Slashdot Mirror
EU Ministers Went Off-Brief In Patent Vote
MartinB writes "Several EU ministers reportedly went against the wishes of their nations in voting for the proposed EU Software Patent legislation in May. Among those misleading the council of ministers were representatives from Holland, Poland and Germany. The Dutch parliament is going as far as asking to change its vote, which was originally in favour of making software patentable."
This could be a scandal that might rock the comparatively-new EU system for a loop. Ministers were being trusted to represent the view of the government that sent them... but it seems as if business interests have found that these individuals are a weak link that can easily be "bought off" and convinced to act on their own.
Of course, the USA didn't get things right on the first try either. We created a national government under the Articles Of Confederation that had so little power it couldn't tax and therefore quickly ran into problems getting anything done. (The writing of the US Constitution was actually a rather peaceful overthrow of the existing US government of the time rather than the creation of a government where there was none.)
In the USA, the people don't directly elect the president. We might say we do, we might think we do, but really we don't.
What Americans actually vote for is "electors" who have been selected by campaign organizations to be the people who will represent the people who are running for president. Each state holds its own election to determine which slate of electors they will send to the "Electoral College"... whomever gets a majority of the votes for president there wins. (Should three candidates get electoral votes, and nobody gets a majority, the election is kicked to a special session of the House of Representatives where each state gets exactly one vote.)
The point is that these electors were selected by the campaign of the candidate they're supposed to vote for, and are contractually and legally bound to do so... but, uh, what if they don't? That's just plain uncharted Consitutional territory. The Supreme Court would most likely have to issue a ruling that'd end up deciding the outcome, deciding if the votes would stand as originally cast, or if the "expected" result should be used instead effectively making the Electoral College meeting the formality we all want it to be.
That's exactly the situation the EU seems to have worked themselves into here. They've ended up with "unfaithful" representatives who didn't do as they were expected to, and the EU hasn't exactly pondered what to do in such a situation yet.
I'm just saying, it's not like this is a situation that could never happen in the USA...
The text of the submission was somewhat misleading, for a second I thought it read the Dutch wished to support patents - but they really wish to vote no. I just thought someone should make that perfectly clear.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Queue the Bush rhetoric....
What? Members of a legislative body voting against the wishes of the body/ies they're supposed to represent?
In other news, the sun rises.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Yes, they did [voting against their governments]. But the result is legal and binding, isn't it? If it is,...then, by Holland wanting to reverse its decision, I have a feeling that is legal too...right? It seems we [Free Software Lovers] will be caught up in a legal quagmire, defined as "A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament". I hope the odds are with us. Cb..
If they're worried about ministers not voting according to their briefs, then dump the whole system of ministers and just mail in the briefs! I mean, what's the point of appointing a human being if you're going to get pissed everytime he or she acts like a human being? Why don't you appoint a rubber stamp instead?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
...gave a flaming speech (german, sorry) for software patents and the protection of intellectual property as the new resources of the 21st century in Munich, 2 days ago. Note the european parliament voted AGAINST the draft, now the senate is clandestinely pushing for it's implementation. We're talking, demonstrating, doing everything in our possibilities here as german software developers, but the "social democratic" guys in power do not care, and do not have a fucking clue what they're talking about. Destroying innovation to appease the big companies :(
If you're in europe, come on join at the FFII and help in the fight, please. It might be our last chance.
A vote in the European Parliament not long before had REJECTED US style software patents, much to support of the vast majority of their constituents.
The ONLY people interested in promoting Software Patents here are a few (not all) of the large corporations (Microsoft, Nokia) and, of course, the IP lawyers, and some relatively influential (unfortunately) politicians and civil servants who have been duped. The VAST majority of others who are aware of this are dead against it. To make the message clear, excuse the shouting...
WE DO NOT WANT SOFTWARE PATENETS HERE.
Software patents are not in force here yet, hopefully they will not be but there is an enormous fight on our hands to prevent it.
Web Sig: Eddy Currents
how in the world a law gets passed that no one wants?! The chance that some day there is a patent on software is very high, even though 99% of people that understand what software is are against it.
Why must we always hurt the ones we love?!
- Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers
... and they called it indecent exposure.
Go Figure.
If this article confuses you, don't worry. It was posted yesterday in a much clearer fashion.
Here in the Netherlands, the fact that that asshole minister of us voted FOR software patents has been a nice little riot in the dutch techie world. People were encouraged to write said minister, write to his party, write to the head of the party, parliament, etc. I think that all of this caused sufficient public backlash that forced our goverment to make that bastard swallow his words and do The Right Thing(tm).
Hate me!
... where the legislator's briefs are frequently off!
This is more or less the same thing reported last friday.
open4free ©
The big corporations see governments as potential threats who'll come after them just like they did against MS. They all learned the lesson long ago and know that using there money they can control politicians and make laws that favor themselves. They're paying good money to get the governments off there back and they certainly expect to have some kind of power in return for such a waste of money.
The corporations won the war.
It's Funny not a Troll (maybe).
Sideshow Bob is on trial for release.
Lawyer: Isn't it true you have Die Bart Die tattoed on your chest.
Sideshow Bob: Actually it's German for The Bart. The.
Head Juror: Oh, well no one who speaks German could be evil.
Sideshow Bob gets released.
I for one welcome our new European Federal Dictators. My next program will be submitted to a the patent office for a thorough prior art check.
I am pleased to C democracy has finally been abandoned in favour of this new efficient system.
I am now way connected with windows, but I am looking forward to more and greater information taxes. Roll on Sophistry.
It is the US's fault....everything is the US's fault.
I just can't really explain why right now....but if anything happens that i disagree with...or if the US does anything that would be good or nutrual i change my opinion so now those things are bad...or if I agree with something and later i find out the US was involved then it isn't a good thing any longer but a bad thing.
stendec@gmail.com
Look them up. They mean the same thing.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
I'm not trolling. But I think the software patent issue is more complicated than you think.
... though I would prefer a middle view that recognizes software as a distinct hybrid of an "idea" and a "device". Such a legal status would also resolve the question of "is code speech?" with the answer "yes and no". (Can you tell I'm Canadian?).
Let me start by saying that I think submarine patents are a gross abuse of the system and should be abolished. And I agree that, in general, intellectual property law needs to be reformed. Both these ideas are beyond the scope of this post.
Now, you ask the average open source advocate what s/he thinks about software patents, and s/he will be opposed to them, on the grounds that they stifle innovation. I can buy that to some extent. However, if you ask the same advocate why s/he wants a particular patent invalidated, it's usually to copy a patented algorithm and incorporate it into an open source product. That doesn't seem like innovation to me. It's true that open source would let others learn about the algorithm and improve on it, but there's nothing preventing you from studying a patent -- in fact that's the whole point of the patent process. If you're keen enough, you can take the ideas in the patent and implement a free work-alike (like png, gzip, or the free equivalent to rsa), and innovate away.
Looking deeper, I don't see that it's consistent to be in favor of patents but opposed to software patents. This is because software blurs the line between a device and a description. For example, consider an integrated circuit. This is clearly a device, and hence patentable, right? But it can be described using a language, such as VHDL. In fact the VHDL can be used with a programmable chip to instantly implement a work-alike to the device. Hence, if the chip is patentable, the VHDL should be patentable too.
It's as though you had a description of a tool (a drill, say), which could be instantly implemented on some universal machine. The description is only trivially different from the tool. (This may sound ridiculous, but with 3-d printers and related technology, the day may not be far off when we see such a thing.)
To take a Touretzkian view, this means that either all patents are valid (including software), or none are
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
However inequitable it may seem, income tax was fairer than most other taxation methods which were largely based on your assets on a particular day. Tax assesment was horrendous as it was very subjective.
Another system is in France. Quoted from this article, describing the 2002 French presidential election:
"According to French polling rules, the presidential elections, a direct vote for the candidate, takes place in a two-step election process. The top two finalists meet a second time in run-off elections, which is how Le Pen has managed to face off with current President Jacques Chirac for the top job. The process allows for alliances to take shape in the two-week period between polling, just as it guarantees a majority vote."
Then there are also countries where you are obligated to vote by law, such as Australia and Belgium. Many may say this doesn't sound 'fair', but at it least it gets the people who wouldn't bother voting, either out of disinterest or laziness, to act, even if it is just turning up and not filling the check-boxes.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
What right to collect royalties? Their entire problem is that so far they don't have that right!
1. Most software patents I've seen patent ideas or concepts rather than implementations. Let me try to make that a little clear. Like, the AC3 algorithm is patented, which is fine. You can make another format which does the same. A software patent would patent the concept of "multiplexing several audiostreams into one datastream" or somesuch. There's no "innovating" around that. Try looking up how many trivial concepts of a webshop is patented. You'll exceed a dozen patents already on the front page, if not more.
2. Ideas are often trivial to come up with, and should more often than not be dismissed for being obvious. Since that is a sleeping criteria, huge amounts of trivial ideas will be granted a software patent. It is also requires no real-world connection at all. You could pick up "Science Illustrated", and patent everything they claim is "likely to appear in the next 20 years".
3. An expired software patent is still protected by copyright. Since the software itself and the patent description is essentially the same sequence of commands, you can't use it anyway. While whereas with a real patent, I could use your exact blueprints (as appearing in the patent) to build my own device.
Real patents describe a path from state A to B. Software patents describe the process of going from A to B. Getting a patent should mean that you've actually done some work and found a way from A to B, not merely assumed "some way to go from A to B will be invented". That is not innovation. That is profiting from someone else's innovation, and is directly opposed to the purpose for which patents were created.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If they're worried about ministers not voting according to their briefs, then dump the whole system of ministers and just mail in the briefs!
Or we could just ditch the whole thing. My parents voted to join a common market in the 70s (a 2 way split in this household). What we have now is a fundamentally un-democratic, sleaze-ridden gravy train for an 'elite' band of largely unknown technocrats, elected through an utterly flawed process.
The sooner we have a referendum to get out of this farce the better.
# init 5
Connection closed.
Oh...
In US terms it is as though the members of the presidential electoral college did not vote as directed by the electorate in their state. Council members are supposed to be on a tight leash, more so than the MEPs so it is interesting to see how they bypassed their own national policy.
You're exactly right-- the advocate wants to use a particular technique to build something. Now, if you view this sort of activity as nothing more than a commercial process in which the open source developer is trying to get somethng for nothing , with no greater significance, then it's perfectly reasonable to follow your line of reasoning. Problem is, in the aggregate, building things is how innovation happens. Cut it off and innovation strangles.
The "gray area" for policy makers is not whether software inventions should be considered patentable because of their similarilty/dissimilarity to physical devices. The real argument is whether software patents will advance the process of innovation (and otherwise benefit society), or slow down innovation and harm society. Opponents of software patents have made an excellent case that in this particular situation, at this time, software patents will severely restrict innovation in an important industry.
Now a great deal of their justification comes from the observation that software patents being allowed in places like the US are overly broad and carelessly considered. But more importantly, it comes from a deep understanding of the nature of invention and the state of the art in software. Whether you're considering hardware or software, inventing new things has almost always required the use of components invented by other people. Imagine if the independent inventors of last century had been denied access to the capacitor, battery or transistor-- because those things were patented and only large corporations with legal departments and plenty of capital could afford to license them. So many of the things we take for granted today would never have been invented.
Why are software patents different from these physical devices? For one thing, where many patented devices can be constructed and sold in bulk for a reasonable per-unit price, it's difficult to purchase an algorithm or an application at your neighborhood Fry's. And since corporations generally can't profit through bulk manufacture/licensing of software components, they profit through high licensing fees unmanageable to the small inventor. Or they profit by using their patent portfolios as defensive or offensive weapons against potential competitors. Open source development, arguably one of the most promising engines of 21st century software innovation and cost reduction, is in some cases an innocent victim of this, in others, a direct target.
But here's the important issue: while physical device patents may have encouraged invention and innovation throughout the last century, there is no reason to assume this will be the case for software patents. While an efficient model may develop to smooth over the economic inefficiencies of a software patent system, none has yet, and the interim costs will be high. So the near-to-medium-term result of software patents is not a net increase in innovation or a financial windfall to society, it's exactly the opposite. And for this, some argue that society should subsidize the creation of a software patent industry. I don't think it's worth it, and I think this is the aspect of the debate we should be focusing on.
> This could be a scandal that might rock the
> comparatively-new EU system for a loop. Ministers > were being trusted to represent the view of the
> government that sent them...
I think the people there more or less gave up having their voices heard when they joined the EU/Borg collective. They know well that their EU reps serve the EU, the bureaucracies, their careers and THEN...if it happens not to interfere too much, the people.
In THAT order.
And if we go back on a popular topic, the euro governments have often not listened to their people when it came time to British-American invasions... Spain's poll topped at 92% against the Iraq farce recently but in the past decade many countries had strong feelings against carrying state-sponsored terrorist activities and yet government didnt head their calls.
And now your gonna tell us that this bureaucratic system is in peril because of patent laws?
Only from a geeks mouth could this come out.
> but it seems as if business interests have found >that these individuals are a weak link that can >easily be "bought off" and convinced to act on
> their own.
I think the correct answer here is "Well, DUH!!".
zeke
Originally, you know, the people didn't even vote for the president - those electors were chosen by the state legislature.
If you think about how ignorant and/or stupid the average person is, and how few people even bother to vote anyway, do you really even want them choosing the president?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It is quite obvious that he whole system will break at some point. Either: ,it won't be happening in the near future. some level of patenting must exist. companies with too much money who own lawyers with oto much free time won't allow it.
1: we have all the patents on every single patentable thing in the computer industry you can imagine.
2: we have patents on every single imaginable thing but with a limited life span. Let say 2 years, you hit the market and extract profits. it's not like you need 5 years to build a factory and another 10 to start your find all those horses to distribute your good.
3: patent free, pay for the service of using. although this is the dream of linux admins
Now... the interesting thing here is that everyone started patenting stupid things. hey, patent offices allowed it... which no matter what you think about the moral side of it, at least you have to agree that it is good. simply because once the process started, it will lead to patenting incredible stupid things, which in turn will piss more important people off, and the balance will swing away. while that is in progress, who knows, maybe some hard inovation will folow to counteract it. hey, it might be a good thing.
on the other hand, you might be thinking that the 'prior art' concept will help you... you are wrong. once patent is granted... you can be screwed for years until proven that prior art existed. for which time, you'll probably abandon the project anyway.... or pay large fees...
but what do I know...
And it looks like I was wrong. If the parliament rejects it a second time it's dead
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
They want special rules for software patents? Well then, how about this: You can only be granted a patent on process A which achieves X if you in the patent describe a process B which also achieves X, which is released for everyone to use. B of course would typically not be as effective (memory, time, whatever) as A, so the patent grants you, for a limited time, the exclusive right to one [efficient] method to achieve something, but it can never give you a monopoly. Of course, someone else is free to come up with a method C which is as efficient or better than your A, but they must then describe their own 'B-method' distinct from any described in another patent.
This way, for example, if you find a way effecively model some data for efficient compression, you can get a patent on that, if you provide another way to build the same model. Companies wouldn't be able to patent ten methods and only give one unique back. The incentive to innovate would still be there, after all, you have the right to the most efficient method.
Anyone know if this has ever been considered/researched?
(Probably should specifically exclude generic solutions as "enumerate *.*" from allowable B-methods, a little messy, but I'll leave that to the lawyers/researches to figure out)
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Was that sophistry? I thought it was just mad blather.
queue, v. To get in line. cue, v. To give a signal or prompt. The More You Know(tm)
Fortunately it seems a few European nations have noticed the current US system is only good for patent lawyers and draining resources to fight off vulture corps. Even Microsoft's recent BS patents being awarded had to have helped wake up the EC to the insanity which is destroying the American ability to innovate and compete.
Maybe a few of them also noticed that such legislation was only a first step. Next would have been a "unified" patent database "offered" by the US which would have started with a portfolio of bogus patents owned by US interests. Essentially signing over a world-wide "software tax" to US corporate interests.
Not only would the US businesses continue to be gutted by IP vultures, the EC businesses would have been caught up in the same nightmare. The US is quite welcome to continue destroying the American economy, but thank God the rest of the world has finally noticed the insanity of their patent "system" as a viable model.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
It was just some years ago, that we thought only Jar-Jar of Naboo was capable of such a thing.
"ministers went against the wishes of their nations in voting for Software Patent legislation" And in other news, Microsoft's cash reserves have mysteriously dropped down to $51 billion . . .
You'd think politicians would lear.... oh right. They're not there to represent the people. I keep forgetting that.
Yes, Americans do vote for electors rather than for the presidential candidate directly, and these electors form the Electoral College that ultimately votes for the president.
However, you are wrong in saying that the electors are contractually or legally bound to vote in a given way.
The two major parties hand-pick electors from the ranks of long-time party activists and workers. For them not to vote what the party recommended would not be illegal, but it would be unthinkable.
One case where something unusual could happen was actually described in a book (novel) a few years ago called "The People's Choice" -- a damn entertaining read.
In the book, there is a very popular presidential candidate with a very unpopular running mate. After winning the election (but before the vote of the electoral college), the president-elect falls off of a horse and dies.
This book illustrates the very interesting situation that the electors are then placed in -- the party wants them to vote for the running mate (the vice-presidential candidate) but the electors are under no obligation to do so, and many are unwilling to vote for someone they find so distateful.
Being a novel, it all ends well for everyone (except the dead president-elect), but I don't remember how it all worked out. In any event I recommend the book; and I recommend (for all you US citizens) that you vote this November.
" they must vote for what provides the greatest good for the greatest number."
As defined by whom? This is a terrible system.
A delegate, or representative, or whatever you guys call them are supposed to vote the wishes of their contituency. Its not up to the delegate to decide on the greatest good.
The EU system is still too complex, people doesn't understand how it works, and that's why that kind of weird things find a place to happen.
In a more simple and logical system people is aware of what's going on, and have more direct ways to interact.
Of course EU goverment is still in preliminary stages, we have just aprouved a (still to be referended) new (and complex) constitution, that's why we need to be specially careful. It's really easy that a 'technical' matter as software patents could be politically manipulated by interested lobbies as a 'minor' question.
One of the big problems in the EU process is the dichotomy between states fighting to keep his power, and the need of a better interstate and interregional harmonization, another is the need to equilibrate very different economies. In that big scenario software patents risk to be a undesired and silenced loss!
More than ever we need to keep talking about these things.
What's in a sig?
...for our non-US neighbors, FCC stand for Federal Communications Commission. It is the American Government agency that regulates broadcast and frequency spectrum allocation among other things.
If you follow the logs of the meeting (yes you can find them over the net) and various other sources. Holland: The parliament basically was basically betrayed with false facts in a document. The minister worked with lies which he later blamed on a mistake in the text processor. During the meeting basically poland was tricked into a yes which still is questionably legal (there are rumours that there was a irregularity in the voting process concerning poland) and denmark as far as I can remember was quite agnostic and also tricked into the whole thing without really caring (they simply wanted the meeting to end). Germany is a whole different issue, two days before the meeting the german government said they are going to vote no, to calm the critis, and they votetd yes. There are several main protagonists. First of all Boelkstein of the EU commission who is clearly on the side of the BSA in this, probably indirectly on their pairoll. Then responsible local minister Renate Zypris, who either does not care or thatever, she basically even though being confronted by critics several times (last time in an open discussion on Heise, which you can read here , never really argues about the problems, but comes with empty phrases and does not answer the concerns of the critics. She basically only answers with half lies or empty phrases. Thus her direction is clear, software patents no matter how big the impact for the european industry is (which probably will be devastating). And last but not least, the german cancellor himself, Gerhard Schröder, who last week in a so called open discussion literally kissed the asses of the Siemens managers in this issue. Siemens of course, a company with mass layoffs from Germany to asia, presses for this issue and the german government follows like a puppy without a brain. Clear corruption or blackmail, if you ask me. Unfortunately the german public media ZDF also added something to this chorus and basically made a report which put the patent critics into the same light as software pirates, which is totally wrong. However all is not bad in germany, there a lots of critics at the second level and the parliament, the german greens also feel quite unhappy about the whole issue, and also the german FDP. However the important persons of both big german parties basically are in the same bed with the 2 german multinational software companies.
Mr Brinkhorst (Shame on him! Curse him!) just decided he did NOT have to follow the motion approved by Dutch parliament.
We WILL vote yes, to save his own goddamn face.
He can do that too, motions on our parialment our not binding.
See (dutch) Webwereld.nl
Goddamn motherfucker. Sorry for the cursing, im MAD. I am being ruled by idiots, with NO respect for their constituents.
"/Dread"
Having recently decided to look outside the IT industry due to a questionable future and unsatisfying opportunities for a young graduate here in London, I decided to look into the one profession that seemed to have a glittering future. The European Patent Attorney (specifically interested in the software side of things given my background). After applying to a number of London based firms, I had a series of interviews. I made the point of discussing European software Patents in each interview, at first using my understanding I had gained from Slashdot. However, in each case, I was fatally shot down as it transpired that the general understanding of Patent law here at Slashdot is horribly inaccurate and incomplete. Basically, having discussed it at the length with the partners, the situation as I understand it is as follows: 1. While software patents aren't strictly legal in Europe, they are easily implemented anyway. This is done using a number of techniques including wrapping them up in 'technical processes' which are perfectly legal. There are currently a huge number of software patents that exist in Europe that have been implemented this way. 2. Of the ones that can't be wrapped up in this method, a large number of patents are set-up and currently pending the highly expected change in the law. 3. Everyone I spoke to was perfectly confident that software patents would eventually be implemented in line with the US. The European economy would be dependant on this in the long term. Also, the law change would not be retrospective so all previously used inventions (but not the ones currently pending) will be public domain. 4. They were all very aware of the 'open source crowd' and sympathised with their cause. They explained that if the law was changed, it would only prevent the open source crowd from copying other software and would not limit them from innovating. However, when I mentioned the Microsoft 'double click' patent, they all laughed out loud and warned me these things were usually a thousand times more complicated and subtle than I had been led to believe. If, in the case of this Microsoft patent, it really was ridiculous, then it would instantly be shot down in court as soon as it was contested. Anyway, IANAPA (yet!) but that is what I have learnt from my experiences. Feel free to correct me if I have missed points.
So far, I have not heard any report in the normal media about this political conflict which has been ongoing for some months now. Appearantly, the normal media does not consider it as news, probably because they do not understand the issue. Which is a very sad things.
*lol* That is hilarious. For those that don't live in the EU I'd better explain the jokes.
:-(
Don't talk rubbish. The bad people in this are representatives of National Governements: they are the Bad Council Ministers. The good people are representatives of the people: elected members of the European Parliament, not beholden to National Government interests.
Your personal interests are pretty beholden to your nation, the freedoms it gives and the wealth it generates and you partake in. In the EU no-one has no idea who their EU representative and vote for their EU candidate along national party lines (which makes it doubly funny).
The European Parliament wants to guarantee my software and business method freedom. The freedom to write and share my creative work. And they frame it in quite noble and clear language too, so the good intent isn't easily twisted. It means I am free to do the work I want and invent and share all my best ideas, as much or as little as I want. It's my choice, I'm free, so I'm happy.
The European Parliament not just voted for software patents, taking away our (techie) freedoms, but the 'creative' works can also refer to the EU talking about extending copyright pretty much indefinately like the USA. The noble and clear language is a dig at the pathetic failed attempts at creating an EU constitution. Unlike the clear and noble US constitution, the EU one is a botched long incomprehensible one with the introduction being a self-congratulatory note to those that wrote it.
The UK Government wants to take away my software and business method freedom, making it illegal for me to publish my own code on my own web site and making it even more illegal to sell my own code. If I come up with an improvement to an existing idea, I cannot safely share my improvements in public. I can be sued, and go to jail if I cannot pay massive fines.
The UK government is one of the only government that came out clearly against software patents. You don't go to jail in the UK if you can't pay massive fines, you just declare yourself bankrupt. I know it's meant as barb against the US DMCA, but the joke falls a little flat as publishing crypto in the UK is still a bit of a touchy subject.
I have no special interest in being a member of the EU. But when the European Parliament would guarantee my freedom, and UK government if it was totally independent would take away my freedom, then I must support the European Parliament on that issue. Wouldn't you?
Again, mildly funny but the joke falls flat with the UK talking about ID cards. This subject comes around once every decade, and always falls flat on its face, but this time with 9/11 it's gone a lot further than it has ever done before
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
I've talked to many members of the european parliament about software patents. As FFII correctly reports, the representatives are really divided about this issue. A majority is just plain ignorant of the problem, and will vote according to the wishes of the party that sent them in the parliament (probably pro swpat).
Others are genuinely interested in avoiding the blunders of the US patent system, but they don't know exactly how to do it. The most favored solution would be to patent computer based innovations that are having a "technical" impact. The idea being to protect software controlling industrial robots and some such. Unfortunately, the definition of "technical impact" is being disputed and very blurry, to say the least.
Then there's the fraction of representatives who have fallen prey to the IP lawyer lobby group. They really believe that they are helping innovation by unifying the already present patent laws in all EU countries.
All in all, it looks like we've lost this battle to the giant IP/patent holders. Perhaps we didn't protest loud enough and have been widely ignored by the mass media. That's very sad indeed.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
The French demonstrated a rather effective solution to such a situation back in 1788 or so
Well I'm not sure you've chosen a very apt example there, because one of the first things the French revolutionary National Assembly did, in early 1791, was to pass a patent law stating that "it would be to attack the rights of man in their essence not to regard an industrial discovery as the property of its author".
-wb-
That's a move in the right direction, although I'm quite sceptical about the chances of this silly law to be withdrawn. And I was sure that if someone was going to oppose such an oligrarchic law it would be the Dutch. On the other side there is no much chance the patents law to be applicable. It will probably result in an endless amount of lawsuits between the big companies in style "it was me who invented the paper clip". Finally, I am sure that the open source community will form its movements to try to patent as much software as possible... After all if we can not change the rules, we shall act according to them. And if this weaponry can be used against the open-source movement, then probably there are enough opportunities in the law, so it can be used against the big corporations.
That would be like "software pirates" sending a DDOS attack to FFII because software patents will keep software prices up and create a market for illegal copying.
The suggestion here is that it would end up in court in the first place. In most cases, it won't. Especially not when you're a small-time (one-person) shop, in which case it will go something like this:
Law firm sends you a letter with "Hello, we are writing you in behalf of our client, because you are infringing on their patent because you sell a software package which is operated by means of a mouse."
You will reply with "Bollocks, please leave me alone."
They will reply with "Look, here's the patent - it clearly states that it covers operating the software by means of a mouse. Stop selling the software immediately. We will contact you later to let you know the amount of damages our client is seeking compensation for."
You will write back "But this is trivial! Everbody is doing this!"
They will write back "We're suing everybody else too. Most have already settled. Please give us a detailed list of how many copies you have distributed. My client seeks 100 USD per copy."
You will start to feel uncomfortable, and write back: "But I've sold my program for only $9.95, and it's just a little shareware app."
They will get back with "My client offers to settle this for $500. Make your check payable to Lawyer & Lawyer, Inc. In the mean time, we will continue by contacting your distribitor (Kagi.com) because they are distributing an infringing product."
You will write back "$500?! But that's about my total proceeds from the entire year!"
Then, you get an email from Kagi.com, saying "Listen, we just got a scary letter from Lawyer & Laywer, threatening to sue us. What's this all about?"
Adding the fact that you don't feel like flying over to the USA to defend your case, you write out a check to the order of $500 and be done with it.
Everybody's happy, right?
This will especially happen with patents which are about to expire. Apparently, there are law firms which specialize in trying to squeeze as much as they can get away with out of these patents.
I wonder whether one shouldn't actually prefer that the guys a the switch in a Minuteman silo behave like human beings.
After all, some might refuse to launch rockets.
I realize their refusal is a bad thing when the enemy can bet on their refusal, but the guys who refuse might just be the same ones that are supposed to refuse a launch when they receive an unorthodox launch request.
So, like in statistics, you have to balance type-I errors(failure to do) with type-II errors (failure to refuse)
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
"Patent lawyers in favour of extending patents to software."
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Interesting idea; let's just patent lots of trivial/nonsensical stuff and then sue our governments to show them how "nice" trivial patents are.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
It amazes me that so many countries in the world bother with the failed Parliament system. They should adopt the correct American Congressional model. Right now, the American Government is the oldest continuously running government in the world.
No more MP, you have a Congressman. More checks, more balances, just plain better.
Sideshow Bob: Actually it's German for The Bart. The.
That only works if Bart is a *female*. German for "The Bart. The." would be 'Der Bart. Der."
Why am I even replying to this?
Even after all that the rich and the greedy are still not saited and lust after even more and demand to pay even less. Make no mistake being rich does not take hard work it takes greed (you can work as hard as you want and still be poor or do as little as possible and still be rich).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen