge of operating the
vessel while under the influence of alcohol.
- The ship was repaired, renamed, and now
hauls oil in the Mediterranean.
- The ship is prohibited by law from
returning to Prince William Sound.
Moreover, a growing trend of relaxed attitudes by those involved in the oil shipping industry in Alaska at the time ceased. Basically, the accident boiled down to the crew becoming complacent to a trip through the Valdez Narrows, a voyage that had become somewhat routine and commonplace over the years. Tighter restrictions were enacted, ensuring future safety of ships, their crews, and the environment.Furthermore, spill preparedness and response capabilities have increased drastically. I won't go into details (read the web site if you're interested), but the industry and local communities are much more capable of handling a similar accident today. Most importantly, they'd be able to contain it before it gets as out of hand as the Exxon Valdez spill did.
Was the accident a tragedy? Sure it was. But basically what you have is a big company taking the heat for what was basically the crew screwing up. Am I saying Exxon shouldn't have been held responsible? Not at all. But "complete disregard for the people of Alaska...", that's a bit far-fetched.
Here we are, over 14 years later, looking at a disaster some said at the time would NEVER reach any sort of decent recovery. For the most part, you can't find any obvious signs of the spill throughout the areas affected. Local fishing and other industries have been restored, and wildlife is on the mend. Many of the wildlife species still recovering are admittedly unknown in their progress, as environmentalists are unsure of pre-spill conditions and are unable to accurately guage their condition today.
Accidents happen. Sometimes BIG accidents happen. That's the price we pay for progress and modern conveniences. But the world didn't end. In fact, here in Alaska, things cleaned up rather well and there were several positive results that wouldn't have happened had the spill not occurred. Sure, we'd all rather these things not happen, but they do. I'm no corporate apologist, but I'm tired of the attitude that corporations are basically evil (except for the people they employ and the nice products they provide for us). I really wouldn't care to go back to the days where everything is handmade at home, grown at home, or purchased from the local general store. Hmm, let's go back 100, 200, why not thousands of years? Anybody?
"I say consider this day seized!" -Hobbes
"Tomorrow we'll seize the day and throttle it!" -Calvin
There may be some pressure from the US. So, if you live there, and see it happen, start writing to your representatives. It may help us here.
It's really not clear at this point what the impact of the voting is (there were several amendments). And this comment:
Google's translation engine does a decent job with the German.
is laughable. With complicated legalistic language like this, precision is everything. The Google translation tells you nothing.
No, sorry, IBM support of Linux is self-serving at best and very temporary at worst.
The great thing is, under the GPL it doesn't really matter what their intentions are or were - they have no power to retract or undo what they have contributed.
Even if Linux comes under patent attack, I think there are sufficient organizations like the FSF ready to handle specific claims against specific patents in specific Linux internals or applications. And after the entire SCO FUD is rejected, I don't think anyone would dare to make ambigious unspecified IP violations of the kind SCO has, at least not with any credibility.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
We're just bricks in the wall.
American lawmakers are bought and so if not correct it is at least an understandable decision. European lawmakers on the other hand, are not bought. Why did they do it? Or, does the trail of Greenbacks cross overseas?
This is my sig.
For those who still haven't got the message that this is a good thing, you can read the actual amendments passed by the parliament here. Basically, ffii have won this round. The big question is what will the European Commission do now that the parliament has reversed the intent of the directive?
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
The correct breakdown of the (final) vote is 361 votes in favour, 157 against and 28 abstentions as can be found here.
Please forgive me for presuming that you meant what you wrote in the post to which I responded. Despite the uncalled-for name-calling, you make two salient points: (i) many slashdotters are much smarter than the arguments they post here; and (ii) it is foolish to judge someone quickly based on a few posts. In view of your evaluation of me: pot-kettle-black.
If all of our advocacy were moderately placed and directed to the merits, fully supported and completely credible, you wouldn't feel the need to engage in Slashdot hyperbolae -- you might have won the day where it counted.
My criticisms should not be taken as a personal assault on you, but rather on the vast majority of our colleagues and, alas, virtually all of the anti-patent advocates who DID lobby the Parliament with blather and platitudes in lieu of argument.
Since we agree in principle, or so you say, there really isn't much more to say. I am pleased you are a solid balanced advocate. Alas, most of those who were players in this present debate were not, and THAT is why the resolution passed by a huge margin. The vast majority of postings in this forum presumed, cynically and naively, that the reason things went as they did, was cluelessness and self-interest. Again. Pot-kettle-black.
Do most of you people even read this stuff??
It says that pure software systems are NOT patentable. Not only that, but patents that are granted on systems that contain a software patent can be circumvented to gaurantee interoperability.
Geez, this damn board is almost as bad as Yahoo. Actually there, the headlines are right sometimes.
Is it me or does it seem as we have fully entered the "Lawyer Age?" I mean we all know about the bronze age and such but it seems as we are living in a time when lawyers decide whats best for everyone-well the ones backed by big money anyway.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
In the US. Do you know why? Because of Exxon disaster, US law passed a law saying basically, I don't care what and how are the details and your internal shit, for each ship coming near US coast, I want one unique insurrer which will pay 100% of the damages no matter what, period. Now they pay attention.
The best proof that your companies have absolutly nothing to do with benevolent helpers of environment, is that in Europe which has no such law, they continue to use totally rusty and antiquated ships (genuine wrecks - there is a Russian port which stores ships too old to be used, and several Greek ship owners who made a speciality to buy them, put some bubble gum in the holes, hire an Indonesian crew, create a phantom company in Caiman Islands [the best way to avoid paying any damage compensation], and offer services to oil companies which, oddly, are still keen on using such boats - surprising, since you depict them as so environment-friendly).
Face it, the only thing companies understand is PROFIT, PROFIT, PROFIT. If PR helps profit, then they'll do PR. But do you think Exxon executive sit and ask themselves "how can we help environment?" ; no they sit and say "how can we make more profit".
Well, you raise a good point there. Nanotech manufacturing will only magnify the scale however. We've been able to elliminate scarcity in North America since the '30s, and indeed that is what caused the Great Depression (as in, automated manufacturing raises production, hence supply, while decreasing employment, hence demand; both lower price until it crashes).
But if those in charge and want to maintain the current system get their way, they will ensure that this technology never gets to do that, by "owning" the patents and "regulating" their use. They have to maintain scarcity artificially in order to stay in power. They've been doing it since the '30s, so they know what they are doing when they are keeping all this abundance from us.
Perhaps you might like to discuss this in the Technocracy Forums.
Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know. - M. King Hubbert
are available here
e nd ar?APP=PV2&LANGUE=EN
http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/cal
(click on the 24th).
All in all it looks great to me, its hard to imagine what kind of software
can be patented with those amendments, very little. The only down side are the
first handfull of amendments that go on about how god himself gave us patents,
gee arent they great and the EU commits itself to worshipping at the foot of the
patent alter once a day and twice on sundays. If i where reading the bill i would read these sections as the intent of the bill, and the rest as the detail,
if the finished product still conveys that impression then these declarations of intent/undying love could be used as a foundation for attacks on the 'detail' in the future.
Sean
"In Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasure dome decree"
I guess people have moved on now, but still: Here it is...
get the message. I was reading the daily email and couldn't figurte it out, until i realized needed to look at the title.
Sheesh!
Have you read my journal today?
Or German.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
FFII position