EU Ministers Went Off-Brief In Patent Vote

It's a newbie error in world politics... by LostCluster · 2004-07-07 11:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.)

Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... by DHR · 2004-07-07 11:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually, I'd say the USA got it right the first time. ;)
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... by Platinum+Dragon · 2004-07-07 11:50 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

Hey, sounds like something else I've heard of.

At least here in Canuckistan, the business interests only have to buy off the Prime Minister, and the rest of the party is forced to follow. Simpler and more efficient kakistocracy!

--

Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... by Carnildo · 2004-07-07 11:53 · Score: 3, Informative

I'd say they didn't. Among other things the government couldn't do was keep the states from threatening to invade each other. Fortunately, we got the Constitution-based government before any wars started.

--
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... by ron_ivi · 2004-07-07 11:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
You say this like it's a bad thing. Remember, we didn't need an income tax until 1913, when the chick who wrote the screenplay for "The Mummy" wrote "her other horror story" - the first income tax form.
It'd be funny if it wasn't true; and yes, I know that the government had tarrifs on imports well before 1913. But taxing income just bugs me - it's not taxing the rich, it's taxing the people who are working hard to create a new barrier to prevent new people from becoming rich.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 12:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

Part of the reason we didn't need income taxes was the sale of goverment land during the 1800s. Once we stopped selling off "The west" income in other forms was needed.
For better or worse we also have stopped our isolationism and need to support a standing military capable of fighting wars overseas to preserve our interests. This doesn't just affect oil in the middle east, but it gives the US leverage to prevent things like China invading Taiwan (which could devastate the tech industry for several years)
Income taxes are more useful than consumption taxes (which preceded income taxes) to tax the rich. The percentage of income spent on goods is typically inversely proportional to the income of an individual. For example poor people spend almost all their money (people living month-to-month) on goods and necessities; Rich people can buy goods and necessities, and still have money left over to save. A consumption tax would be regressive, since poor people would be taxed on nearly 100% of their income, while rich people 70-80%.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... by AuMatar · 2004-07-07 12:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Income tax can tax the rich- until Kennedy, the top income tax bracket was 91%. The fact that its been lowered so much and given so many loopholes it no longer does is a sign of the corruption in our government.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... by rodgerd · 2004-07-07 13:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Which "we" is that? The US had an income tax in the 19th Century, until corrupt Gilded Age politicians repleaed it for their wealthy friends.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... by beakburke · 2004-07-07 14:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't think parent was advocating consumption taxes, I think they were advocating asset taxes (like property, inheritance, and estate taxes). There are some problems with asset taxes however.
Firstly you have to assess the value of the assets "fairly", plus it's just not worth the time to assess the value of low value assets, just major ones. Thus land + housing + financial asssets are the main tax targets under such a system, simply because it's not worth the governments time to evaluate the worth of our 6 yr old computer and kids toys. Of course taxing only the big ticket assets is economically "suboptimal" since it encourages people to alter their behavior to avoid the tax. In this case by placing more of their wealth in the form of small ticket items that are not assessed property taxes. Some people, like farmers (since they own a great deal of land) would tend to have a large portion of their net worth tied up in land, and therefore would also be "unfairly" burdened by the system. Of course higher taxes rates would lower the value of their land too, so they would really suffer.

--
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... by Durrik · 2004-07-07 15:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

I would suggest for anyone who likes British Comedy and wants to see how some of how politics and backroom dealing works, look for 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes Prime Minister'.

The quote that I find most relevant here, And I'm going from memory is:

Prime Minister: I explicitly ordered the UN ambassidor to abstain from the vote!

Humphery: Yes but an order to the Foreign minster becomes a strongly worded word to the permanent secretary. Which becomes an advisory to the UN under secretary. Which becomes a suggestion to the Ambassador. Who will vote for what's best for him.

I would not be surprised if this thing happened in the countries involved. Yes Minister while being a satire and funny. Is still a satire and reflects on real life.

--
Software Engineer & Writer of Military Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog: petermwright.com Twitter: WrightPeterM
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... by Groote+Ka · 2004-07-07 18:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

This could be a scandal that might rock the comparatively-new EU system for a loop. (...) Of course, the USA didn't get things right on the first try either.
I don't think it's a good idea to compare both institutions. You compare a intergovernmental institution with a nation. When you want to compare US with EU member states, you have to check whether Negroponte represents the opinion of the majority of the US citizens when he casts his votes in the UN Security Council.
Nevertheless, you are right that this might rock the system, just as much as the EU world was rocked when the fraud by the French commissioner Edith Cresson was brought out. Perhaps nice to know, although off topic, is that the dutch EU civil servant who brought this to the light is now a member of the European Parliament.
There have been a lot of complaints by Dutch MPs that they are unable to control the ministers in the Council of Ministers. But they did not act. So finally, they know now they can control the Dutch vote over there. About time.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... by wolfdvh · 2004-07-07 19:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of course, the USA didn't get things right on the first try either.
228 years later we still don't have it right. Recent evidence includes the FCC decision to let the Murdocs, Viacoms and ClearChannels of this world own huge swaths of the Televisions and radio markets making many good sized markets one provider towns. When all your broadcast news comes from one source, how 'fair and balanced'(tm) do you think it will be?
Sure, the digirati have other options but Grandma and Joe Six-Pack get their news from TV and talk radio.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... by DunbarTheInept · 2004-07-07 20:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

You compare a intergovernmental institution with a nation.

At first, the United States *was* an intergovernmental institution. There's a reason they're called "states", and it's no coincidence that 'state' is a synonym for "national government". At first, it really was a union of independant states.

What makes things signifigantly different is the culture. Unlike the EU, The new USA was made of member states that all spoke the same language. Unlike the EU, they all came from the same original parent culture. And unlike the EU, the states in question had no previous history of independant sovereignty to protect, and so were willing to 'give up' a little more. (They were moving from being colonies of an empire to being states in an alliance, without any intervening period of independant, non-allied rule.)

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2004-07-07 22:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Is still a satire and reflects on real life.

So close a refelection that Margaret Thatcher once called it "[a] closely observed portrayal of what goes on in the corridors of power".

I often say that Yes Minister would be even more hilarious if I didn't know it was actually the sort of thing that goes on.
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... by gurps_npc · 2004-07-08 07:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

There are basically three types of taxes:
Income taxe, that taxes you as you get the money.
Possesion taxes which tax you on what you have, even if you are not spending it.
Outgo taxes which tax you on what you spend.
Outgo taxes encourage savings, discourage spending, which runs counter to the consumption based philosophy our society is based on. It is a tax on the poor, as the poor do not have enough cash to save, thereby a larger portion of their money is taxed. The rich simply spend a far less percentage of their money, so they end up being taxed less.
Possesion tax, discourages savings - if you spend what you have instead of saving it, the government never taxes you. Smart people would go on lots of trips when they are young, never letting the government see the 10,000 bonus they earned. Unforunately this seriously hurts people that want to retire and live off of savings. Again this tax affects the poor people the most, preventing them from making the change from poor to rich. While the rich do tend to get taxed the most, they generally have enough money to avoid being seriously harmed while the poor/middle class have a HUGE road block on the way to becoming rich.
Income taxes encourages people to save what they earn, thereyby helping people become rich. While it does not hurt the rich the most, it is the best for poor folk, as they can both get taxed less than the rich folk and do not have a roadblock stopping them from becoming richer themselves.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... by ivan256 · 2004-07-08 09:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

The top 1% of wealth owners had 40% of the wealth, but paid only 35% of the income tax burden?

What the hell does that have to do with anything? This is an income tax, remember? It's a tax on how much you earn not how much you own. Stop diluting the argument with irrelavant statistics.

This could happen in the USA too. by LostCluster · 2004-07-07 11:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

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...

Re:This could happen in the USA too. by PeterPumpkin · 2004-07-07 11:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

Of course, we in the USA could as a country hold a constitutional convention for purposes of abolishing the current government and setting up a new one, as a constitutional right.

I wonder how the EU is set up with regards to this?
Re:This could happen in the USA too. by Dachannien · 2004-07-07 11:57 · Score: 2, Informative

The electoral college has really only played a minor role in filtering the will of the people into a result for who ends up being US President. ("Minor" meaning situations where popular and electoral votes don't exactly reflect each other, while "Major" means mass chaos in the electoral system of the sort that would be akin to what the EU ministers did.)

However, electors *have* cast votes for a different candidate than the one they were expected to vote for. Tennessee in 1948 is one example.

See here or here for more details.
Re:This could happen in the USA too. by Short+Circuit · 2004-07-07 12:19 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually, there have been many occasions where electors didn't vote for who they were expected to. A quick googling turned up this link.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:This could happen in the USA too. by jejones · 2004-07-07 12:41 · Score: 2, Informative

If the Founding Fathers were around today, they'd say "That's not a bug, that's a feature."

They didn't trust anybody...not even the general public. (The line "Your people, Sir, is a great beast" is commonly attributed to Alexander Hamilton.) The electoral college, and the original way that senators were elected, were yet another check and balance... and some argue that the amendment that switched us to direct election of senators is a mistake.
Re:This could happen in the USA too. by drew · 2004-07-07 13:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Not all states do an all or nothing vote with their electors. in fact, iirc, the electors aren't even truly obligated to follow the popular vote in their state at all. of course, they almost always do.

there is at least one state (new hampshire, i believe) where one elector votes for the candidate who recieves the popular vote in each congressional district, and the remaining two electors vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in the state as a whole. thus it is not uncommon for new hampshire to split its electoral votes 3 to one candidate and 1 to the other. imo, more states should use this system, however, to be honest, the number of times that a candidate has won the popular vote and lost the elctoral vote is so small to be almost negligible. the current presidency is, of course, the exception, not the rule...

--
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Re:This could happen in the USA too. by ScrewMaster · 2004-07-07 13:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, I would say that they especially did not trust the general public. Truth to tell, the popular will is often an idiot, and he is rapidly descending into moronism. You're correct: the Electoral College was intended to be a safety-system that would prevent gross failures of the election process. It has been less than successful, I would say, given the fools that have been repeatedly elected to the highest office in the land. Of course, to be fair, we don't often give them (or ourselves) much to work with.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:This could happen in the USA too. by swillden · 2004-07-07 17:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

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
This is incorrect.
First, this is not uncharted territory. It has happened several times in the past that electors didn't vote the way they were expected to, though I don't believe electoral infidelity has ever changed an election. Second, the Supreme Court (I'm assuming you mean the US Supreme Court) wouldn't get involved at all, because the selection and voting of the electors is defined by each state. Whether or not the electors have a legal obligation to vote a particular way depends on state law, and the penalties for violating that obligation, if any, are also defined by state law. Electors from some states are free to vote their conscience, whatever the outcome of the popular election, and others will go to prison if they don't vote "correctly".
It's also worth noting that the state legislature can direct the electors to vote a particular way, regardless of the popular vote, since it's ordinary state law that says the electors should follow the popular vote. We almost saw this happen in 2000, because the Florida state legislature was annoyed enough at the actions of the Florida Supreme Court that they were getting ready to override the whole popular election process and direct the electors to vote for Bush. Of course, as it turned out, the USSC determined that the FSC had overstepped its bounds, and the election was resolved that way. Had the Republican-dominated Florida legislature decided to put Bush in office directly, however, it would have been perfectly legal.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:This could happen in the USA too. by k98sven · 2004-07-07 20:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Not quite. The EU Council, which took this decision, is not intended to represent the people. It represents the governments of the respective member states'. The governments, in turn, are supposed to represent the people.

(The EU parliament is the direct representative of the people.).

So it's more of a going-back-on-a-campaign-promise kind of betrayal than the analogy you made to the Electoral College.
Re:This could happen in the USA too. by karikasper · 2004-07-07 21:41 · Score: 2, Informative

The power is shared among the bodies of the EU. To break it down in a simplistic way:

Commission: The only institution which has the right to initiate Community law (which also includes the right to take back the proposal if it is changed too much against their wishes). This composes of EU civil servants who in theory at least should only consider what is good for Europe as a whole and not just for the country where they are from.

Council: Member State government ministers. Documents are prepared for them by their own permanent bureaucracy (COREPER), which consists of bureaucrats from various Member State ministries. The Council is the most powerful body, it has final say in all EU legislation.
Parliament: Has an increasing role, but still might be overrun by the Council (this is becoming more and more difficult and time-consuming). It is directly elected and is divided into different Europe-wide political party groups.

These institutions rarely work independently. There are semi-official consultations involving all three bodies conducted all the time.

P.S. The Estonian Minister of Economic Affairs seemed to think that the proposal he was voting on had excluded possibilities for patenting software so he voted for it.

In other words - the Dutch wish to vote No by SuperKendall · 2004-07-07 11:40 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Re:In other words - the Dutch wish to vote No by technix4beos · 2004-07-07 11:47 · Score: 4, Informative

Here's a more detailed analysis of this issue, just a few weeks ago:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7442

--
user@host$ diff /dev/urandom /dev/uspto
Re:In other words - the Dutch wish to vote No by Thundertje · 2004-07-07 13:06 · Score: 5, Informative

That is correct, the parliament was misinformed by the minister and therefore they voted in favor of the legislation. And now the Minister of Eco. Affairs claims it was an error in his word processor. I say, away with that lying bastard (Excuse my language here I'm really pissed) a lying minister is something that CANNOT be tolerated in a modern and decent democracy, and I believe The Netherlands is a state that did a very nice try to be such a democracy (It works better than most democracies around the world I can guarantee you that much) but this is a thing you must not accept.
And I'm glad or parliament is not in favour of this, thank god there are some sensible people in politics *knocks on wooden thing*
Re:In other words - the Dutch wish to vote No by canajin56 · 2004-07-07 19:07 · Score: 2, Funny

That's about the most farfetched excuse I've ever heard.
Oh really? ;)

--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI

What a shock by Platinum+Dragon · 2004-07-07 11:45 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

It's Legal... by bogaboga · 2004-07-07 11:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

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..

Re:It's Legal... by nutshell42 · 2004-07-07 14:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

But the result is legal and binding, isn't it?
No it isn't because it was just a preliminary voting on the draft of the directive. The text first has to be translated into all official languages of the EU before there can be a final vote but normally that just confirms what the preliminary voting said.
BTW even if the decision of the first voting is confirmed it's not law because first there has to be a second reading in parliament if that votes against patents (again) the council has to vote for unanimously in a second voting or find a compromise with parliament (look for the /. news about the Dutch thingy in that thread was a good explanation of the whole procedure)

--
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

So? by Brandybuck · 2004-07-07 11:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!

Re:So? by LostCluster · 2004-07-07 11:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think the solution to this problem should be to mirror something we have in the USA when the two houses of our Congress pass similar but mis-matched bills...

Those two bills are taken to a "conference comittee", where appointed members of the House and Senate hammer out the differences to each other's satisfaction, and report out one unified bill. However, that comittee can't pass their bill on to the President directly, both the full House and Senate must pass exactly same bill with a majority vote in order for that to happen. If either house amends the conference's bill and the other doesn't make the exact same change, then it's back to the comittee room to try again.

The point is that this meeting of the Ministers with briefs shouldn't be able to come up with a binding decision... they should come back with a suggested law their legislative bodies should review and cast the real vote on.
Re:So? by ScrewMaster · 2004-07-07 14:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because they are not expected to behave like ordinary human beings. And their personal beliefs are irrelevant: they must vote for what provides the greatest good for the greatest number. The responsibility these people share means that they are supposed to be held to a higher standard than everyone else, because everyone suffers the consequences when they fail. They failed here. And considering the uniformity of their votes on software patents, I'd say they were acting more like lemmings than human beings. There's some influence being spread around there, and it's not legitimate.

I wouldn't want someone in control of, say, a Minuteman silo to be allowed to just "behave like a human being" whenever he or she wants to. No, when trust is betrayed on such a grand scale it is time to make some repairs. The decision must be made as to whether the entire system is too flawed to continue, or whether some drastic changes can save it, but if the EU does not serve the needs of its member countries (and peoples) then it should be dissolved until something better comes along.

Regardless of the outcome on software patents (the effects of a bad decision will not be felt for some time, but they will feel them, much as we are) this is a political disaster. If the ministers cannot be trusted to adequately represent their members on something this important, what else can they be trusted to screw up? If I lived in Europe right now I'd be very concerned. I guess we aren't the only ones suffering undue corporate influence in the halls of power.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Even our damned chancellor... by char**+argv · 2004-07-07 11:47 · Score: 5, Informative

...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.

Re:Even our damned chancellor... by Slashamatic · 2004-07-07 13:15 · Score: 2, Informative

Munich is the home of the EPO (also a very important MS Centre) as well as one or two cabals of IP lawyers. Of course, the Bundestag has embraced an open-source policy and the city of Munich is even trying to get open source solutions onto the desktop. An interesting dichotomy.
The federal government is confused. There are big German software company's too (SAP) with IP portfolios and they have respectable lobby groups. The EPO itself certainly seems to want software patents. It is difficult to go around such interst groups as individuals or as loose groups such us the FSF (Europe) and the FFII. It is possible though.
Re:Even our damned chancellor... by jdhutchins · 2004-07-07 13:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, the problem is, software patents can cover anything. And they are trival to come up with. Come on, 'hit this button and we automatically check you out' may be a new idea, but then again, it doens't involve much new. And patents last for ~17+ years, which is an eternity in the computer world. So you patent something, and no one else can use it until it's worthless, and a long time past then.

If the easiest or best known (or possibly the obvious) way of doing something is restricted, people and companies are motivated to come up with a new way of doing it

Well, software patents can cover the entire concept. The patents are written so broadly that they come to apply to things you'd never expect them to cover.
Re:Even our damned chancellor... by Peter+Eckersley · 2004-07-07 17:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is one of the strangest and most perverse arguments I've ever heard in favour of patents. "Obstructions are good because they force us to overcome them". Can't we think of less destructive ways to encourage innovation?
I'd be curious to know whether you would support the kind of interoperability exception contained in article 6a of the EU parliament's (amended, anti-swpat) version of the software patent directive? If so, you might want to support or donate to the FFII anyway, because they played a key role in getting the parliament to vote for that.

--
Fixing copyright
Re:Even our damned chancellor... by Halo1 · 2004-07-07 23:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think patents aid innovation.
Thinking is not enough in case you are writing legislation. You must know, or at least have damn good evidence to support your thinking. The problem is that in case of software patents, most evidence points the other way.

--
Donate free food here

One of the most undemocratic decisions here... by eamacnaghten · 2004-07-07 11:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Council of Ministers decision on pro-patents under the Irish Presidency has been one of the most undemocratic decisions ever taken here (Europe).

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

I always did wonder.. by Kjuib · 2004-07-07 11:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Re:I always did wonder.. by mrchaotica · 2004-07-07 13:54 · Score: 2, Funny

99% of people are not the ones who understand what software is, or what the implications of software patents are.

They won't get rid of those politicians, because all they care about is healthcare or terrorism or the issue-du-jour....

...or maybe just jerry springer and wardrobe malfunctions!

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

I took off my briefs too... by ToadSprocket · 2004-07-07 11:58 · Score: 2, Funny

... 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.

About time. by Dark+Lord+Seth · 2004-07-07 12:01 · Score: 5, Informative

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!

Dupe? by johndoe42 · 2004-07-07 12:02 · Score: 2, Informative

This is more or less the same thing reported last friday.

They know the game by WildBeast · 2004-07-07 12:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Parent munged Oblig Simpsons Quote Re:I'm shocked. by Louis+A.+J. · 2004-07-07 12:06 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

This Should Be No Surprise by Nova+Express · 2004-07-07 12:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

At every opportunity, the Eurocrats in Brussels have shown that they are far more interested in increasing their own powers than in representing the citizens of the nation-states which make up the EU. In every case, whenever EU rules override existing national law, the flow of power has been away from elected regional or national governments and toward unelected EU bureaucrats, the very opposite of federalism. Every bureaucracy seeks to increase and enlarge its own powers, but the EU bureaucracy, being doubly-insulated from possible electoral outrage, has done so far more than most. This has resulted in an EU bureaucracy that is far more autocratic, insular, centralizing, self-interested, and socialist than the vast majority of both EU nation states and their citizens. That's why you will see ever-more votes like this one, increasing the power of Brussels' bureaucrats and their special interest allies at the expense of the citizenry of the nations making up the EU.

--
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

Re:This Should Be No Surprise by Anspen · 2004-07-07 12:19 · Score: 5, Informative

You do realise that the problem in this situation was the coucil, that is the gouvernements of the member countries? Not "Eurocrats in Brussels".
Re:This Should Be No Surprise by Slashamatic · 2004-07-07 13:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Note that the council are nationally appointed. The MEPs are directly elected. Guess who is more likely to listen to the people. Under the council are the mechanisms of the EU and the Eurocrats. Theoretically this should also come under the MEPs, but most of the control comes from the council. Again, guess where their loyalties lie.
Re:This Should Be No Surprise by Jamie+Lokier · 2004-07-07 15:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

According to your arguments, then, the European Parliament should be making of beuraucratic, self-interested, and destructive policies which ruin my autonomy as a UK citizen. But that's not true!

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 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.

So, you still think it's better to eliminate the EU part?

If the UK Government gets its way, through the Council of Bad National Government Ministers, my work becomes effectively illegal and I am less free. It's that simple.

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?

-- Jamie
Re:This Should Be No Surprise by MemoryDragon · 2004-07-07 20:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem is two sided. First of all the council of ministers, directly elected people, who basically in several cases openly or indirectly betrayed their own parliaments. Then the council of ministers, who basically had drafts for this issue written by the BSA themselves, or at least just gave statements that they are not amused by the votings of the parliament and are going to overrule and/or ignore it. What this situation reminds me of is good ole rome, where the emperor was overruling the votings of the local parliament at his will. And then the EU constantly wonders itself why the people of Europe are so fed up with Brussels. All they want to live in is a decent non corrupt democracy and what we are in is a system equally bad or even worse than the one in the united states, with lobbyism being legalized corruption! sincerely A European by heart who believes in a unified Europe but is saddened by the current situation

Some questions ... by s20451 · 2004-07-07 12:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm not trolling. But I think the software patent issue is more complicated than you think.

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 ... 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?).

--
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.

Re:Some questions ... by FroBugg · 2004-07-07 13:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not a programmer. Not a real one, at least.

I like the idea of Open Source, but I don't think it should be forced on people, and I'm sure lots of people here agree with me. I also don't think software should be patentable. I do think it should be copyrightable, though.

The difference is that with a patent, you're covering an entire process. You've patented going from A to B, and nobody else can do that without paying you off. With a copyright, you've only restricted one path between A and B, and others are free to find their own.

With real inventions, it doesn't tend to work this way. I could invent a light bulb with a filament made from cork, and Bob could invent one with a filament made from pasta. In my limited experience I think both would be valid and neither would be able to sue the other. Software patents, however, seem to always deal with the results, and not the processes. Someone is given a software patent for the equivalent of every light bulb, no matter what materials it uses. This is the problem.
Re:Some questions ... by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · 2004-07-07 14:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

There are many things that seperate software/mathematical patents from legitimate patents.
1. Alan Turing, having given us the design for a machine that can produce the same mathematical results as any other known mechanical process, has prior art on all software. Any patent he would have taken would have expired a long time ago. To patent a specific use for his machine is like some joker patenting the use of Edison's Lightbulb for lighting a living room, and another joker patenting the use of lightbulbs for lighting your dining room.
2. Although we call them computers, the vast majority of us use them for communication rather than computation, and it is essential that all computers be able to interoperate. Allowing companies to release file formats that are encumbered by patents discourages intercommunication, and promotes lock-in, network effects, and all sorts of nasty monopolistic inefficiencies. Implementing *.gif support in the Gimp might not be innovative, but it's certainly beneficial to the market as a whole, and to the core purpose of early 21st century computing--intercommunication.
3. Fifteen years in computer software is way, way longer than fifteen years in hardware. Fifteen years ago most of us weren't even online.
4. Software patents provide no beneficial incentives to mathematicians or software developers--or put another way, can anyone point me to any significant mathematical or software discovery that would not have occured without the protection of patents? Significant enough to justify the pain of software patents that all American developers must encounter daily?
5. Software processes involve orders of magnitude more parts/components/ideas than hardware. Windows XP has millions of lines of code. What other product in your home comes anywhere near that level of complexity? Software patents mean that for every line of code we right, we theoretically have to consult a lawyer. If Software Patents take hold worldwide, I suspect we will come to have a Hernando de Soto "The Mystery of Capital" kind of situation with the more workable notion of Software Copyright--software development will become legally impossible for all but the largest corporations, so anytime a small or mid-size firm needs software written, it will have to resort to a black/gray market to get anything done. Indeed, that seems to be the only saving grace of the American situation--enforcement is so lax and arbitrary that we could still open .gif files in free Linux web browsers, even though technically every single user was supposed to pay for that priviledge.
The bottom line is that patents were created for pragmatic reasons--to support the development of science and industry--and nearly all academia seems to believe that software and mathematical patents are detrimental to that goal. I think there is sufficient moral theoretical distinction between software and physical patents--to say nothing of further insanities like business process patents, which must have been invented by some black humor-loving lawyer as a parody of the current system. But even if you believe they are morally and theoretically equivalent, the pragmatic differences are huge--and please recall that patents are a utilitarian construct only. Software patents promote the common detriment.
Please, Europeans, you guys love to talk about how much smarter you are than us Americans and this is your chance to prove it! Don't let us down, don't let yourselves down! Don't let Bush and Microsoft bully you into economic subservience! SOFTWARE PATENTS DELENDA EST!
And let me say that if a device that can make any other physical device ever becomes affordable to ordinary people, I and many of my fellows first task will be to produce as many weapons as we need to protect our right to produce whatever the hell we like.
Re:Some questions ... by leomekenkamp · 2004-07-07 19:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Patents are a drastical way of influencing the free market, and governments should have a very good reason to interfere in a free market. This is something you need to get inside your thinking: patents are far from natural because they interfere in the 'natural' process of the kapitalistic economy.

Do some reading about the history of patents and you will see that patents were introduced to make sure inventions were not kept secret and would disappear from society when the inventor died. Granting the patentor a monopoly on his invention was a way to get all facts about the invention in the public domain.

For years the 'software industry' has thrived (even in the US) without any need for patents! You 'invent' something, put it on the market and profit. And believe me, a lot of profit has been made and the s/w industry has grown at an almost unbelievable rate. All this without s/w patentability. Also, since s/w can be reverse engineered, it is impossible to keep an 'invention' to onesself.

The need to make sure that inventors can have a temporary monopoly on their inventions is not a goal, it is a means to reach the goal of advancing society. Since the incentive of profit is doing just fine in stimulating people to come up with new/better products, there should be no interfering in the free economy.

--
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.

Imported from the UK by Slashamatic · 2004-07-07 12:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Income tax was developed by the government of Sir Robert Peel in the UK as a temporary measure to fund the napoleonic wars at a rate of 2.5%. In theory the government facilitates the business environment where I make my profit so they get their share. If you want the alternative, almost zero government and no tax, go to present day Iraq.

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.

Re:Imported from the UK by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 18:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Peel didn't become PM until the 1840s. The Napoleonic wars had been over by a quarter of a century. Peel reintroduced income tax which had previously been introduced by Pitt. Peel's tax taxed only the rich and was accompanied by a reduction of the number of goods subject to duty.

The Two step French approach by Midnight+Thunder · 2004-07-07 12:58 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

The spin in this article is un-fucking-believable by lpontiac · 2004-07-07 13:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Business generally wants software to be patentable across the EU, the way it is under U.S. and Japanese law, in order to preserve their right to collect royalties and protect work they have invested in.

What right to collect royalties? Their entire problem is that so far they don't have that right!

My gripes with software versus real patents. by Kjella · 2004-07-07 13:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:My gripes with software versus real patents. by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2004-07-07 14:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Quibble. I would argue that a patent covers a concept or idea; whereas copyright covers a specific implementation of a concept or idea.

Except that's not how patents on physical inventions work. Patents on almost everything except software cover implementations of ideas, and ideas for physical objects are not patentable at all. Only in software and other non-physical areas (e.g., "business methods" patents, which are even more absurd than software patents) are ideas given such protection. That's one of the major reasons that even people like me, who support IP law in general, think software patents are a horrible idea.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.

Stop the ride! by spinlocked · 2004-07-07 13:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

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... ...bugger.

The case against software patents by dachshund · 2004-07-07 13:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

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.

Found It by nutshell42 · 2004-07-07 14:26 · Score: 2, Informative

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=113240&cid=959 2600

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

Fortunately the world noticed in time by msobkow · 2004-07-07 15:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

I'm shocked, truly shocked! by Anonynus+Covvard · 2004-07-07 15:33 · Score: 2, Funny

"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 . . .

EU goverment is too complex by 12357bd · 2004-07-07 17:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

This just in by SlashDread · 2004-07-07 20:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

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"

Interview For Patent Attorney by discjockeydom · 2004-07-07 20:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Re:Interview For Patent Attorney by MemoryDragon · 2004-07-07 21:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sorry this is a little bit longer but I have to give my two euro cents to this debate.

Well not being a patent attourney, but being directly affected by it. Yes there are thousands of software patents in europe, most of them illegally and sloppily granted. (Guess the only exception to this is the UK where SWPATS already are legalized on a national level)

Ive read several of them most go like. System and machine implementation - this is the wrapup, then a vague description of the algorithm to cover as many fields as possible.

They were illegally granted (especially in germany) because there was a clear decision years ago, and nobody really currently tries to contest them seriously, at least not outside of the UK. To contest a software patent in the current field could bring down all software patents currently granted by the EPO.

This is also the cause of the pressure of many US multis and the commission for the legalization of the status quo, because 80% of this stuff belongs to IBM Microsoft and Co (with Siemens being the only european corporation having a severe number of SWPATs in the field)...

The problem with the dependency of the US is not really that problematic, the system is currently in the US severely misused and probably will be altered over time once the patent leeches become too dominant, unless they gain too much power, the problem is that nobody wants to have Europe repeating the mistakes of the US (which are court rulings based). But the major parties already signed contracts on the WIPO level years ago, so European politicians feel obligated to follow the bad lead of the US in this case.

An overruling of the WIPO decisicions in Europe basically in the long term would shake the US system and the USPTO to its grounds and basically would in the long run put the patent system on a more sane foundation. The patent in the long term, because Europe and the US are and that is right in my opinion economically dependend on each other. On the other hand a US like patent system all over Europe basically would case a legalized sellout of the entire european software industry (which is 99% small shops anc companies) to patent vulture companies and multinational corporations which mostly are US based and outsourcers to asia.

As for the court thing, this is rather problematic, because if you look at the us, many bogus patents have been tested in court (amazon one click for instance), it all goes down to good laywers and being able to get through it.

Therefore you can see the rise of patent vultures in the US currently which produce nothing but court cases. Those usually have something broad and meaningless on their hand and usually go after the small ones who cannot defend themselves and once knowlegde and funds are improved, go after the big ones.

It is clear that if you apply for a patent law company, that they have a different stance on this issue, because those are the vultures in the system who will or are already feeding on the works of others.

Dutch minister refuses to withdraw Yes-vote by Frans+Faase · 2004-07-07 21:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Minster Brinkhorst does not feel obliged to changes his 'yes'-vote into an abstination", according to Joop Nijssen, spokesman of the Dutch EU-representation in Brussel. This against the desire of the Dutch parlement. The minister is still seeking way to implement the degree that was filed by the parlement to withdraw the 'Yes'-vote. The degree is supported by all parties, except the party the Mr. Bolkestein belongs to, thus also the party that Minister Brinkhorst belongs to.

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.

EP divided over this issue by cpghost · 2004-07-07 23:02 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

French revolutionaries were not anti-patent by waterbear · 2004-07-07 23:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by trifakir · 2004-07-07 23:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Slashdot Mirror

EU Ministers Went Off-Brief In Patent Vote

77 of 290 comments (clear)