Software Patents Circumvent European Parliament

Tom writes "Despite the european parliament's vote to exclude software patents, the patent lobby is pressing forward and patentability of software is on the agenda of a workgroup whose advise the european council will likely follow. The european council is at odds with the parliament concerning their stance on software patents. The patent lobby is facing a narrow loss in the parliament, which has voted against software patents, but now circumvents democracy by convincing the council. If they succeed, software patents could be coming to Europe before christmas." <update> The links above seem to have stopped working for me - however, ffii is carrying the news as well.

Comments

I think it means

[koreaman]

Whose advice
not
Whose advise

Re:I think it means

[Anonymous Coward]

"advice" is often spelled "advise" across the pond.

Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU...

[BobTheLawyer]

The European Parliament has no ability to propose legislation - it's always the Council of Ministers that does this.

glad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

that not only the USA is corrupt and is controlled by big businesses.

hey Europe... Hope you like corperations telling you what you can and can't do, because unless you guys get VERY vocal right now, they will own your arses in a matter of weeks.

Re:glad to see

[gilesjuk]

It's ok, the French won't like it and will strike. They're pretty good at bringing the country to a halt to make a point.

Re:glad to see

[coopseruantalon]

If each contry then takes turn halting the legislation then will avoid patents forever.

Re:glad to see

[jenesuispasgoth]

I'm sorry, I can't let you say this, as a French person. We don't go on strike just to "make a point". We go on strike without telling anyone, just so everyone else knows that we CAN (thank you French Railroads for making me get up at 5h30 am because you went on strike this weekend without telling anyone ... not even your own people in the company.)

Re:glad to see

[gilesjuk]

We have a weird system in Europe. We tend to live our lives by member state laws and then when these laws don't do us justice we go to the European courts to appeal.

Re:glad to see

[gmknobl]

Amen brother. What's this called? An Oligarchy? Rule by the powerful few that thing they are better than others? In this case it's people who run big corporations who think they have the right to make money by hook or by crook.

It will be interesting to see how this goes in the U.S. too. Rest assured that if there's any big monied interests that give heavily to the Republican Party or at least have to the Bush family that we will see a diminishment of rights for the common folk, i.e. legislation or directives on the side of patents.

I wish this were just flamebait but it's now cold, hard reality in the U.S. (This will probably be rated "overrated!" ;-)

Re:glad to see

[vandon]

Corperations AND the entertainment industry telling you what you can and can't do.

Re:glad to see

[Reignking]

HA! My fiance worked at (big French company) last year, and they struck to have a party! They had kegs and parades! And once they were all out of sick days, they were upset that they couldn't strike anymore w/o getting paid. Some strike...grève it up!

Re:glad to see

[The MESMERIC]

Worse than USA
- Are the Europeans arse-lickers that follow suit. The stupid moronic "Oirish" are the first.
Bunch of beggars keen to lick any American Arse - and have their crappy Presidency be sponsored by Microsoft. Then you have the pathetic British Government.

I mean we have a subservient Fag - the Prime Minister; keen to do whatever Bush gets him to do. And his moron cabinet are the first to implement anything that is destructive to the IT workforce of this country (as if IR-35, fast-track-visa, outsourcing wasn't enough). So why should they oppose the coming patent law? They "abstain" - typical of the English people (hear nothing, see nothing)

The level of ignorance here is appauling. Ask anyone in IT what is Open Source :
"Ish shumfing to do wiv a Penguin innit?" - no joke.

They rather blow up animal laboratories in order to save a guinea-pigs than to care for their own people.

Then we move into mainland europe and the list of yankeephiles goes on. The spineless Austrians. The stupid Italians. The boring Belgians. The cowardly Dutch. The perverted Swiss. The utterly ignorant Greeks ... etc

Interesting to observe that those nations that are often criticized and mocked by America and the UK - Germany and France. They had the decency to remain strongly opposed to this most absurd law. Theirs is a country with guts to speak for the people. Fuck what the world-raping evil corporations wants - what is wrong is wrong.

France had the guts to oppose the invasion of Iraq under such a false pretext - amongst all pressures.

Seems like theirs is more of a true democracy than the mega-corp controlled United States (and its slaves arse-licking Europeans).

This is not a critique against the American people - as many are seriously trying but feel powerless - stuck against a impossible Force. This is a critique against the faceless European arse-lickers listed above.

Kudos to the people and government of the countries that having been voting against the legislation.

Re:glad to see

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

Eh, the Republicans want to give my money to the big corporations, the Democrats want to give it to people who don't/won't work. Either way, I get hosed.

I just hope the EU doesn't pass the patents law, it's the only hope for fixing it in the USA. If the EU enacts legislation that gives them a clear competitive advantage and costs the US Government revenue (spelled TAX DOLLARS) then the US might abolish it's patent crap as well. If the EU folds, then darkness will simply cover the Earth or all IT innovation will go to the 3rd world or China.

Re:glad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

It is mainly large 'global players' companies that want this legislation (beside the patent sharks and lawyers) - because they *own* 70% of all EU software patents already. Until now these patents were issued against the spirit and text of the EU patent law and could not be enforced, but with the adoption of the councils text... well, EU companies will pay a high toll for this bad legislation...

Re:glad to see

[ratbag]

They like to bring England to a halt, rather than France if possible. The port blockades always seem to affect traffic more on the M20 (my commute) rather than the roads around Paris, for some reason...

Rob. (a frustrated Francophile)

Re:glad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

"...we have a subservient Fag - the Prime Minister..."

He's not a fag, he's a prostitute - whoring him and his government out to whomever will pay :(

Re:glad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a diffenrence between being told what to do and do it.

Re:glad to see

[AviLazar]

Would someone please explain to me (logically, not emotionally) what is wrong with a patent? What is wrong with someone saying "this is my product, and if you want to use it you gotta play by my rules". I know people say that open source is better because it can help make a better product, but what is wrong with the people who create the software to choose how the software should be managed? Why is it better for someone OTHER then the creators of the program to decide what should happen to it?

Re:glad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there's little difference between the republican party and democratic party on this. Both are at the beck and call of big business. Has always been that way. The "Golden Rule"

Their difference is simpler. The democratic rulers would give the wage slaves *just* enough so that they don't rebel, overthrow their masters, and shoot the entire lot of them (a'la French Revolution, Russian Revolution, etc.). In other words, they are the smart (and possibly more dangerous) masters.

The republicans feel you can accomplish the same thing using just the media to BS the slaves into submission.

It's possible, given the current state of media control and reach, that the republicans are correct: the bar of real benefits for the wage slaves can be much less. The media is more of a distractor today than it ever was. And threat of "off-shoring" has people taking whatever shit they're handed.

But the difference between the two parties is only that.

Both screw the people, both are owned by the wealthy few. Welcome to every human society that's ever existed...

Re:glad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

See: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/

Re:glad to see

[VendettaMF]

I wish I could contradict this somehow, but, well, bye and large its accurate.

Well, we can still point out that at least we're not american. :-P

Re:glad to see

[unapersson]

Patents are meant to be non-obvious; software patents are too often extremely obvious to any programmer. It's nothing to with a programmer deciding what should happen to their program. That's what copyright law is for. People too often get software patents for things that others have already done, been doing for a long time, or is an obvious step for anyone wanting to solve the same problem in software.

Solutions do tend to come naturally depending on the problem in programming. And frequently the same problem will be solved in the same way by a group of disparate programmers who have never met before, just because that's the logical way to solve a problem. If one of those manages to get a software patent, the others are screwed, despite coming up with the same solution completely independently.

Re:glad to see

[Ironsides]

Rest assured that if there's any big monied interests that give heavily to the Republican Party or at least have to the Bush family that we will see a diminishment of rights for the common folk, i.e. legislation or directives on the side of patents.

Umm... Clinton (Democrat) Signed in to law the DMCA. You think that doesnt have anything to do with patents?

Re:glad to see

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Well, apart from the fact that Switzerland isn't in the EU. They are complete arseholes, though: creative like Germans and organised like Italians, though they seem to think it's the other way round.

Re:glad to see

[Grishnakh]

If the EU enacts legislation that gives them a clear competitive advantage and costs the US Government revenue (spelled TAX DOLLARS) then the US might abolish it's patent crap as well. If the EU folds, then darkness will simply cover the Earth or all IT innovation will go to the 3rd world or China.

I think it's already too late. The US economy is already going down the tubes fast, and the Europeans seem determined to always follow the same path the US takes, no matter how stupid.
China's economy is already surging ahead, and other third-world countries are close behind.

The scary part of this is that China is turning into a very major world power, and this is a country that has no democracy, freedom of expression, or any of these ideals that most of us freedom-loving people hold dear. It's looking like China's communist government is succeeding brilliantly where the old Soviet Union's failed miserably. What does this mean for those of us left in the world who actually care about not living under an Orwellian totalitarian government? Probably that, at best, we're going to be living in a 3rd-world dump, whether that means our own countries are going to have collapsed economies, or these countries will adopt similar totalitarian governments and we'll have to move to out-of-the-way places like Central America to get away from them. The future does not look bright.

Re:glad to see

[AviLazar]

That has been happening for many years though. Someone invents one process, and it is then invented in some other part of the world at the same time. We have always been of the play that first come, first serve (assuming that no foul play was involved.) I remember (vaguly) in grade school we were discussing human tendencies to do the same thing without any connections (i.e. the Egyptian pyramids and Aztec pyramids). There was one particular case (which eludes me to the specifics) but a scientist in the US created and patented an invention two or three days before someone else in a European country did (maybe Germany). It sucks for the person in Germany - but that is what happens.

Now if someone is getting a patent for some prior art that they did not create - the fault resides with the patent office process - NOT the notion of having a patent. Patent officers need to be re-trained and the process refined - but most people on /. argue that patents need to be abolished period, irrespective of the process. So what gives?

Re:glad to see

[cpt kangarooski]

The sole reason we grant patents is to serve the public interest.

The public wants many useful, novel, nonobvious inventions to be made. Furthermore, they want the inventions to come to market in the form of products, so that they can truly be taken advantage of. But they also don't want to pay anything if at all possible, nor suffer any restrictions with regards to the inventions or products, or if that's unavoidable, then they want to pay and be restricted as little as possible. And the inventive work of others should not be interfered with at all, or if at all, as little as possible.

These are the multiple, equal, competing interests of the public, and the idea is to find a balance between them where these public interests are best served. Since very often increasing or decreasing the degree to which one is satisfied will have a disproportionate effect on another, it's fairly tricky. Furthermore, whenever one implements a patent system, it should be as simple and unrestrictive as possible in order to accomplish any overall gain in public good. And the public good must always be satisfied more than it would be if there were no patent system at all, since otherwise the best solution would be to abolish the whole deal.

In the realm of software, there is already a tremendous satisfaction of the public interest without any real involvement of software patents. Therefore, unless they will make things better still -- by causing there to be more invention, and more productization, and lower costs and restrictions -- they're a bad idea. And software has been going along amazingly well without patents, and seems to be doing worse when patents are employed. So it looks like software at least is an unusual environment where patents are harming the satisfaction of the public good rather than promoting it.

What is wrong with someone saying "this is my product, and if you want to use it you gotta play by my rules". ... Why is it better for someone OTHER then the creators of the program to decide what should happen to it?

Because they have no leg to stand on. If a caveman came up to you and demanded $100 every time you used fire in some way (to smoke, to cook, to drive a car, etc.) you'd ignore him. And he couldn't do anything to stop you from using fire, even though he invented it.

The inherent nature of inventions is to spread and to be used by anyone who wants to use them and understands how. There is no natural right for the inventor of fire to be able to prevent other people from using fire. People can use fire against his will. And do.

Because this might frustrate inventors, and because we want them to invent stuff, and not just mope around, (actually we want all the stuff on that list above) we set up an ARTIFICIAL system whereby we might WILLINGLY not use their inventions if they don't let us, in order to prop them up.

Basically patents are a form of subsidy. It's like dirt farmers. In order to maintain what are seen as good prices on crops, and to avoid overproduction, the government pays farmers to not grow anything. If we let competition take its natural course, they would grow stuff, there'd be a glut on the market, and many farmers would go out of business. Clearly, they have no natural right to be paid for not doing anything. Hell, I wish that I could get a handsome salary for just sitting around. But we pay farmers because it serves our own best interests (since we feel we want small farmers and fairly stable prices). If we stopped feeling that farm subsidies were a good idea, they'd stop getting paid.

Same deal with patents: inventors have no natural right to control their inventions (other than to not make them or reveal them in the first place) but MAY have artificial rights granted if it serves the best interests of those who are granting the rights. And the grants don't have to be made.

Re:glad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Nothing to do with patents. It's the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, not the DMPA

Re:glad to see

[AviLazar]

As far as I knew, patents are there to protect the inventors not the public. In fact, according to the patent office Here "The role of the USPTO is to grant patents for the protection of inventions and to register trademarks. It serves the interest of inventors and businesses with respect to their inventions and corporate products, and service identifications."

I am not sure if I understand the misconception here. It seems pretty self-explanetory. Now I know someone here will say that is because the businesses "p0wned" us, but it applies to anyone. So Joe Schmoe can invent something in his garage, patent it and then not have to worry that big multi-billion dollar business does some espionage and steal his idea. It works both ways.

As far as patents and public interest - most people could care less other then the fact that they want to get everything for free (thats too bad, because life doesn't work that way). A minority actually cares about patents - and they are people like us who talk about this stuff and people who utilize patents or have some direct involvement.

I think the caveman example is bad - for multiple reasons: 1) his patent expired 2) you cannot patent something you did not invent - and fire was not a man-made function. Now a better example to is patenting the process of creating fire (i.e. I invented flint & steal process to make sparks to help make fire)...well someone could patent that process - nothing wrong with it. If I spend my time creating a process that makes life easier for people - I should have the right to make some money on it (nothing wrong with this). Obviously if I am trying to patent a process invented by someone else (a good example is the "one click" process) that is morally wrong and should be shot down - but I am talking on a legitimate process.

You mention "inherent nature of inventions is to spread and to be used by anyone who..." You seem to be hopping from natural law to man made law quickly. The natural process in life does not include a monetary system (or even a barter system), it does not include computers, or anything of the sort. This is a unique process to humans (barring aliens). Just because we were not utilizing patents 10,000 years ago does not mean we shouldn't now...it was a different time then - also harder to do such a thing.

Farmers get subsidies to help them deal with bad seasons, poor prices for food. They work hard and barely scratch a living. It serves our interest to help them because if we don't - soon you will find that only major corporations own the farms (i personally hate KFC). We cannot discuss about "natural right" because almost everything in human usage is not natural - cars, mathematics, money, houses, computers, laws, gov't, etc..

Here is a question: If an inventor should not have a right to collect a profit (as he see's fit) for something that he spent his time/money creating ---- why should someone who works at McDonalds serving hamburgers make a profit?

Re:glad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

If each contry then takes turn halting the legislation then will avoid patents forever.

Can I hear from Denmark please?

Re:glad to see

[ynohoo]

There's now another difference - no Republican administration in my lifetime has made any effort to balance the budget; quite the reverse, they seem intent on racking up outrageous deficits. This strikes me as very odd behavior for a supposedly "Conservative" party.

Of course with the dollar currently heading down the tubes, maybe their creditors will less willing to tolerate it.

Re:glad to see

[Whyrph]

As far as I knew, patents are there to protect the inventors not the public. In the short term, yes. In the long term, the purpose of patents is to help the public by causing more inventors to create things. In software, we have enough invention without patents that the overhead from the tremendous number of ridiculous patents would not be worth any gain.

Re:glad to see

[The MESMERIC]

is that the allusion to that European joke? what is the difference between Heaven and Hell ... In Heaven the cooks are French, the police: British, the engineers: Germans, the lovers: Italian and everything is organized by the Swiss.

Whereas in Hell ... :)

Re:glad to see

[cpt kangarooski]

As far as I knew, patents are there to protect the inventors not the public.

Nope. Since the relevant clause in the Constitution deals with both patents and copyrights, I think it's fair to draw from both areas of caselaw.

The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired.

"The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration. In Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127, Chief Justice Hughes spoke as follows respecting the copyright monopoly granted by Congress, 'The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.' It is said that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius." United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 158 (1948).

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).

A patent confers a monopoly on its holder, and the law does not allow the granting of these valuable franchises to private individuals, with consequent public detriment, unless there is a concomitant public benefit.

Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc., 428 F.2d 555 (5th Cir. 1970).

Your quote only describes what the PTO does. Not why, or even why we have a PTO in the first place!

As far as patents and public interest - most people could care less other then the fact that they want to get everything for free (thats too bad, because life doesn't work that way).

Nevertheless, getting everything for free would be ideal. While we can't have that unfortunately, we try to balance getting everything and getting it for free.

I think the caveman example is bad - for multiple reasons: 1) his patent expired 2) you cannot patent something you did not invent - and fire was not a man-made function.

1) He's a caveman. He never would've had a patent to begin with. But if you believe that patents solely should exist for the benefit of the inventor of the patented technology, then it is impossible to support their expiration.

2) If our patent system had been there, he could have patented fire. This is because he's uniquely gotten ahold of a controlled and limited form of fire made by man, and that doesn't exist in nature. The same reasoning is how you can patent substances that are particularly pure or easily gatherable, etc. where they nevertheless do exist in nature. Happens in the biotech field all the time.

It serves our interest to help them because if we don't - soon you will find that only major corporations own the farms (i personally hate KFC).

That's right -- and similarly, we only have a patent system to serve our own interests.

Here is a question: If an inventor should not have a right to collect a profit (as he see's fit) for something that he spent his time/money creating ---- why should someone who works at McDonalds serving hamburgers make a profit?

Apples and oranges, my friend.

Patents, like copyrights, are NOT awarded for labor. Whether an invention is made by a five year old in the course of fifteen minutes, or whether it's made by hundreds of scientists and engineers working together on a years-long billion dollar project, the patents they get are not materially different.

And an inventor who spends a fortune in time and money to invent something that has already been invented -- even if he didn't know about it -- gets ab

Re:glad to see

[squiggleslash]

Patents are inherently unjust. We grant them not because they're right and just but to create an incentive to research areas that might otherwise be left alone.

They're unjust for this reason: a patent is a monopoly on an idea and all implementations of that idea. It differs from copyrights in that it applies to all instances of that idea, not just those that were copied from a single creation. And, while with things that are copyrightable it's highly unlikely that two people would come up with the same thing for anything but the most trivial of works (you're not likely to accidentally, without reading the original, write "War and Peace", for example), with patents two people researching the same problem are very likely to come across the same solution. The person who gets to the patent office first with the solution wins the patent, and wins the monopoly.

With software patents and patents on business methods, we see the problems with patents come to the fore. There is every incentive already for software authors to come up with new and innovative software systems, be that file formats or data compression systems or user interfaces. Likewise with businesses, businesses can and do want to experiment with different business methods to find ways of doing business more profitably.

Worse still, with so many people versed in the relevent arts, and with no monetary investment required save for time, for software, there's absolutely no possible justification for patents in either area. If I patent anything related to a real world problem in the software world, I can guarantee it that patent will be violated, independently, without any knowledge of my patent or what I did, by the people violating it.

To answer your final point: this is exactly the problem with patents. Patents give people the right to dictate how other people who independently create things (that the patent holders just so happen to have a patent on) use those things. That's why they're unjust. That's why we need to be reducing the amount of areas that are patentable, not increasing them.

Re:glad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing patents and copyrights.

Thanks to copyrights, the creators of software do get to make the rules by which they distribute their software.

Patents are different - they give someone a monopoly on an "invention", so that nobody inventing it independently can use it without permission. The problem is that most (software) patents are not on revolutionary inventions that only a few people would be capable of coming up with, but obvious solutions that anyone presented with the same problem would be likely to come up with.

There are also so many of them (US software patents) that it's impossible for anyone to write any non-trivial software without violating some patents; it's also extremely unlikely to get sued for those violations, since the big players have cross-licensing agreements and most of the time, nobody tries to sue the "little guy" (because it isn't worthwile financially).

One potential future danger is that as open source software becomes competitive with the "big players", they can start suing for patent violations - not for financial gain, but to eliminate the competition.

Re:glad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does that make you glad?

Wouldn't it be nicer to have some place in the world to go if you want to get away from corruption?

I wonder if there are any English-speaking countries left in the world that might be sane...I wonder how the situation is in New Zealand?

Re:glad to see

[mikkom]

Would someone please explain to me (logically, not emotionally) what is wrong with a patent?

We are talking about software patents, not patents in general. this is one best examples of what's wrong with software patents.

Re:glad to see

[feargal]

Not all patents are wrong. Broad software patents however are, and that is what is at issue.

One of the main differences is that software is greatly different to physical products. Generally we do not have to deal with issues such as durability and reliability of materials. The entire manufacturing process is limited only by I/O speeds. Most software is an extension of what has gone before.

It is much easier and cheaper to develop a piece of software which comprises of thousands or even millions of components, each of which may only comprise a few lines of code. If broad software patents were allowed, each of these components could be patented. Developers would then have to spend huge resources researching existing patents to see if a particular component is covered. This is an unacceptable strain on small companies and individaul developers. Also, patent applications are kept secret until approved, a process which often takes over 18 months. So even if you did your research, you could have your product developed and in the marketplace before you learn that it infringes somebodies patent.

Another effect of the component-based nature of software is that any particular product can infringe on many different patents - a particular technique for writing data, another for reading it, another for displaying it on the screen, another for linking it with other data, and so on.

Large corporations can build up large patent portfolios and cross-licence with each other to avoid paying royalties between themselves. However, if a small developer receives a patent and tries to sell a product using his invention, his patent does not necessarily protect him from such large competitors. They can usually dig up patents of their own which his product infringes on, and at best he will end up granting them royalty-free licences. At worst, he will end up paying royalties to them. If he ends up infringing 20 patents, and has to pay 5% royalties for each licence, you can see the problem.

Of course, this often doesn't happen, but only because the corporations don't bother to enforce their patent. Legally though, it is their right to do so. Most websites out there infringe on at least a half dozen patents - see http://webshop.ffii.org.

Most computer science boils down to making the most with the resources available. There are many things we would love to be able to do with computers, but are currently impractical due to hardware constraints. Often software 'inventions' are not inventions at all - they are just the first time somebody has implemented an existing idea. Patenting an idea now that may not be possible to implement for another 10 years is unfair, and goes against the idea of patents.

Even if there were a case for broad software patents, the 20 year term is overly restrictive due to the speed of development, and the relative short lifespan of products. Compare software that we have now with that of 1984.

Re:glad to see

[DavidTC]

You're right, what the grandparent has is a vague 'natural law' conception of patents, and that's not a crazy idea, as that's how several European countries do it, at least for copyrights. (I don't know of anyone who does it for patents.)

But, yes, in the US, we don't have that concept. If we did, you'd be able to patent things without explaining how they worked. (It used to be you couldn't copyright things without turning a copy over to the National Archives, and I kinda wish that was still in effect.)

Re:glad to see

[donothingsuccessfull]

why should someone who works at McDonalds serving hamburgers make a profit?
A wage isn't profit, you exchange your time for money at the market (or legaly specified) rate.
Just as when you buy a burger you exchange money for it.

You would only make a profit when you exchange the burger for something worth more that the original cost.
When you work there McDonalds make a profit off you!

Re:glad to see

[AviLazar]

You need to differentiate between proper patents that do apply, and ones that abuse the rules. I am talking about ones that are properly utilized. Loopholes in the law do not mean the law should be destroyed - it means it should be fixed.

Re:glad to see

[DavidTC]

I don't think we need to reduce the areas that are patentable, per se, I think what we need to do is recognize that areas are different.

Even if you want software patents, 20 years for software is insane. 20 years ago we were just inventing personal computers with GUIs. Internet time is traditionally, what, a month a year? 12 times as fast? Software patents should, if they exist at all, last 2 years, not 20. (And by the time you've gone through the patent process, half that time is over anyway, so they seem rather poin tless.)

And with genetic engineering, we need to fix the situtation where farmers accidently grow genetically engineered crops that blow in. That clearly should be legal...the company was already paid for the seeds, if the purchaser can't control them, tough. And if your seeds that were genetically engineered to be sterile blow into someone's field and mess up their seeds, you should be liable for replacing their seeds...if you don't want that, don't make sterile seeds, or require purchasers to keep them under control.

There are lots of areas we should look long and hard at. 20 years is probably the right amount of time for mechanical machines used in industry...that doesn't mean it's the right amount of time for everything else.

In fact, there are two very broad categories of patents that we should split up to start with...patents where the process results in items that are sold to people (Or the process is sold as a service.) and patents where a machine that embodies the process is sold, and the person who uses the machine to do that process does it for themselves.

That's the difference between say, an ore smelting design and a fuel injection system, or a car detailing method and a zero-gravity pen. There's obviously some overlap between the two, but they're just very broad concepts. And I don't think the latter need as much protection as the former.

People should have more latitudes to use patents for themselves, whereas people selling the 'method' need to pay for it. (And it's easier to keep track of the people selling the method, anyway.) People should definately have the ability, if a device that embodies a patent method, that they purchased, breaks, to build their own device that uses the patented method. (I'm thinking along the lines of patented file formats, for one thing.)

Re:glad to see

[AviLazar]

So it seems that you are arguing the current patent process. That means it needs to be changed not abolished.

Software inventions are the same thing as physical inventions and dserve the same accord. I have an idea: I need to do XYZ...well I do not know how to do XYZ...someone comes up with a piece of software that does XYZ....why can't they patent the process? For example: we know that a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Now lets say we want to implement that into a program for a product - but we do not know how to. So a company figures out how to do this. Why can't they patent the process? They are not patenting the pythag formula, they are patenting a process that helps utilize the formula.

Re:glad to see

[Halo1]

You need to differentiate between proper patents that do apply, and ones that abuse the rules.

Apart from the fact that they are software patents, the patents on webshop.ffii.org are not abusing the rules. Patent law simply cannot differentiate between "great" and "stupid" innovations. To quote a deputy director of the UK Patent Office: 'it's very difficult to persuade programmers that just because an invention is "easy", does not make it any less patentable.'

Loopholes in the law do not mean the law should be destroyed - it means it should be fixed.

We're not destroying any law. Software patents are currently generally not enforceable in Europe. The other side is introducing them. They have to prove (or at least convincingly show) that within the current framework, software patents are beneficial.

If this means that they first have to find that magical fix for increasing the quality of granted patents to unknown heights, which has been promised forever now, then let them do so first. We've been doing perfectly fine without software patents, it does not make sense to introduce a broken system with the promise that if it ever gets fixed, it might have good effects.

Re:glad to see

[cpt kangarooski]

that's not a crazy idea

Oh yes it is.

For starters the idea of a natural copyright is in direct and total opposition to the somewhat better idea of a natural right to free speech. And it gets worse from there, particularly in that all the moral rights countries are hypocritical and allow the rights they're talking about to lapse, etc.

I would love to see the idea of natural copyrights totally die out. I would immediately do the jig of happiness.

without turning a copy over to the National Archives

Library of Congress. And also for a time, the Smithsonian.

The National Archives fall under NARA, and that's a seperate entity.

Re:glad to see

[legirons]

There's a meeting with the DTI / Patent Office tomorrow morning in London, if anyone has any good questions regarding UK Software Patents, then post them here and I'll ask.

Note: UK-specific questions only, stuff relating to the "Computer Implemented Inventions Directive"

Re:glad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem. ***War & Peace Alert***

The patent system was created to encourage inventors to do two things:

1. Share their ideas with other people.
2. Still invent things, having told everyone else how to make their new invention.

The idea was that an invention could cost a lot to make. It would take months/years of costly research & deveopment to come up with a working invention, and the government wanted that invention to be easily available & mass-produced. So the patent system offered the inventor a limited-time govenment-endorsed monopoly on their invention, in return for them making the details of the invention public. This served both purposes above: it made the details public, so that other inventors could see the new invention and potentially be inspired themselves (thus making something even better), and it enabled the inventor to legally control the production of the invention, and to have a guaranteed revenue stream from it - either by licensing other companies to produce it, or by refusing that license & selling it themselves.

This system was implemented because it was seen that sharing ideas helped foster innovation by breeding creativity. However, simply sharing ideas could leave an inventor with nothing - after a large company swoops down & takes the idea & sells you out of the market you invented.

With software, the burden on inventors is lifted somewhat; it doesn't cost thousands/millions of dollars to invent the scrollbar-- it takes someone a moment to realize it & then a while to code it. In a large company, the people who do this wouldn't be working there unless their company could already afford to pay them, so essentially the company is getting the invention for free. In the case of a small software startup, then computers are pretty much required anyway. Writing one patentable algorithm or another doesn't have additional costs associated with it.
I'm probably not making the point in a terribly clear manner, but what I'm trying to point out is that an algorithm (i.e. a patentable software method) does not require vast outlay, and therefore a possible lack of return on that outlay is not high enough to dissuade a person from sitting at his/her computer & writing a new algorithm. As such, the patent system is not (unlike real inventions) necessary to guarantee that good inventions are made in the software world. It is *not* a hard slog to generate a return on investment for computer software, since the manufacturing/distribution costs are minimal compared to those of, say, a refrigerator (especially if you're not making/shipping CDs, but simply offering a product for download).

Also, the term for patents is geared towards hardware manufacturers needing to recoup a potentially very heavy investment, and does not take into account the very small amount of time it takes for one software invention to build upon advances made by others.

The current patent term in the US is seventeen years, I believe. And that's seventeen years from the date he patent is issued, not filed/requested. It can take potentially years for a patent to be actually issued (quite likely due to the absolutely vast number of patents being applied for at the moment), at which point it grants a legal monopoly for seventeen years.

The computer technology field (and software in particular) is innovating at a phenomenal rate. Just look at the advances in video compression for example. Just how long could all that have been held up by someone with a patent on the Fast Fourier Transform algorithm, who was unwilling to let anyone else use it, or who charged so much that new software companies can't hope to pay for it?

You mention Joe Schmoe in his garage, inventing something. Upon what was that invention based? There are *so many* software patents out there that even the big companies like Microsoft can't be aware of them all. I mean after all, they're getting sued for patent infringement as much as anyone else (if not more). When Sun Micros

Re:glad to see

[AnotherBlackHat]

Not all patents are wrong...

All patents grant the holder a monopoly on an idea.
The purpose of that monopoly is impeeding manufacture.
It has been argued that the means (monopoly) are justified by the ends (increased innovation) but never the less, all patents have this kernel of badness within them.

-- Should you believe authority without question?

Re:glad to see

[squiggleslash]

Even if you want software patents, 20 years for software is insane. 20 years ago we were just inventing personal computers with GUIs. Internet time is traditionally, what, a month a year? 12 times as fast? Software patents should, if they exist at all, last 2 years, not 20. (And by the time you've gone through the patent process, half that time is over anyway, so they seem rather poin tless.)

Ok, call me dumb if you like, but I'm trying to work out who benefits ("us", developers, independent developers, etc) from this regime? Do we see products developed that wouldn't have been otherwise? Do we not see products damaged as certain avenues, for example in Free Software, are locked out for the use of certain technologies in this two year time span? Do the "first developers" (the people who discover the technology first) have time enough to exploit?

I just don't see how this isn't the worst of all worlds.

Fundamentally, if someone proposes to allow patents to exist in a particular sphere, that someone must come up with reasons to show that (a) such patents are necessary because substantial innovation is not happening, (b) such patents would not generally harm existing innovation efforts, except by an amount so small as to be heavily outweighed by (a), and (c) the sphere allows methods and technologies to be identified that clearly are patented, and will not usually result in people violating patents by accident. In general, we do this by proposing patents be "non-obvious", but it's not always obvious what non-obvious means.

In my view, while all three of the above justifications need to be present to argue there's a reasonable case for patenting, not one of those justifications stands up in the sphere of software, and arguably a case cannot be made for (a) and (c) when it comes to business methods.

People should have more latitudes to use patents for themselves, whereas people selling the 'method' need to pay for it. (And it's easier to keep track of the people selling the method, anyway.) People should definately have the ability, if a device that embodies a patent method, that they purchased, breaks, to build their own device that uses the patented method. (I'm thinking along the lines of patented file formats, for one thing.)

That seems reasonable.

Re:glad to see

[Daniel]

Would someone please explain to me (logically, not emotionally) what is wrong with a patent? What is wrong with someone saying "this is my product, and if you want to use it you gotta play by my rules"

It's hard to do that until you give a logical justification for a patent. The only one I see in your post is that it's nice for inventors to have patents. And, of course, that's absolutely true. But we don't (theoretically, anyway) make laws just because some random individual wants them. Otherwise, I could go outside and say "this is my street, and if you want to use it you gotta play by my rules."

Most justifications of patents that I see take one of two forms:

(1) it's "fair" to the inventor. This is essentially an appeal to emotion. It may or may not be justified, but it's almost impossible to refute logically, because there's no logical grounding for it; it's just assumed to be true. [0]

(2) having patents encourages the development and disclosure of new technology. This argument is the legal basis for patents in the US (which are permitted in the Constitution only "to promote the progress of science and useful arts").

(2) can be logically debated, because it separates patents from the principles underlying them. ie: you can argue about whether patents encourage the development of new technology, and whether this is sufficient to outweigh their downsides. If patents don't encourage the development of technology, according to this argument, they should not be granted. Furthermore, you can make this argument based on empirical factual information, not just general feelings about what's "right".

Unfortunately, you seem to be arguing (1), which means it's very difficult to even address this on a logical level in a way you would find convincing.

All of this is assuming logic will change anyone's mind. In my experience, it almost never does. If people's beliefs come into conflict with logic, they twist the logic instead of changing their beliefs.

Daniel

[0] You can try a counter-assertion: "it's perfectly fair to not have patents", but this doesn't really produce any basis for an argument; as Monty Python said, it's just contradiction.

Basically the only way to defeat this would be to show that patents violate some other tenet of "fairness". Unfortunately, this sort of argument never terminates due to differing (and sometimes shifting) definitions of "fairness".

Re:glad to see

[AviLazar]

My arguement is not that its "fair" in terms of nice. My arguement is that the person needs to be able to control their creation the way they deem fit - why? Because they invented and it is their choice. If someone does not like their choice - someone can opt not to use it. Also, since software is easily reproduceable, they need laws that help protect those who do not want to make it freeware. They need laws that allows a person to make money if he so pleases. It is not an emotional appeal - it is a logical and a realist appeal. Those who want everything to be open source and free are being ridiculous - considering our society is not like that. Why is a car manufacturer more entitled to making money on his product then someone who makes a game? Arguing because the car is physical is illogical. We can pay the car manufacturer the costs of the material - and nothing else (labor). Or how about when I go to the mechanic to fix my car I only pay him for the parts but not the labor. It is an =-idealist-= notion, but not a realistic one.

But you are right, there is nobody on here who is going to convince me that a programmer should not be able to patent/copyright - lock down - protect and charge whatever he wants for his software. (mind you I am not talking about the idiots who try and patent things that they did not invent, i am talking about legitimate works).

Re:glad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

in grade school we were discussing human tendencies to do the same thing without any connections (i.e. the Egyptian pyramids and Aztec pyramids).

Silly - that's no coincidence, it's just that the same aliens were helping both civilisations.

(Cheerfully sits back and waits for the inevitable "informative" moderations.)

Re:glad to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents are not the only means of ensuring that a programmer can make money for their work. They can simply write it, compile it, and sell it. Since you mention games companies, well, this is what they already *do*. Bioware don't have a patent on Knights of the Old Republic, they have copyrights.

Software is protected by copyright law. If I write a program which is functionally identical to iTunes, and has a similar interface to iTunes, then I'm liable to have Apple come after me with a copyright lawsuit, on the grounds that I've copied their program. I don't have to copy the actual source code text, I just have to see a program & then re-implement it identically, then sell it as my own work. That's a copyright infringement, because I just copied their work. Okay, it's more involved than that, but you see what I mean.

The copyright argument wouldn't apply if my program had substantial gains over iTunes, such as new features and capabilities, and yet maintained the iTunes-style interface for my customers' ease of use. However, in the world of patents, I could still be forced to stop selling my competing product. If it seemed similar to something patented in Apple's [hypothetical] 'iTunes' patent, then they could stop me selling my version.

This can happen because patents don't cover your implementation, they cover your idea (well, in *software* they cover the idea, which is why a lot of people are simply against 'idea patents'). So, even though my iTunes application is a lot better than Apple's, and has more fanatical users, I'm still in violation of a patent and can get sued out of business. Apple doesn't have to make iTunes any better to compete with my product. They just need a patent which describes a list of songs & a method of browsing them. If my software does that, in the method described in the patent, then I'm out of luck.

When people talk about companies like MS patenting all sorts of stuff, this is what they see. A company establishes a niche, and patents it. Then they needn't innovate & give the consumer better software any more, they can just 'tax' their competitors (or scare them out of the market). That will keep the money rolling in nicely. It also seems a lot more scary when the 'invention' is (for example) the MS Word file format. It's perfectly fine for MS to decide who gets to use that format. If they decide that *no-one* other than themselves is allowed to do so, and concurrently decide that they'll remove (or just cripple) support for other formats in Word, is that still good & fair? Suddenly, *everyone* must use Microsoft Word?

The theory there goes that everyone will switch to something else. But it's honestly not that simple. It'll just end up with OpenOffice, Apple's TextEdit, WordPerfect, and so on, being unable to read/write documents created by Word. Not unless they want the MS patent lawyers knocking on their door.

The idea that an inventor can control the use/dissemination of their product is a nice ideal, but it assumes that the world is simpler thanit really is. The patents last for 17 years in the US. So, a company can patent something, watch it become ubiquitous over the next five years -- and *then* hit folks with their patents for the next twelve.

If you could show me a software patent which has truly helped a company sell its product, where it would not have been able to do so without a patent.... well.... then we'll see...

-Jim

Re:glad to see

[jafac]

It's simple.

The Constitution said:
"To Promote the Useful Arts And Sciences"

THAT is what Patents are for. Not to guarantee someone profit, or even an ROI for R&D costs.

IMNSHO, if it doesn't PROMOTE innovation, a Patent or Copyright should NOT be granted.

And if it doesn't do so for a USEFUL Art or Science, also, a Patent or Copyright should NOT be granted.

PERIOD.

It's clear to me, from the language in the Constitution that the purpose of Patents and Copyrights is to benefit the public.

Re:glad to see

[cpt kangarooski]

Just to clarify for those reading at home:

Patents promote the useful arts, while copyrights promote science. This only seems odd due to the fact that the meanings of those words has shifted since the constitution was written in 1789. Some echos of this still remain, particularly with regards to patents, as technologies can be 'state of the art,' and many standards hinge on the behavior or knowledge of a 'person having ordinary skill in the art.'

Please feel free to consult your pocket-sized unabridged Oxford English Dictionaries for further information.

Re:glad to see

[bar-agent]

Heh. I have gained all new respect for the French.

Re:glad to see

[bar-agent]

Miss Scarlet: "No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring. Like all members of the oldest profession, I'm a capitalist..."

I think this accurately sums up the philosophy of the average Chinaman. See, they talk the talk of communism, but they sure as hell don't walk the walk.

Re:glad to see

[Grishnakh]

Economically, no they don't. But for civil liberties, they're definitely totalitarian. Being able to buy crap isn't worth much when you can't speak your mind.

Re:glad to see

[Vale of Shadow]

This stuff makes my blood boil. I thought of an equivalent analogy to help non-tech people understand what is really wrong with this system Suppose the government bowed to the pressure of some corporations and decided to hold a land rush in your home town. Anybody who could afford to hire several lawyers to go and physically stake a claim, fill out a lot of paperwork and pay a small fee, would be given title deed to as many lots as they liked, regardless of: the current owners now disputed deeds; buildings they owned on said land; years spent in residence; improvements made on land; and cash value of property stolen by political and legal maneuvering. This process can be perpetrated secretly and will only be brought to your attention when the new owner files suit against you for trespassing on "their" property. The only way to stop the theives from throwing you out on the street after they've sued you for damages to "their" property is to hire numerous lawyers to prove that Kodak film, Smuckers jam, or some other firm currently guilty of extorting money from smaller firms and individuals has never had any interest in your home. Good luck outlasting them in court. If you manage to make it through the months of trial and lose, you'll still be out on the street. After all they followed legal proceedings to steal your property from you, and were successful just because it happens to be similar to some other property they've already acquired.

Re:glad to see

[feargal]

The patents system is an artificial mechanism intended to encourage inventors by granting a monopoly to inventors, in return for their disclosure to society of how the invention works.

As my post laid out, software inventions are not the same as physical inventions. Most new software 'inventions' are not truly inventive, they are merely first implementations. At the end of the day, all programming reduces to giving a different set of limited instructions to the machine. As such, the percentage of software problems which require real innovative thought is relatively small. Sure, game engines get better and better every year, but that is largely made possible by the underlying hardware advances. Due to this, most software should fail the 'non-obvious' requirement for the granting of a patent.

Re:glad to see

[tricorn]

Isn't the counterpart to that "if you don't want someone else to use your invention, don't tell anyone about it"? Why should you be able to prevent me from doing something? I'm not making YOU do something.

In the case of the car manufacturer or the mechanic, if they don't MAKE ME THE CAR or FIX MY CAR, it doesn't get done. I can't force them to do it, so I pay them money as an inducement. With patents, they also get to tell me that I can't build or fix my own car, even though my building or fixing my own car doesn't require ANYTHING from them.

To carry the patent idea further, why doesn't the person who made your toilet get a license fee every time you flush it? Why should ideas be different in that respect, allowing you to continue getting money without doing anything else? Ideas are certainly different, as they can be replicated without limit and with almost no cost, but that would point to the price of an idea approaching zero in a free market without the coercion of a patent.

I do in fact think that patents have some use, but that many software patents, business method patents, and (some types of) biotech patents are not warranted.

Re:glad to see

[feargal]

Yeah, that's true, but one battle at a time...

There is still a case to argue for the inventor who would otherwise be swallowed up without a patent, but that is a rarity, and in software, (possibly others) won't provide the protection in the first place.

And let's not even get into patents on vaccines and other medication...

What does amuse me is that while we are (mostly) moving away from national protectionism, corporate protectionism grows as each day passes.

Re:glad to see

[AviLazar]

Why can't the person who made you your toilet charge you each time you use it? Because he didn't have you sign a license agreement to do so. Why didn't he? Because you would tell him to go to hell and find osmeone else. Nothing is preventing him from creating such a contract. Next time you go buy a program - if they want to charge you each time you turn it on - tell them no you dont want to buy it. Simple...however, if you want to use the program that bad - fork over the cash and agree to the contract

Re:glad to see

[DavidTC]

I agree with you with software patents being pointless, I was just saying, even if they weren't, they should only be around for two years.

Which, yes, like I said, would be a completely idiotic timeframe for patents in the first place. Leaving them in place is just for twits who think they're a good idea...it's saying Okay, but since software development is so fast, your patent will be corrospondingly shorter.

Re:glad to see

[Daniel]

My arguement is that the person needs to be able to control their creation the way they deem fit - why? Because they invented and it is their choice.

And that was my point: once you assume this, all else falls into place, and as this is essentially a belief (aka an axiom; ie, something you accept as fundamental without proof), arguments against it are guaranteed to lead to lots of hot air and not much else -- at least, not in the short term on a Web forum.

Daniel

Re:glad to see

[gmknobl]

Just for the record, Clinton was a centerist who was bamboozled by activist conservative republicans. If it weren't for them, we wouldn't have the DMCA anyway. Clinton was just trying to work with what he had and reach consensus. Because the conservatives never want to truly compromise, we went too far to the right on many, many issues.

One of these issues was civil rights that is abridged by the DMCA. Software patents is a continuation of this trend. I do not see this changing anytime soon because we now have a Conservative and even Neo-Conservative majority (not simply Republican). More changes will be made that will continue to abridge our civil rights, make money for large corporations, take money away from the middle class, remove services from the lower incomes and the public in general and ruin the environment just to make money.

I have strayed and will probably get modded down because of it but my on subject point is this: Software Patents play right into the hands of robber-barons who can more easily abuse people by buying up companies and suing other companies because they now "own the patent" thus stifling innovation. Sound familiar Linux users?

Re:glad to see

[Bastard of Subhumani]

I vaguely know the joke but actually it's an allusion to some former Swiss colleagues, who were (probably still are) a total bunch of asshats, every last one of them.

How their trains are so punctual I'll never know; I suspect they outsourced the running of them to someone who actually has a clue. Each.

Silly question...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the governments decide "we will not have software patents" then how can a group go "yes we're having software patents"? It's not like they can enforce them without legal backing.

It's like me making a law that anyone who comes within 150ft of my house owes me $2.50 for every occurrence, and then sending out bills. It might sound impressive and I might write some really nice legalspeak to go with it, but when it comes to collecting the people I bill can just go "piss off"

Re:Silly question...

[Lonewolf666]

The problem is that the majority of the EU governments has not decided "we will not have software patents".
The parliament has said so, but it has not quite the clout it should have in a democratic country.
It can still vote the proposed guideline down, which might result in no EU_wide rule about software patents at all.
But the parliament lacks the power to make laws on its own, which is probably the greatest flaw in the power structure of the EU. If it had that power, this year's decision would be final and the patent lobby would have lost for the forseeable future.

Re:Silly question...

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

"But the parliament lacks the power to make laws on its own, which is probably the greatest flaw in the power structure of the EU. If it had that power, this year's decision would be final and the patent lobby would have lost for the forseeable future."

So your solution to rampant government power is... to give the government more power! Brilliant!

Seriously, though, if this were done, what would happen when a pro-patent Parliament is elected? Then you would probably be clamoring for Parliament to be stripped of its right to make laws.

The best solution, it seems to me, would be to simply decide to leave patent legislation up to the member states. That way, the EU can have its cake and eat it too, so to speak.

Re:Silly question...

[vidarh]

You miss the point that the EU is not a country. It is a union of countries, which is still something fairly new. As a result the EU has a lot of parallel power structures: national parliaments, the council (consisting of ministers of the member countries) which represents the interests of the governments of the member states, the comission (appointed by the national parliaments) which is the EU's executive branch - like a cabinet of sorts, and the EU parliament which is the closest you get to a "federal" government.

Since the EU is a union of countries, not of subordinate states, many decisions which in a federation like the US would be taken by the parliament is taken by the council as representatives of their respective governments.

It's a result of the problems of getting a lot of different sovereign governments to agree on how to give up power.

As EU matures and integrates tighter, hopefully the parliament will manage to wrestle more power away from the Council as the justification for the power of the Council will become smaller, but that's not going to come easy.

Re:Silly question...

[Halo1]

So your solution to rampant government power is... to give the government more power! Brilliant!

No, to redistribute the power.

Seriously, though, if this were done, what would happen when a pro-patent Parliament is elected? Then you would probably be clamoring for Parliament to be stripped of its right to make laws.

No. The reason we want more power for the parliament is that it's the only part of the EU that's directly elected. They are also the most transparent part, the most responsive part and the most easily reachable part (by "common" people). And there's 732 of them, which automatically gives you a more diverse bunch (at least with political diversity we have in Europe).

Re:Silly question...

[vidarh]

No, his solution is to transfer the power from the Council, which consists of the sitting cabinets of the member countries, to the directly elected EU parliament.

It would have a profound impact, because the Council's make up depends on election systems that in many important countries favors the large established parties, followed up by the process of choosing the cabinets, which means that the Council is highly unrepresentative of the general political landscape in the EU.

The Council is an artefact of the EU being a union of countries that are not subordinate to the union and where the executive power of the countries are each held by the cabinets - it isn't designed to be a democratic institution. It is designed to be a way for member governments to agree on common policy.

Leaving patent legislation up to the member states wouldn't really solve anything - it would mean companies would face the cost of dealing with different policies in 25 different countries, and it would mean open source projects would have to deal with 25 potentially different approaches.

Re:Silly question...

[upside]

Wrong.

The EU has X amount of power right now, and remains X. It's a question of who controls the EU, the parliament, the commission or the council of ministers.

The democratically elected parliament is a better option than an anonymous elite of bureaucrats, IMHO.

Re:Silly question...

[Moderatbastard]

Seriously, though, if this were done, what would happen when a pro-patent Parliament is elected? Then you would probably be clamoring for Parliament to be stripped of its right to make laws.

At least we'd have to power to elect a different one - something we only have very indirectly with the council & not at all with the commission.

Re:Silly question...

[wtrmute]

You miss the point that the EU is not a country. It is a union of countries, which is still something fairly new. (...)

You'd think so, but there's actually a prior example on this whole "union of countries" deal. They formed a common parliament, decided on a common currency, foreign policy, etc., just like the EU today.

But the problem was that some of the member states had some pretty strong views on some issues, while some others had the opposite view, and were adamant about it, too. Meanwhile, the supranational government did a great show of staying put on top of the wall in the middle, and they just basically let things fester until some of the countries decided they couldn't stay in that union any longer.

Then, of course, the supranational government decided they couldn't do that and sent the common defense force to beat the rogue members back into submission. After that, all of the member states found they could do less and less, as their sovereignty withered away.

What's the moral of this story? Firstly, you can learn a lot studying History. Secondly, if it's the EU's destiny to end up like that, they would do well to make the transition voluntary and relatively painless, rather than waiting for the weight of inevitability to drag it into some Frankensteinian half-country-half-bloc bureaucracy.

Re:Silly question...

[vidarh]

Yes and no, the US started out as a confederation, but as soon as the constitution was ratified the US became a federation.

The Articles of Confederation established an extremely loose confederation with less integration than even pre-Maastricht treaty EU (or the EC as would have been the correct name at the time). The confederation established for instance had no power to enforce it's decision on the states, and no means of sanctions or power to enforce a common policy on taxation, nor a common legal framework. By the time of the civil war, the US had a well established, though still weak, federal government.

The US was able to go straight to a federation to a large extent because the states wielded limited power to start with, and felt the need for extensive cooperation, and ran into significant limits of the confederation.

Confederations have existed for a long time, but the EU is different because of the sheer scale, and because it is arising from mature, well established democracies with strong governments instead of weak feudal states or early stage democracies.

It's worth taking note, though, that Congress as a result of the Articles of Confederation in many ways mirrored the structure of the EU Council - it was a unicameral legislature with representatives appointed by the state legislatures and number of delegates weighted by size. As such the EU already have a more representative system than pre-Constitution US by having gradually delegated more and more power to the EU parliament.

I think that the way things are moving, a federation will happen at some point, but that will be far off (as in several decades at least) because it will require the national governments to accept a massive reorganisation in favor of the EU parliament and commission (EU's "cabinet"), and away from the council and the national governments to have any chance of getting support of their electorates.

One of the problems of the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not democratic enough, and "the people" feel too far away from their MEPs. I don't even know who my MEPs are, I did politics for 2 years (I also got a D in that subject though...).

I fear it's going to make it through, undemocratically.

Yet more proof the EU is in a total state of chaos, in so many ways, it's scary.

Re:One of the problems of the EU

[Epeeist]

> I don't even know who my MEPs are, I did politics for 2 years (I also got a D in that subject though...).

I know mine. Unfortunately, one of them is Arlene McCarthy. What a Labour MEP is doing supporting this legislation is baffling, though she is a keen suppporter of our corporation loving Prime Minister.

Lobbys

[FiReaNGeL]

God I love lobbys... they always succeed at promoting the interest of 5 companies to politicians and make them forget that they're supposed to legislate for the good of millions (their electors).

You gotta admit that its a tour-de-force that they're pulling on us year after year.

Why are they legal in the first place? Politicians (human beings) + Money = possibility for Corruption, isn't it?

Re:Lobbys

[bhima]

amazing isn't it! I love this quote from TFA: Laura Creighton, software entrepreneur, venture capitalist and vice-president of FFII, comments:

"Before today it was possible for generous people to look charitably at this text as an example of a tragic mistake, not malice. But not with this last-minute maneuvering. Only the most committed opponent to the democratic process would believe that the proper response to the widespread consensus that there is something profoundly wrong with the Council's text, is to race it through with an A-item approval the week before Christmas in a Fisheries Council Meeting. The bad smell coming from Brussels has nothing to do with the fish."

Re:Lobbys

[t_allardyce]

Why are they legal in the first place? Politicians (human beings) + Money = possibility for Corruption, isn't it?

Because Politicians + Money = Corruption, therefore Corruption + Suggestion of stopping bribery = No Can Do. Also if you get into power the chances of becoming corrupt increase exponentially: Probability = Money^(Power). Its a bad system and the only way to stop it is to get into power and start making some of that lovely money - you'll soon forget about all this corruption bull-crap.

Re:Lobbys

[Anonymous Coward]

I certainly understand the sentiment that lobbys suck and can do bad things, but it's important that they are legal. Consider a lobby formed by 100,000 private citizens trying to convince their lawmakers to fund wind energy research.

Sure, each of them could spend 30 minutes writing a letter to their lawmaker, but shouldn't they be able to all donate $15 and send a single, well-spoken member to make their point in-person? And what then is the difference between this single member of the group and a professional lobbiest?

And what happens when one rich, man spends $200,000 and 2 weeks "lobbying" for his issue of the day, using only his private funds and time? Certainly we can't stop private citizens from spending their own time and money to bring their issues to the attention of their lawmakers. And shouldn't our 100,000 friends of wind power be allowed to do the same sort of thing? Individually they could not, but collectively they could easily match the time and money put forth by the rich man.

Re:Lobbys

[Anonymous Coward]

1 * $200,000 != 100,000 * $2

Re:Lobbys

[NardofDoom]

The top 2% of the population controls 80% of the wealth. If wealth was more fairly distributed, I'd agree with you.

Bill Gates' net worth is ~$29.5 billion. Let's assume he'll use half of that to ensure that Microsoft keeps its software dominance, because that means a jump in stock price and more money for him in the long run. That's about $15 billion or $11.3 billion euro. To match that kind of lobbying money, every man, woman and child in the EU (That's all 306.9 million of them) would have to contribute 36.49 EUR.

But how many people in the EU honestly care about software patents? 1%? Maybe? So that means that 1% (3.069 million) would have to contribute 3,649.87 EUR or $4,843.03 USD. That's 1/6 of what I make in a year.

This estimate doesn't include other software companies that stand to gain from patents, like Apple, Real, PeopleSoft, Adobe, and Macromedia, not to mention thousands of other vendors that are going to throw their considerable weight behind this.

In a democracy, or even a republic, all people are created equal, and have equal say in government. Our voice is our vote. But once you start bringing lobbyists into this, you remove equality. People with more money have more access and influence. They're "more equal" than others.

Re:Lobbys

[Ocrad]

And what happens when one rich, man spends $200,000 and 2 weeks "lobbying" for his issue of the day, using only his private funds and time? Certainly we can't stop private citizens from spending their own time and money to bring their issues to the attention of their lawmakers.

Someone said it before; "Democracy sucks. 51% of people can legally dispossess to the other 49% of their properties, and even of their lives". With lobbies it only sucks more. One man alone (with the help of lawmakers) can dispossess to the rest of the people of their property.

I can't understand why a free man have to obey unjust laws. Only slaves have to obey. If the only reason to obey is the fear of punishment, then what is the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship?

Yes, I am european, and a possible martyr of software patents thanks to lobbies.

Re:Lobbys

[Relic of the Future]

Both of your examples bring up an interesting point. What's wrong with a group of private citizens influencing their government? Nothing. What's wrong with a single, wealthy, private citizen influencing their government? Nothing. The problem is when corporations legal entitities that can own property, go to court, and control vast ammounts of money but can't vote influence the citizen's government.

Sigh.

[nativespeaker]

I really don't know what to think anymore. What has happened to democracy? Corporations seem to hold sway over the political arena with utter exclusivity these days. How could free speech have been replaced so easily with corporate lobbying? I say that if Microsoft wants their damn patents so badly, they drag a soap carton out to the public park.

It pains me to see Europe slipping down the same slope. Learn from our folly, yeah?

Re:Sigh.

[adeydas]

there was this site propagating against this issue... any one remember what it was?!

Re: Sigh.

[Alwin Henseler]

"I really don't know what to think anymore."

Son: Dad, I have to choose what to study next year, and I think I want to become a software engineer. You think that would be a cool job?

Dad: Yes, son, but did you hear that software patents got passed in the EU last year?

Son: Yes, I heard. So I'd better study to become a lawyer then, eh?

Dad: Yeah, not so cool a job, but one day it'll buy you a bigger house than ours, son.

Re:Sigh.

[mikers]

Sigh, Sigh, sigh... "Any idiot can face a crisis - it's the day-to-day living that wears you out." - Checkov.

In case you didn't notice, most "modern" democracies are just feudalism in disguise. Does the fact that politicians wear... Business Suites maybe clue you in? Or how about that in the US all leaders are the ridiculously rich? Or that money == power in these countries? The new feudalism is business owners == the land owing aristocrats, peasants == employees!! Ever noticed you can't get rich being an employee? Unless you run a big ass company, or wait... Own a business.

And government is just there to cater to business, not the "people". Once in 4 years the peasants have a chance to elect someone from a tiny little rich group. We have no recourse if we elect a lier or looser. The government is open every day for lobbyists and the rich and powerful, but only once every four years for everyone else.

This is modern democracy for you, this is what the US wants everywhere in the world, including the EU. Because they are the richest, they will rule it. Via the wealthy, via the big corporations.

See Noam Chomsky for some more enlightenment.

Re:Sigh.

[Anonymous Coward]

The rule of law is an illusion designed to make the weak think they play by the same rules as the strong.

Re:Sigh.

[fuyu-no-neko]

Our politicians have learnt from the folly of America. Unfortunately, the lesson they've learnt is that if you pamper the corporations, you'll get a big fat christmas bonus :o/
</cynic>

Re:Sigh.

[jimicus]

In the UK, many years ago, politicians frequently held other jobs, or got into politics through having strong beliefs in something. The "old" Labour (supposedly Socialist, but hasn't been in some years) party was a good example of this.

Apparently, some people weren't happy because they were concerned that the politicians were being too distracted by their day jobs to help run the country.

So now we have politicians who are no more than full time politicians, with little or no experience in doing anything else. Previously, it wasn't a disaster, personally speaking, if their political career collapsed. They'd still have something to fall back on.

However, when you're only qualified to do one job, it makes sense to pour all your work-time resources into that job. Specifically, into whatever makes money. Such efforts may be recognised by promotion, and even if they're not you've helped ensure the organisation has money to pay your wages.

So now, as a politician, your job is twofold:

1. Influence the next round of elections as best you can.
2. Ensure that money continues to roll in through whatever means.

The General Public don't make generous political donations. Companies do.

The price of freedom..

[Sanity]

..is eternal vigilance.

The anti-patent lobby in the EU has achieved great things, but the pro-patent lobby is extremely determined even in the face of a clear democratic mandate against software patents in the European and many national Parliaments. They know the system, they seem to have the support of many unelected Eurocrats, and they can and will exploit every possible loophole to legalise the over 30,000 illegally granted patents in the EU. This is yet another example of this.

The important thing is to keep up the pressure. When this topic has come up on /. in the past, there are always a few nohopers, who think any opposition to software patents is futile and we may as-well give up. These defeatists are the greatest allies of the pro-patent lobby, and they are wrong, as what progress we have made has demonstrated.

In short, keep fighting, don't give up, we have won a number of battles, but the war is far from over.

Re:The price of freedom..

[Albanach]

This is a good point, but seriously do keep up the fight.

If you live in the EU, drop another quick email to your MEP and national parliamentarians. It doesn't have to be a long rant against patents - just point out the massive opposition, the threat to jobs and the duplicity of voting on software patents at an environment or fisheries meeting without even a vote.

In the UK there will likely be a general election next year. Contact your MP now it costs nothing bar a few minutes of your time. You can get contact details for your MEP here.

Re:The price of freedom..

[Master Of Ninja]

Done the FaxYourMp thing already, but it seems that the EU parliament website is really not set up to make it easy to find your MEP at all. Any suggestions on how to go about this?

Suggest that anybody with 10 minutes go now to faxyourmp, and write a letter about this. Every little step to support the cause. Include a link to this ZDNet UK article if you need backup.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,3918 07 05,00.htm

Re: The price of freedom..

[Alwin Henseler]

we have won a number of battles, but the war is far from over.

The war never ends, it's only lost when people give up. Many people view struggles like this as a one-shot effort, that will take years, but when it passes into law, all is lost. I don't believe so.

With opposing political views, the only long-term stable situation is one that fluctuates around the middle. Whenever it moves in one direction, the opposing forces become stronger.

Take the currently unpopular government in the Netherlands (see recent Slashdot article for example), led by prime minister Balkenende. The more unpopular choices they make, the bigger their losses at the next election, and opposition parties will then move things back in the reverse direction.

If software patents pass into law, and negative effects become obvious, it would reinforce the anti-software-patent movement, and increase support to scrap software patents at a later time. The slow legislation process only makes, that much time passes before a 'final' decision is made, and unfortunate choices take a long time to correct.

As you said, the main point is to keep on fighting for what you believe in, and never give up.

Re:The price of freedom..

[Halo1]

Done the FaxYourMp thing already, but it seems that the EU parliament website is really not set up to make it easy to find your MEP at all. Any suggestions on how to go about this?

See here (for the UK at least, others simply can go here and click on their country's flag to get their list of MEPs).

Re: The price of freedom..

[Sanity]

If software patents pass into law, and negative effects become obvious, it would reinforce the anti-software-patent movement, and increase support to scrap software patents at a later time.

Perhaps, but in the mean time consider the incalculable damage that will have been done. This is the best possible time to prevent the introduction of software patents, if they do make it in to law then getting rid of them will be many times more difficult.

Re:The price of freedom..

[KontinMonet]

If in the UK, write also to:

Lord Sainsbury of Turville
Undersecretary of State for Science and Innovation
DTI
1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET

He seems to think buzzphrases such as "computer-implemented invention" means all is OK. This buzzphrase is actually EPO code for "'pure' software invention". He and all our MEPs and commissioners should be made aware of this fact. He is aware, however, that business process patents are a bad idea. Keep up the pressure!

Re:The price of freedom..

[replicant108]

Relevant contact info for people in the UK:

http://www.ukrep.be/representatives.html

It might be helpful if slashdotters from other countries can dig up and post similar info.

Re:The price of freedom..

[iabervon]

Considering the clear mandate against software patents, shouldn't the EU Parliament be able to go on the offensive against software patents? Pass a bill making it fraud to charge someone with infringing a patent with software. Criminalize and prosecute ownership of the existing software patents and any future ones, legally grants or otherwise. It's very difficult in a complex government system to prevent something from being passed by well-funded and sneaky groups, but it's also difficult to prevent a majority with a mandate from getting something else passed.

Re:The price of freedom..

[replicant108]

Here's the contact info for Ireland:

http://www.hillandknowlton.be/irish_presidency/per mrep.html

Re:The price of freedom..

[seaton carew]

OK, I just emailed my Euro MPs.
You can find out yours from here (it's easier to navigate than the main EU site...)

Re:The price of freedom..

[Anonymous Coward]

The European Parliament can't draft any legislative bills on its own; they can only accept or reject what is proposed to them by the Commission (or send the proposal back with their own suggested changes, which is what the Parliament did last year).

Even disregarding the procedure, legislating against individuals trying to assert or enforce their rights under other existing legislation would be plain stupid, and even dangerous. A patent is a privilege, formally granted by the government. Making it a crime to claim "I have been granted a patent" would be as sensible as criminalizing the statement "I have received a tax exemption", when both statements are in fact true. Don't enter that route, or you'll soon find yourself charged with merely asserting your right to freedom of speech. Fighting the law with more laws is a bad idea.

Re:The price of freedom..

[Anonymous Coward]

A better idea would be to make an appointment, or just show up at the office, and make your point directly. Honestly, does anyone take something sent to them by email or FAX seriously? Doing it that way makes you a faceless individual. Instead consider that visiting the people, shaking their hands, and making your speach heard will have far greater impact. Either that or have a rally outside their door to get yourself on the news to get the message out.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[coopseruantalon]

No matter what. It is always the bureaucrats that get their way. The EU is rotten to the core. Talk about taking the worst from captalism and statecontrol and putting it toghether...

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anspen]

Don't you hate it when you correct a mistake with a mistake? :)

Actually the only institution that can propose legislation is the European Commission. Both the council and the parliament can amend though.

What I'm wondering is how they think to get this past parliament. "sneaking" it into the text or not, the subject is one where the EP has co-decision right. Which means it's shouldn't become law until the EP has voted on it

An editor that checks links?

[WIAKywbfatw]

Truly, Christmas has come early this year!

whining on /. won't help

[Sanity]

You gotta admit that its a tour-de-force that they're pulling on us year after year.

What have you done about these issues? As Edmund Burke said:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

So if you haven't actually tried to do something about this (perhaps by writing to your elected representatives, or donating to organisations that oppose software patents) then you have nobody to blame for this but yourself.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[KontinMonet]

Believe me, some of us have been writing and writing. The trouble is that we are dealing with wholly unelected 'representatives' whose only agenda is their govt puppet masters and industry lobbyists.

But even my elected representative (one of Blair's babes) ignores everything I send [OONA KING!! Yes, you! I hope you are reading this]. Or they are so intellectually challenged that the phrase 'software patent' means something to do with underwear for sick people (so what's all the fuss about?)...

Re:whining on /. won't help

[NardofDoom]

Recently my governor signed a bill that lets Verizon and Comcast decide what communities are worthy of broadband by eliminating the ability for those communities to roll their own solution.

I wrote my governor, signed a petition, and alerted as many other people as I could of this horrible bill. And you know what happened? Our illustrious governor SIGNED THE FUCKING BILL INTO LAW.

Now, if any community wants to roll its own FTTH or wireless mesh network to provide cheap broadband, they have to have paying customers before 2006/1/1 or a letter from Comcast or Verizon saying they aren't planning to provide service. That's right, all these corporations have to do is write a letter saying they're planning on providing service (with no timeframe) and a community can't get broadband themselves. Then they watch their kids move away, their businesses dry up, and their hometown become a ghost town.

So writing a letter or even organizing a protest won't work against lobbyists. Politicians are businessmen, and businessmen speak one language: Money. And when the top 2% of people have 80% of the wealth and own or run most of the corporations, there won't be change without a violent revolution.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[Sanity]

Believe me, some of us have been writing and writing.

As have I. It is rather saddening to see how utterly useless many MPs are, Labour MPs in particular. My MP is Labour, at least he forwarded my letter on to Lord Sainsbury, to which I received a form reply, but he avoided actually taking a position against that of the government, irrespective of the persuasiveness of my arguments.

Sometimes I really wonder why these people bother getting in to politics just to be the puppets of their party whips...

Re:whining on /. won't help

[plague3106]

write a letter saying they're planning on providing service (with no timeframe)

Are you from PA? If so, you may want to actually read the law. If the telco (this excludes comcast, btw) says no to the community, they MUST (by that same law) provide the service within 14 months. That sounds like a time frame to me.

While i agree the telco shouldn't have veto power over something the community wants to do, maybe you should also get all your facts straight.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[NardofDoom]

Thanks for the correction.

But at what speeds? And at what cost? If a community wants to roll out 10Mb symmetric fiber with static IP to every home for $15/month, asks Verizon for permission, and they say "Oh yeah, we'll give them 512/128kbps ADSL with a dynamic IP and bandwidth caps and harsh user agreement for $50/month" how is that fair?

And what determines "provide service" does that mean "start installing the service" does it mean "have one paying customer"??? This whole thing is disgusting.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[IamTheRealMike]

My MEP is none other than Arlene McCarthy herself. You can rest assured I have had correspondence with this democratically elected representative and she totally ignored me, handing back an obnoxious stock email that simply re-iterated some bogus rhetoric and whinged about the nasty people ringing her up to tell her software patents were bad. I don't think she even read my letter, none of the points I made were addressed. She just hit "Send -> Template -> SWPAT Stock Letter 2" or whatever.

Nothing has made me as cynical about politics as that did. Of all the people in the world, I'm supposed to have influence over her living as I do in her constituency, and it turned out that I had just as much influence as somebody living in Mexico.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[Twanfox]

Isn't that really the insulting thing, though? Just read this one section of your post:

If the telco (this excludes comcast, btw) says no to the community

Since when do I, a citizen of the US, have to ask some corporation whether or not I can or cannot do something for my community? Doesn't that seem seriously screwed up to anyone else? I don't even care if I can do it after the corporation tells me no, I should not have to ask some corporation for permission first. I don't even care if, when they respond, they give a timeframe up to 14 months. What penalties are in place if the respond, hold back the development of such a project by the community, and then telco fails to honor the service they said they would provide? Any at all? How much you want to bet it's just a little slap on the wrist if there is one?

I cannot believe how this isn't seen as anticompetitive.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[plague3106]

But at what speeds? And at what cost? If a community wants to roll out 10Mb symmetric fiber with static IP to every home for $15/month, asks Verizon for permission, and they say "Oh yeah, we'll give them 512/128kbps ADSL with a dynamic IP and bandwidth caps and harsh user agreement for $50/month" how is that fair?

I believe the law says 'same service'...so whatever the community proposed, I'd say that VZ would be bound to provide at least that same level of service...but IANAL nor an expert on the law in question.

And what determines "provide service" does that mean "start installing the service" does it mean "have one paying customer"???

Again, I'm not an expert on the law, but I'd assume that the phrase would mean 'customers can sign up for it within 14 months.' Whether or not anyone does i don't think would matter, as long as people can if they choose.

This whole thing is disgusting.

Agreed; I never said i supported the law, but its not as horrible as you were making it out to be either.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[plague3106]

I agree, I don't like the law either. As far as punishments should the telco not live up to its promise, I have no idea. I haven't read the law in question b/c I no longer live in Philly (or PA). So it doesn't really affect me. I suggest you read the law to answer your questions.

It is insulting i think though that we should have to ask a corporation for permission to do something. I totally agree that a community, if it wants to, should be able to provide something to its citizens, regardless of the fact that its a lost investment oppertunity. Some things we have companies to provide to us, and some things we have cities or townships that do. the choice should be the people's though.

I cannot believe how this isn't seen as anticompetitive.

Ironically, thats what VZ argued; that they DO want to provide the same service, and how could they possiblly compete with local municipalities offering the same thing for free (well, funded by taxpayers).

Most people that support VZ though don't have a leg to stand on though. They claim that 'why should everyone have to pay for something only a few might use.' But no one said that the service couldn't fund itself, by billing an amount that can cover operating costs etc. Just like the water and electic companies do now in some places.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[obender]

Does this still apply if you put the service together as a community, that is not make a business out of it?

I don't know much about American laws but I would expect you to have the right to install whatever you want in your homes.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[Sebby]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

When 'evil' is the government or multi-billion-dollar lobbyists, there's not much 'good men' can do without the equivalent power in money.

Read other posts, you'll see that writing to your PM is basically pointless unless you've got a $20000 check in the evelope too (and even then it'll be considered pocket change)

Re:whining on /. won't help

[KontinMonet]

Apart from my MP, I have written to Lord Sainsbury directly and to Tam Dalyell who had the courtesy of replying. I have yet to hear from the DTI. I wrote to all London MEPs and received replies from three. Two of them seemed concerned, one spouted Ms. McCarthy's (?) propaganda. It's a real battle when you are an individual...

Re:whining on /. won't help

[NardofDoom]

Community based FTTH programs have traditionally been run as non-profit entities, partially funded with taxpayer dollars. Verizon didn't like the fact that these utilities didn't pay taxes and didn't have to profit. This meant they could provide much better service at a much lower price, especially for rural users.

Here in PA, the telephone and cable companies are a monopoly, regulated by the public utilities comission. We can install whatever we want in our homes, so long as all cable comes from a specific company or two, and telephone is from a specific company or two, though your carrier is your choice (long distance and local service). Wireless mesh networks are a different story, which is why I want to start one once I settle down.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[NardofDoom]

I read the law, all 98 pages, and the only requirement for "broadband" is 1.544Mbps downstream, 129kbps upstream. If VZ can provide that service, then the community can't provide better service.

Thanks for trying to answer my questions and getting me to read the law. It's a really great example of why we shouldn't let rich old white men write technology laws. People who think 80% rollout of 1544/128kbps broadband by 2010 is "good" shouldn't be allowed to make decisions.

I'll see communities organizing to provide the service themselves (outside of government) around a wireless mesh network model for much less than Verizon or Comcast want to charge.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[danila]

Well, can you arrange a meeting with her in a nice restaurant, claiming that you are a CEO of a large software company that wants to give an anonymous donation to her future election campaign, or invite her to give a lecture at Hawaii or something? Then, when she accepts, just slice her throat. That would be doing something and many people would be proud of you.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[KontinMonet]

Keep at it! Refer to her letter and take extracts (using FFI etc. to help) politely pointing out where she is being a corporate hack and technical idiot.

These politicians rely on you giving up when they reply -and they can safely claim that you must have, by default, agreed with their position because you didn't get back immediately. Keep banging on, be a pain, just having these letters/faxes has a drip-drip effect.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[spyfrog]

Sure, great idea. NOT!
This would only mean that the law would pass instantly to hounor her memory.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[Tom]

she totally ignored me, handing back an obnoxious stock email

Do Not Send E-Mail To Politicians(tm).

You will be ignored. Use the phone, send a snail-mail letter or show up in person. E-Mail by citizen is regarded as spam by most politicians.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[Halo1]

Good news: McCarthy actually seems to be softening her stance! Here's an extract from a speech she gave at a meeting last month of the European Internet Foundation (a politicians-businesses liaisons organisation, but steered entirely by MEPs):

We have had 64 amendments in the EP.

I may not presonally agree with every one of theose amendments, but I think it is important to have those amendments on the table, for the discussion in the second reading.

And I have to say frankly to the commission and the council, that we were not persuaded of having more of the same.

What the EPO does is [...] change that [...] we felt this was an opportunity which the Council and Commission did not take to actually taken up what we do in this area.

There is a possibility we think actually to, if you like, lift the barrier and lift the hurdle, so that we don't have the very legitimate fears that the FFII have, that we drift towards more and more patentability.

The fact that she mentioned FFII in a positive context is huge.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[plague3106]

Thanks for trying to answer my questions and getting me to read the law.

Sure..and now that you're the expert ;-)

the only requirement for "broadband" is 1.544Mbps downstream, 129kbps upstream. If VZ can provide that service, then the community can't provide better service.

I thought it was just to give VZ a first stab at providing broadband. Does it really perclude the community ever offering service? Is it ANY broadband, or just wifi, or just wired?

I read the law, all 98 pages ... It's a really great example of why we shouldn't let rich old white men write technology laws.

Ugh. 98 pages seems a bit much. I chalk this up to 'why we shouldn't let rich old white men write laws.' Personally I think the solution to this and many other problems is to invert the level of power...so that your local gov't has most of it, and the feds have the least. I believe that's how it was supposed to be anyway.

Re:whining on /. won't help

[danila]

Shit! Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anonymous Coward]

But the Council of Ministers often implements (or tries to) the "conclusions" of the European Council.

God, I hate being right...

[grasshoppa]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130588&cid=108 97528
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130588& cid=108 98022

Re:God, I hate being right...

[The MESMERIC]

well God took mercy and made your links wrong.

Re:God, I hate being right...

[Halo1]

Don't worry, it's still far from over. You'll still get plenty of chances to refer back to those posts.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[coopseruantalon]

Anyways the contries themselves have to accept the new laws. Then fight for years in courtrooms and be sentenced large fines that they can just refuse to pay. Or maybe we'll be thrown out? I sure would like to get kicked(I'm from Denmark)

EU Failure

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

I'll probably get modded down for this, but oh well.

I find that this is just another example of how the EU is circumventing democracy. Instead of an enlightened body which supposedly has the needs of the body of European nations it encompasses in mind, the EU is quickly turning out to be nothing more than another bureaucracy set out to protect only its own best interests.

Even beyond that, however, there is another issue at stake. If a law is passed which standardizes software patents, all of the individual countries which make up the EU will be forced to accept it. So, say that, for example, the government of Germany would rather not accept software patents. Too bad, they'll have to anyway, despite the fact that the majority of the people there may not want it. So much for the will of the people.

So, for all of you globalists out there who saw the consolidation of Europe into a single entity as a good thing, it looks like you're reaping what you've sown. The EU is quickly becoming just another big, centralized, corporatist, United-States-esque government.

Re:EU Failure

[nagora]

I find that this is just another example of how the EU is circumventing democracy.

That is its purpose: to make sure that business can proceed unrestrained by democracy. The EU is run by the unelected councillors who know that one day they will be looking for cushey jobs in industry as non-execs and "advisors". Thus, they have no interest in doing anything that in any way hampers their future employers' greed.

The parliament might actually take things into its own hands and disband the council, and that is something they will have to do someday, but that day will is far away.

TWW

Re:EU Failure

[geoffspear]

You think you'll get modded down for suggesting that patents are evil? You must be new here.

Re:EU Failure

[Halo1]

This has little to do with EU-specific stuff. The Council of Ministers consists of ministers from the various national governments, and it's them who are pushing this through. It's Sweden covered by Ericsson and Scania, Finland by Nokia, the Netherlands by Philips, Ireland by all US companies it provides a low tax haven for etc.

Re:EU Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, the blame should go on the eurosceptics, who will do whatever they can to insure Europe is never gouverned.

Whatever you may think, If Europe _was_ united there would be a democratic government. But instead, what we have is an association of states which allows their respective governement to wield much more power than they should. So if you really want democracy Vote yes to the upcomming constitution (which will give less power to the various councils, and more to the parliament)

Mostly because there is in this constutution the notion of popular referendum, where if you get a milion signatures -- which over Europe should not be too hard, you can get the EP to vote on anything the signatories deemed useful.

And this means that (perhaps) democracy will reaaly start growing.

Re:EU Failure

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

It wasn't so much the "patents are evil" message, but the fact that I was adopting an anti-globalist standpoint, that I was worried about. In my (limited) past experience with /. posters there seems to be a bias in favor of international organizations such as the UN and EU.

Then again, I could be wrong.

Re:EU Failure

[imkonen]

"So, say that, for example, the government of Germany would rather not accept software patents."

Can they just leave the EU? This is not meant as a troll, just an honest question from someone (okay you guessed it, I'm American) who doesn't particularly understand how the EU works. I'm also fully aware there are a vast number of consequences to leaving the EU and Germany isn't going leave just over software patents. I just find it interesting that so many of these posts bashing the EU seem beyond this smaller picture and really seem to indicate a lack of satisfaction with the whole democratic process. If a member country really feels like its interests are being consistantly trampled on by the EU, can they just leave?

Re:EU Failure

[NardofDoom]

Just like the WTO. Imagine if we could, as a global economy, say "You don't honor human rights, you don't honor worker's rights to unionize, and you don't meet environmental standards. Therefore we won't trade with you."

You bet your bippy China, Saudi Arabia, et al would clean up their act if we could do that.

Instead, the WTO is letting people like Monsanto prevent poor farmers from saving a portion of their crop or trading it with others (like they've done for thousands of years) because they've patented corn.

Re:EU Failure

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

Being an American as well, I (admittedly) have a somewhat limited understanding of how the EU works. However, from what I have come across, being an EU member state is somewhat like being a state in the USA. In other words, it's a contract, which cannot be broken.

Now, this would not be such a horrible thing if the decision to join the EU did not extend to generations beyond the one that "signed" the contract. As it is, however, even if at some point in the future there exists in a certain country a majority of people who wish to leave the EU, they cannot.

Re:EU Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Even beyond that, however, there is another issue at stake. If a law is passed which standardizes software patents, all of the individual countries which make up the EU will be forced to accept it. So, say that, for example, the government of Germany would rather not accept software patents. Too bad, they'll have to anyway, despite the fact that the majority of the people there may not want it. So much for the will of the people.

I believe this is not correct. This link seems to state something totally different.

States do not need to accept a Council agreement that does not represent their will

Background

Talks with politologists and Brussels lobbyists independently confirmed that the heads of state can reverse decisions of their ministers, especially in cases such as that of 2004-05-18, where it appears that the decision taken by the ministers does not reflect the will of a real qualified majority of governments.

There is no law that forbids reversal of such flawed decisionmaking. Nevertheless governments hesitate to do it, because it could undermine the trust in words given at international negotiations. OTOH, political malpractise of the level witnessed here is rare.

Re:EU Failure

[Seahawk]

Hang on!

Patens has not been approved! The parliament voted no, and now the patent lobby is TRYING to convince the EU to do it anyway!

IF they manage to do it THEN there is something wrong - but up until now, the democracy seems to actually work.

So if you want to badmouth EU - at least have some better arguments, instead of saying things that are not true.

Disclaimer - I am definately pro-EU, but I DO see valid aruments against it - just none that are worse than the benifits.

Re:EU Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Sweden covered by Ericsson and Scania, Finland by Nokia ...

I'm ashamed of my country's politicians. Nokia has corrupted them. What's even worse is that Nokia isn't actually a Finnish company anymore. It's mostly owned by foreign investors with no humane interests towards our sociecity.

So actually Finnish ministers are representing foreign - not their voter's and nations - interests in EU.

Re:EU Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer - I am definately pro-EU, but I DO see valid aruments against it - just none that are worse than the benifits.

With criminals like Silvio Berlusconi making decisions in EU, I'm becoming anti-EU.

Re:EU Failure

[Halo1]

Not all of them are bad. At least you have some very good MEPs who are on our side, like Piia-Noora Kauppi. I don't know about national politicians though.

Re:EU Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

They can leave the EU in the same way Massachusetts could leave the USA if it felt strongly enough about gay marraige. They could, but they won't.

Actually, it's only sort-of like that. The German government has a far bigger say in what the EU does than the Massachusetts Commonwealth does in US affairs. Germany essentially gets to "pick" a cabinet member, Massachusetts doesn't have that right. To be equal, all of Bush's cabinet memebers would be appointed by individual States.

Re:EU Failure

[Khazunga]

The EU is defined by international treaties between the parties. International treaties being what they are, I'd say it is entirely possible that one party (a country) decides to break the treaty and proceed on its own outside the EU. It's not like the country can be prosecuted and imprisioned.

However, leaving the EU means leaving the common market. Within the common market there are no import taxes. When leaving, the EU can impose import/export taxes against the secessing country. Since this is a pretty serious move, I'd imagine the taxes to be horrendously high, at least for a decade or so.

Add to this that Europe is almost economically self-contained (over 80% of commerce is within its borders). A secessing country will be taking enormous economic risks. The conclusion is that secession is formally possible but economically prohibitive (but not unrealistic for big countries like Germany, France or even the UK).

Re:EU Failure

[amorsen]

The parliament is busy voting in new tax-exempt "expense refunds" for expenses they never had. Don't expect them to actually do useful work.

Re:EU Failure

[amorsen]

There are no provisions for leaving the EU in the current treaties. So it will depend entirely on the circumstances. Many unions have had civil wars when one or more members tried to secede. That's a very theoretical possibility right now -- but it's a very theoretical possibility that any country would secede at this time. The political elites of all member states are very much in favour of the EU.

Re:EU Failure

[amorsen]

Parliament said no, so the lobbyists figured it would be better to go where the actual power is. The European Council. Whose members are unelected and almost entirely unaccountable for their actions (i.e. they basically have to commit crimes to get sacked, and even when they do commit crimes, they only get sacked, not punished.)

Re:EU Failure

[amorsen]

Argh, substitute "European Commission" for "European Council" above. Lost in Translation, I'm afraid. And apparently the lobbyists are actually targeting the Council of Ministers. So it's more like the equivalent of going to ask mummy if you can stay out late, getting no, and then proceeding to ask daddy instead.

Re:EU Failure

[Seahawk]

They are not DIRECTLY elected - but its the heads of the governments in the different countries - Which each are backed by a majority.

And the council has not approved anything yet - so no need to badmouth them yet! :)

Personally I dont think the lobbyists will succeed - Poland would never allow it.

Re:EU Failure

[nickos]

"There are no provisions for leaving the EU in the current treaties."

No, but there will be once (or if) we all ratify the new EU constitution.

Re:EU Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

As I've understood it, currently there's a slight problem that no treaties specify what happens if someone wishes to separate. So it isn't out of question to separate, but what happens then isn't yet known.

A bit like Greece (and apparently Italy, too) and budget deficit over the agreed line.

Re:EU Failure

[infolib]

Imagine if we could, as a global economy, say "You don't honor human rights, you don't honor worker's rights to unionize, and you don't meet environmental standards. Therefore we won't trade with you."

Didn't work in North Korea. Didn't work in Cuba.

Re:EU Failure

[Wolfbone]

Sigh.... Beautiful, intelligent, wise, incorruptible. ... The Finns get a politician who appears to be the model for Galadriel in LotR and in the UK we get Arlene McCarthy. Great.

Re:EU Failure

[NardofDoom]

Okay, maybe an embargo is too harsh, but a free trade zone working that way would be great. You could still trade with China and Saudi Arabia, but with very, very high tariffs. To gain entry, you'll have to have free and fair elections, no human rights abuses, freedom to unionize, a minimum wage, and minimum environmental standards. Then you'll be able to trade without tariffs. The tariffs would be set high enough that trading with those countries wouldn't be profitable. (An oppressed populace is very good for the bottom line. When workers who try to unionize are helpfully thrown in prison, Wal*Mart is a happy camper.)

Re:EU Failure

[Moderatbastard]

If anything, the blame should go on the eurosceptics, who will do whatever they can to insure Europe is never gouverned.

You missed off "by the French and Germans". For me, the eurosceptics are doing the right thing.

Re:EU Failure

[nagora]

Don't expect them to actually do useful work.

I don't, I just think that one day they will have to or the gravy train will stop as the EU is dismembered from within by nationalists stirring up anti-EU feelings in their own countries. At the moment such feelings, while justified by the total uselessness of the EU, are still too weak to cause any difficulties but they will mount the longer the corruption continues.

TWW

Re:EU Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

...and commonly agreed to be something nasty better not said aloud due political correctness. She's one of the few from a political brewery our local right-winger set up a decade ago or so. Beautiful, yes; intelligent, maybe; incorruptible, everyone has a price; humane, no way. Just read some interviews of hers about softer issues... :(

Re:EU Failure

[csbruce]

So, for all of you globalists out there who saw the consolidation of Europe into a single entity as a good thing, it looks like you're reaping what you've sown.

And what if a state/province/county doesn't agree with federal laws? My God, the horror! The horror!

Re:EU Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck that right-wing bitch!

Re:EU Failure

[chgros]

So, say that, for example, the government of Germany would rather not accept software patents. Too bad, they'll have to anyway, despite the fact that the majority of the people there may not want it. So much for the will of the people.
The majority of people in say, California, were against George Bush in the last election. They got him anyway. So much for the will of the people. (I could add that in 2000, the majority of Americans didn't want him and got him anyway, but that would be beside the point)

Re:EU Failure

[Wolfbone]

Unfortunately I cannot read Finnish but there is nothing in what I have found out about her that is in any way exceptionable - quite the contrary:

http://clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2003/11/10/4 21 23.html

http://www.epp-ed.org/press/showPR.asp?PRContent ID =5672&PRContentLg=en

http://www.minpolitik.dk/visnyhed.php?action=inf o& id=550&med=

Anyway, I have now downloaded a couple of jpegs of Piia-Noora Kauppi to join pictures of Hilary Hahn, Bjork and others and it will take more than vague and unsubstantiated intimations of the unpleasantness of her character or the extremeness of her politics to make me wish to delete them.

Re:EU Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in many ways she is as far right as you can get in Finnish politics and still get elected. Of course, by even British standards that's not very far right at all. But I get the impression that on a personal level, she holds some views close to libertarian.

Re:EU Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

In my (limited) past experience with /. posters there seems to be a bias in favor of international organizations such as the UN and EU.

For a reason, those international organizations are, like democracy, the worst system except from all others. Please don't tell the world has to follow the US "leadership"... last time, they invaded a country of total lies, presented totally bogus (or manufactured) so called "evidences" to the world, presented an idiotic post-war plan every one in the world knew it would fail ; and to date, they didn't even start to hint at apologizing about that. I'll choose UN any day.\

Same for EU. EU is the first or second economic power of the world - EU can (and DOES) negociate equal to equal with EU in all the trade, economic and commerce treaties ; and the Euro is now seen as a serious currency. This has positive consequences for EU citizen ; of course it comes with a price. But as a result, the elected representatives of EU don't have to be bullied by US, on any subject, by fear of economic retaliation.

Re:EU Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Being an American as well, I (admittedly) have a somewhat limited understanding of how the EU works. However, from what I have come across, being an EU member state is somewhat like being a state in the USA. In other words, it's a contract, which cannot be broken.

No it's not. Rather than saying: "well maybe you cannot leave the EU, oh then it would be really really bad, see the EU is bad" - you should have though the other way: "if it is really really that you cannot leave the EU, THEN, MAYBE people tried to make it legally possible to leave the EU": it is possible for a member state to leave EU

Re:EU Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

With criminals like Silvio Berlusconi making decisions in EU, I'm becoming anti-EU.

The problem with that "criminal" is that he was democratically elected by the Italian people. Are his crimes, worse, than, say, invading and ocuppying another country, using purely lies and propaganda?

Re:EU Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

But I get the impression that on a personal level, she holds some views close to libertarian.

Ok, that makes it even worse...

Some corrections and overview

[Halo1]

For the record: if the Council approves its pro-software patents text, all is not yet lost since there is still a second reading in the European Parliament. A downside of this second reading is that the EP can only amend the Council's text using absolute majorities there (i.e., half the number of MEPs must vote in favour of an amendment, regardless of how many abstain or are even present at the vote).

The big news is however that the Council Presidency is basically trying to circumvent the Council itself. In May, they reached a political agreement on the most pro-software patents text seen in EU legislative circles until now. At the Council meeting in May, Poland first abstained, then Germany and the Commission introduced some fake compromise amendment, and after a break Poland was not consulted again about its position, because there was a qualified majority in place even without its support. They confirmed afterwards their position did not change because of the bogus compromise amendment.

Recently, Poland confirmed its position, after everyone in a meeting with HP, Novell, Microsoft and others confirmed that the text of the Council of Ministers allows pure software patents (contrary what is often claimed). And apart from Microsoft and the Polish Patent Lawyers association, everyone agreed that software patents would be bad for the Polish economy. Because the voting weights changed on 1 November (due to the joining of all the new member states to the EU), Poland's support suddenly became necessary and thus the qualified majority was officially broken.

Other notable events since the political agreement of May are the fact that in July the Dutch Parliament asked its government to change position from being in favour to abstention, and at the start of this month all parties of the German Parliament did the same.

So the Council currently has an ugly text on the table which is no longer supported by a qualified majority in any way, but by means of diplomatic pressure on Poland and others the Dutch presidency (lead in this case by Minister Brinkhorst) is trying everything it can to push it through nevertheless.

Re:Some corrections and overview

[ballpoint]

I've previously contacted some Belgian MEPs about this issue, and was pleased by their response. Is there anything we 'Belgians Against Software Patents' can do now regarding this matter, given that Belgium already seems to be on the right side ?

Re:Some corrections and overview

[Halo1]

Yes, getting more Belgian companies/businesses to speak out against software patents, because the Belgian ministry's position is ambiguous at best. There was already a nice statement in May, but we need bigger companies. Companies like e.g. Telindus and Belgacom. Telindus has exactly 1 patent (on some modem modulation technique), Belgacom has 5 (none of them software patents).

Telindus is now an integrator/services company. It provides services for e.g. the Flemish government. Another company that does so is EDS (US company), and Accenture (US as well) does so for the Federal Government. Both EDS and Accenture are applying for business method patents like there's no tomorrow. If software patents are introduced, it won't take that long anymore until Telindus can only do things it gets permission for from EDS and Accenture, unless it starts wasting money on its own patent portfolio. Similarly, Belgacom also only stands to lose from the introduction of software patents.

However, to get into these businesses, you have to be a business yourself or (preferably) know somebody on the inside. I don't. Do you? If not, do you maybe know people who do? If so, please get them in touch with me (my email address appears mangled in the header of this post).

Re:Some corrections and overview

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, I know, we dutch keep shooting the wrong politicains.

Re:Some corrections and overview

[ballpoint]

You mention a company where I have a foot (actually only some toes) in door, and I already had a lot of informal discussions with my contacts about this issue. But typically they're too distanced and too busy minding their own corner to care. With a wait-and-see approach businesses in Belgium tend to be very reactive regarding politics.

I've also talked to a quite highly positioned person at Alcatel, but they take a very, very pro-patent stance since they feel it's a thing that can protect them from Chinese competition/rip-offs. Being a big business, they don't care about the cost, as the lawyers add to their meat mass and hence their visible profile.

Non-IT businesses are even worse. Talking to them about this is like talking about a math problem to a baker. They simply have other things to do.

Re:Some corrections and overview

[Halo1]

You mention a company where I have a foot (actually only some toes) in door, and I already had a lot of informal discussions with my contacts about this issue. But typically they're too distanced and too busy minding their own corner to care. With a wait-and-see approach businesses in Belgium tend to be very reactive regarding politics.

It's true it's very difficult to mobilise companies. Maybe showing them them the presentation linked here can help. And otherwise, maybe showing them this will wake them up. Note: those are (in this case) only patent applications, not granted patents. There is little doubt that most if not all of them will be granted though, and they undoubtedly will all be enforceable if a text like the one of the Council of Ministers is approved (unless prior art is found, but you won't be able to invalidate them because they are software patents or business method patents).

I've also talked to a quite highly positioned person at Alcatel, but they take a very, very pro-patent stance since they feel it's a thing that can protect them from Chinese competition/rip-offs. Being a big business, they don't care about the cost, as the lawyers add to their meat mass and hence their visible profile.

Ah yes, the "yellow danger". This is a nice story about that. But they won't care about that either, I assume.

Non-IT businesses are even worse. Talking to them about this is like talking about a math problem to a baker. They simply have other things to do.

One (huge, Belgian) non-IT company already called the Belgian ministry of economics in May, but I can't tell their name unfortunately. They were indeed the exception to the rule, though.

Re:Some corrections and overview

[bbc]

With enough practice we'll get it right.

English

[lost in wet snow]

Try those links in English: http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st15/st 15967.en04.pdf (it only makes a little more sense then in German; my German really sucks.... )

This gets me so totally angry

[Scarblac]

I've never been so angry at these crooks in government before now. Dutch parliament rejects software patents, European parliament rejects software patents, they'll hurt the Dutch software industry very badly (I believe the total number of software patents held by Dutch IT companies is 3) and now the fuckers want to avoid all of that by adding it on to some fisheries decision.

Help me, fellow Dutchmen, how can we make this as public as possible as quickly as possible? I've never done anything active in politics before, but this must go into the spotlight! Give me some hints...

Re:This gets me so totally angry

[Anonymous Coward]

Pin an angry note to someone's chest?

Re:This gets me so totally angry

[Scarblac]

For now I've mailed an explanation, some links and a request for advice to some journalist friends. Not much time...

Re:This gets me so totally angry

[Numtek]

I just joined the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII), that was the best I could imagine, since I'm also starting as a new supporter of a political party.

Re:This gets me so totally angry

[RasendeRutje]

http://www.bof.nl/

Re:This gets me so totally angry

[bar-agent]

and now the fuckers want to avoid all of that by adding it on to some fisheries decision.

This your first experience with a rider? Welcome to cynical-ville, enjoy your stay.

Antidemocratic conduct by EU Council

[FlorianMueller]

What the EU Council is trying to do is, way above and beyond the issue of software patents, an assault at democracy itself. In a democratic system based on lawfulness, a decision needs to meet the majority requirements (in this case: the requirements for a qualified majority in the EU Council) on the day of the formal decision, not more than 6 months earlier. Since the EU Council's political agreement on May 18th, - the Dutch parliament called on its government to abstain (July 1st; abstention in the Council has technically the same effect as voting against) - the voting weights changed (November 1st, see http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/docs/041101qm.pdf ) - the Polish government clarified that it cannot support the proposal in question (http://nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php ?t=158 , November 16th) - all four groups in the German parliament agreed on a joint motion against the Council's proposal (http://nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php ?t=222) Consequently, the Belgian minister of economic affairs even said last week that there was no more qualified majority in place: http://nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php? t=233 BTW, it's not just my opinion that it would be antidemocratic if the Council took the decision in question. That was said last week by Othmar Karas MEP, who is a vice president of the largest group in the European Parliament, the conservative European People's Party (Christian Democrats) - European Democrats.

1950: What if we had Software Patents back then?

[denis-The-menace]

This is the argument that we should be pushing. Back then you probably could have patented Bits and Bytes. How about it it happened in 1980: Makers of Wordstar and Visi-calc whould have locked the wordprocessing and Spreadsheet markets, respectively. Makers of CP/M would lockup PC OS' so MS would have never existed! What this will do is make all new and exciting stuff happen where SW patents do NOT exist.

Stance on software patents - English link

[caveman]

For the benefit of non-german-speaking Slashdotters, the first addendum to document 11979 can be found here (PDF) and the parent document here (PDF)

Patents = Big Buisness

[CrazyJim1]

Its like the car. Maybe you have a great new idea for a transmission system. But when the big companies have a patent on the wheels, engine, carb, exhaust, etc. You can't make a car to put in your awesome transmission system. Whats even worse, is that it might not even be just big buisness. 1 person might have wheel patents, Another engine patents, another carb patents, another exhaust patents. So we never see the advent of the car. It happened with radio before World War 1. You allow software patents, and all you're doing is making it illegal for people to develop software.

Re:Patents = Big Buisness

[LiENUS]

Yes and when the four-stroke otto cycle engine is patented then the four-stroke miller cycle engine is invented to get around it, and when carbueration is patented, fuel injection is invented to get around it, and when cast iron manifolds are patented, tubuler steel headers are invented to get around it. All of these systems are superior to the systems they replace, yet we only use one out of those 3 in most cars.

Re:Patents = Big Buisness

[Anonymous Coward]

When "a method for movement by means of wheels" is patented, then you're pretty stuck, though...

Re:Patents = Big Buisness

[Anonymous Coward]

tracks

Re:Patents = Big Buisness

[Anonymous Coward]

That is sooooooo efficient...

You know it will happen

[Anita Coney]

All the major players, with all the money, want software patents. Even if they don't get it this year, they will get it next year, or the next. They are not going to stop until they get it.

Re:You know it will happen

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the people that will have the final say on this! Much as that may annoy the facists, unlike the US; Europe still belongs to it's citizens not multinational corporations.

Re:You know it will happen

[Anita Coney]

I wish I knew you personally, because I'd bet you otherwise and I'd win. Remember this: Europe WILL get software patents within the decade.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too, I'm from the UK.

Re:1950: What if we had Software Patents back then

[Hatta]

How about it it happened in 1980: Makers of Wordstar and Visi-calc whould have locked the wordprocessing and Spreadsheet markets, respectively. Makers of CP/M would lockup PC OS' so MS would never have existed!

So we'd have 2 of the best applications ever written and no microsoft? Well this isn't looking so bad after all. ;)

An Oligarchic Council is more efficient

[jimbro2k]

An Oligarchic Council is more efficient than a (semi-) democratic parliment.
This is because fewer payoffs need to be made to accomplish your goal.

Did what I could...

[Anonymous Coward]

....at least, I hope I did, still open for suggestions.

I wrote to the people who are supposed to 'represent' me, and asked them how the hell our country (the Netherlands) could be behind this push for Software Patents, when a majority of parliament is against it.
A couple of months ago saw a petition voted in to have the minister of foreign affairs retract his support for software patents. And now aparently not only are we voting yes, we're also behind pushing the Polish to give up their resistance to these patents?
Even worse, this minister is from a party which supposedly is the most vocal supporter of the european -democratic- proces, demanding more power to the european parliament, and less to the council. (Great way to show it guys, now I know why I voted for you :( )

So a call to all dutch Slashdotters, write an email to your representatives. Not much time left to act.

CDA:
cda.publieksvoorlichting@tweedekamer.nl
P vdA:
voorlichting@pvda.nl
VVD:
Vragen stellen aan tweede kamerleden
D66:
http://www.d66.nl/contact

(not a complete list, I know)

Re:Did what I could...

[stupid_is]

I think you can get at the UK representatives here. under the COREPER I committee. It should be noted that this group "has particular responsibility for the specialist Councils, eg Internal Market, Consumers, Industry, Environment, Social Affairs, Telecommunications, Energy, Transport, Fisheries" and isn't purely a Fisheries meeting

Haven't had a response yet, though

Re:Did what I could...

[Halo1]

Coreper are the permanent representatives (i.e., diplomats). They are supposed to simply follow orders from their national ministries.

Re:Did what I could...

[oever]

Here is the position of the VVD on software patents. Basically what it says is that they are strongly against softwarepatents but support the current proposal, because it does not, according to their minister Brinkhorst, allow for the patenting of software as such. This is completely naive, but a necessary statement the party needs to avoid intern inconsistency. Basically, what they are saying and what they are doing is not the same.

Re:Did what I could...

[Halo1]

Basically what it says is that they are strongly against softwarepatents but support the current proposal, because it does not, according to their minister Brinkhorst, allow for the patenting of software as such. This is completely naive, but a necessary statement the party needs to avoid intern inconsistency

Brinkhorst is from D66, not from VVD. VVD is simply blindly following Bolkestein.

Re:Did what I could...

[Anonymous Coward]

Motion by Tweede Kamner ,,,

considering that the minister of Economic Affairs misinformed the Parliament about the nature of the
planned proposal shortly before the Council meeting, as a result of which the Parliament was unable to
fulfil its controlling task as it should;

considering that a directive about the patentability of software must lead to harmonisation of legislation
within the EU in order to prevent excesses with regard to the patentability of software;

EXPRESSES its [the Parliament's] opinion that the political agreement as reached at the Competitiveness
Council of 17 and 18 May 2004 offered insufficient guarantees to prevent excesses with regard to software
patentability;

CALLS UPON the government to convey this opinion of the Parliament to the other (EU) member states;

CALLS UPON the government to act according to this opinion in further discussions of the Council proposal,
and from this present moment, abstain from supporting the current Council proposal,

SEE
http://kwiki.ffii.org/NlVote040701En

text
http://kwiki.ffii.org/NlMot040701En

How very nice of you...

[danalien]

to link to German PDF's .. but I'd think on a worldwide site like slashdot, it'd be prudent to try to use English (if available).

Link 1 - in English

To 'Link 2', there doesn't seem to be a corresponding English-version - from my vauge german skills, but mostly deductive skills - I'd say the document is some sort of addmendment to this org. Link 2 - in English

But maybe someone could translate 'Link 2'? ... it's only 5 (five) lines.

PS. Linux ppl, use Acrobat's reader ... the native PDF readers seem to have trouble with these PDF's...

Re:How very nice of you...

[Wolfbone]

"PS. Linux ppl, use Acrobat's reader ..." Only ghostscript based readers - xpdf and gpdf will work fine.

Re:How very nice of you...

[maxwell demon]

But maybe someone could translate 'Link 2'? ... it's only 5 (five) lines.

Without warranty on correctness:

Corrigendum to the draft of the rationale of the council

Subject: Common position of the council concerning the enactment of a guideline of the Eurropean parliament and the council about the patentability of computer-implemented inventions

Number 17 (page 5) gets the following version:

"Paragraph 2 was added to reveal that the range of protection of a patented invention may under certain circumstances and under exactly defined conditions also cover a computer program, being either the program alone or a program on a data medium. In the view of the council, this way the guideline follows the usual parctise of both the European patent office and the member states."

Re:How very nice of you...

[zpok]

Excuse my french, but what idiot links to PDF files from /. anyway?

Are /. proud to be bandwith eaters? Here's a clue: bandwidth costs money.

Re:How very nice of you...

[danalien]

Beeing that these .pdf's don't contain any pictures, and .pdf's are compressed (on the contrary to eg. plain .ps's) - the biggest document (15 pages) of the three is 114,8Kbyte...

... I'd wouldn't (directly) call em' "bandwith eaters"

Re:How very nice of you...

[Guppy06]

"bandwidth costs money."

Bah, it's only those funny-looking euro notes. It's not like it's real money or anything... :)

Re:How very nice of you...

[zpok]

It holds its value remarkably well, don't you think? ;)

Who are we kidding?

[SlashDread]

Software patents benefit mega-corps. Software patents hurt free software and -citizens-. Guess who is gonna loose.

Sigh... where is my anti-globalization protesters helmet. Perhaps the swiss police know...

By the way...

[Sanity]

...as the representative of all Slashdot users*, I would like to publicly thank you and everyone else on the front line of this battle - I personally don't know where you must find the energy, but am very glad that you do :-)

* Not true

You'll probably...

[Martin Spamer]

get moderated down for building you position on a factual flawed premises.

It is the unelected council of ministers; i.e. ministers appointed from european nation states and not the EU parliament that seem to be screwing this up, by trying to by-pass that democraticly elected European Parliament.

Re:1950: What if we had Software Patents back then

[Shrei]

This is the argument that we should be pushing. Back then you probably could have patented Bits and Bytes. How about it it happened in 1980: Makers of Wordstar and Visi-calc whould have locked the wordprocessing and Spreadsheet markets, respectively. Makers of CP/M would lockup PC OS' so MS would have never existed! Now that you put the patent issue that way, i am not really sure if patents are really bad.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[dyfet]

"The European Parliament has no ability to propose legislation - it's always the Council of Ministers that does this..."

And this is precisely why the EU is the least democratically accountable institution in Europe today. In every sitting national government on the European continent today, legislation is created and passed by a (presumably) democratically elected parliament, or that house of a bicamel parliament that is directly elected. In many cases, European governments are formed either directly out of the elected body of parliament itself (as in the British model) or out of some more complex relationship that certainly includes the directly elected house of parliament and a democratically elected executive (such as the French system).

By contrast, the European Concil is a body appointed by national governments, that has the authority to directly legislate. While the EU Parliament can approve or "rubber stamp" an act of the EU Council much like the "soviet" era parliament, if it chooses to reject a council law, the Council is given the power to override Parlaiment unless a super majority (66%) chooses to oppose it.

Indeed, the EU transational governance is not very different in functional arrangements and democratic principles to that that of the old Soviet Union. And they wish to further ratify this defective system through a constitution that retains this principle undemocratic form of governance as well as expanding the power of the EU into a true European Government.

As noted, the original council draft on European patents was rejected by the European parliament. In a democratically functional society and government this would in effect have been a veto. It is to the shame of Europe and to the very principles of democratic governmance that this alone was not enough to kill the council directive, and that the will of the elected parlaiment, and most importantly of all, the ONLY democratically "legitimate" and accountable institution in the entire EU, can so easily be rejected.

Personally I do not believe Europe is ready for transational Governance. There is no true transational political expression today, perhaps with the exception of the "Greens". By contrast, when American federalization occured, there was already well established and popular trans-state political movements and proto-parties, such as Federalists, etc. By contrast, when we look at the EU parliament, it is composed of people elected from strickly individual national political parties. There are no "European Socialists", for example, though there are members of the French socialists, Finland national party, German Social Democrats, etc. This lack of true transational European political expression I believe is why Federalising Europe is impractical at this time, and certainly helps to explain why some believe they could bully through an undemocratic and defective institution onto European nations like the EU system of today.

Re:1950: What if we had Software Patents back then

[Shrei]

-_-, i knew there was a preview button :P

As an IT worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

I will require that I hold up on ANY coding work until I have access to the patent database and sufficient time to work out if any continuing functionality I am required to do is not already patented.

Basically, down tools.

STOP SPEADING THIS BSWhining on /. DOES help

[buddhaseviltwin]

Whining on Slashdot amounts to broadcasting

European Union Is More Bureaucracy Than Democracy

[geoffrobinson]

I know the shape and form of the EU is still somewhat in flux, but it seems to skew towards rule by buraucrats. Maybe that allows the different countries to get along under one authority. However, the downside is...well...you are ruled by buraucrats and stuff like this happens sometimes.

If anyone is still confused

[mikerich]

I *think* this is what is happening. The Council is formed from the ministers of the Member States of the Union. It proposes legislation on the advice of the EU Commission (yet another body made up of appointed bureaucrats whose purpose is to develop and uphold the workings of the Union). This directive has been proposed under the so-called co-decision arrangement with the European Parliament - the directly elected body of the EU.

In co-decision, Parliament has some measure of veto over the Council - it is the strongest of the arrangements between the parties. Council has sent the draft directive to Parliament. Parliament could adopt the proposed legislation - whereupon it would have taken effect in the EU, instead it proposed amendments.

The amendments have then gone back to Council which now has a choice. It can choose to accept Parliament's amendments and produce a compromise directive. Or it can override Parliament - but only by a unanimous vote by the members of Council. This is why the Poles are being strong-armed.

If Council rejects the Parliamentary amendments and fails to vote unanimously, the legislation must then head towards conciliation and arbitration which is brain-bleedingly complicated since the Commission becomes involved.

So all is not lost, the insitutions are working, although I have to wonder about the fisheries involvement. I would have thought those ministers have their own problems at the moment.

HTH.

Mike.

Re:If anyone is still confused

[Halo1]

I *think* this is what is happening. The Council is formed from the ministers of the Member States of the Union.

Correct. Note that although the Council is a single legal/political body, depending on the subject that's handled different ministers attend.

It proposes legislation on the advice of the EU Commission (yet another body made up of appointed bureaucrats whose purpose is to develop and uphold the workings of the Union).

No, the Commission proposes the legislation (possibly on advice of the Council, I'm not sure).

This directive has been proposed under the so-called co-decision arrangement with the European Parliament - the directly elected body of the EU.

In co-decision, Parliament has some measure of veto over the Council - it is the strongest of the arrangements between the parties. Council has sent the draft directive to Parliament.

No, the Commission did.

Parliament could adopt the proposed legislation - whereupon it would have taken effect in the EU, instead it proposed amendments.

Indeed. It could have also downright rejected it, in which case the directive project would be stopped immediately.

The amendments have then gone back to Council which now has a choice. It can choose to accept Parliament's amendments and produce a compromise directive. Or it can override Parliament - but only by a unanimous vote by the members of Council. This is why the Poles are being strong-armed.

No, if the Commission agrees with the amendments they propose (which it does), they only need a qualified majority (basically 2/3rds of the weighted votes + a minimum number of supporting countries). Since 1 November, the voting weights have changed and now Poland is required to have a qualified majority.

If Council rejects the Parliamentary amendments and fails to vote unanimously, the legislation must then head towards conciliation and arbitration which is brain-bleedingly complicated since the Commission becomes involved.

No, if the Council does not manage to get the required majority, the directive is in limbo. In theory, it can stay forever at the Council's first reading stage (unless the Commission retracts the proposal). Conciliation only happens later in the process. First, after the Council agrees, it goes back to the European Parliament for a second reading.

There, the EP can only amend the text that returned from the Council with absolute majorities (nr_of_MEPs/2+1 must vote in favour in order for an amendment to be accepted, regardless of how many MEPs are actually present for voting).

Next, if the EP accepts the text without amendments, the directive is approved. It can also be downright rejected. Finally, if it's accepted with amendments it goes back to the Council for a second reading.

I don't know the exact rules in the Council for second reading, but if they accept the Parliament's amendments the directive is again approved, and if they amend it, it goes back to the EP for the third reading.

In the third reading, the EP can only say yes or no. If they say no, then conciliation happens.

So all is not lost, the insitutions are working, although I have to wonder about the fisheries involvement. I would have thought those ministers have their own problems at the moment.

An item at a Council session can either be a A-point (formality for approval) or B-point (discussion point). Because the Council reached a political agreement in May, it's technically possible to bring it as an A point on the Council for formal adoption of a Common Position (which would mean official acceptance by the Council).

Such an A-point can happen at any Council formation. So even though the competitiveness formation is responsible for the swpats, if they bring it on as A-point they can indeed have it signed at the Fisheries Council session.

Re:If anyone is still confused

[KontinMonet]

competitiveness formation is responsible for the swpats, if they bring it on as A-point they can indeed have it signed at the Fisheries Council session.

I still don't see what Byzantine process allows a Fisheries Council session to concentrate not on fisheries related business but to include swpat business. After all, there's a lot to do in the fisheries sphere given the possible collapse of fishing grounds.

Re:If anyone is still confused

[Halo1]

I still don't see what Byzantine process allows a Fisheries Council session to concentrate not on fisheries related business but to include swpat business.

They won't pay any attention whatsoever to software patents if it has to be approved by them. Since those A-items are pure formalities, all that will happen is that at the start of the meeting the presidency will ask "does anyone have any objection to the A-items" and if not, that's it. If there are objections (although that's extremely unlikely, since those should have been raised before in Coreper), it simply won't be dealt with at the Fisheries formation and delayed till the next Competitiveness Council meeting.

The reason is simply speed: since there is supposedly already an agreement in place, it does not make sense to wait several more months just to be able to say "no objections".

Re:If anyone is still confused

[KontinMonet]

So it's not a Fisheries Council meeting, it's a: "AOB (and please don't raise any objections) & Fisheries Council" meeting. Still Byzantine by any definition...

Re:If anyone is still confused

[Halo1]

So it's not a Fisheries Council meeting, it's a: "AOB (and please don't raise any objections) & Fisheries Council" meeting. Still Byzantine by any definition...

That's how all Council meetings work (for the simple reason that legally, there is only one Council).

FWIW, it's more "Don't you dare to raise any objections". Just look at the fuss they are making now about Poland wanting to change its recorded position in advance to the meeting.

STOP SPREADING THIS CRAP: Whining DOES help

[buddhaseviltwin]

Whining on Slashdot amounts to broadcasting your insight and complaints to a forum of people who care about the issue and NEED TO DISCUSS IT SO WE CAN ALL STAY INFORMED ON WHAT THE OPPOSITION IS DOING.

Whining teaches Slashdotters what tactical moves the opposition has taking, what the stakes are, and what is expected from us to overcome the hurdles that are put in front of us.

Lastly, whining is an effective way of getting caring people's sympathy. Some people need to hear the whines of injustice to get involved.

Now, I do understand that any group needs to get past their whining stage, but telling people to stop whining on /. is not a real solution.

If *YOU* want to something to get people talking more strategically, then *YOU* should start writing comments on Slashdot and any other forum to get people talking about strategy and actions they can take to get involved.

and everyone wonders why i am going into IP law

[hsmith]

tons of cash to be made :noes:

About the addendum...

[danalien]

you link to ... doesn't seem to be the 'link 2' (but in english) from the slashdot story. But rather a draft of some sort.

Here's the Link to my post (for more info).

Re:1950: What if we had Software Patents back then

[denis-The-menace]

I screw-up my post too...

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Khazunga]

I hope you don't really mean what you say. Without the EU, in the XX century, Europe managed to start to world wars. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, as they say...

Even if I don't see it as likely we'll ever get that far down the shit hole again, a dismantled Europe doesn't stand an economic fighting chance against the US or China.

The solution isn't to go back, but to go forward and fix the system. Simplify and empower the EU.

Nothing to do with the EU

[Cybertect]

I wish people would learn what's what before making comments like this.

The Council of Europe is a totally separate *intergovernmental* organisation and has no relationship with the European Union apart from having Europe in its name.

Take a look at their web site (http://www.coe.int). This is what they say:

-------------
The Council of Europe is the continent's oldest political organisation, founded in 1949. It:
groups together 46 countries, including 21 countries from Central and Eastern Europe,
has application from 1 more country (Bélarus),
has granted observer status to 5 more countries (the Holy See, the United States, Canada, Japan and Mexico),
is distinct from the 25-nation European Union
-------------

Now look at the EU's list of its institutions.

http://europa.eu.int/index_en.htm

The Council of Europe does not appear in that list - N.B. the Council of the European Union isn't the same thing at all.

Re:Nothing to do with the EU

[Halo1]

This is about the EU Council of Ministers. The story summary has it wrong.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Znork]

"There is no true transational political expression today, perhaps with the exception of the "Greens"."

Well, actually, I think there is, as expressed in the parliamentary groups in the EU parliament. The parties cooperate more than we get told.

However, the media mostly utterly and completely fails to report EU politics (they only report national EU politics), and the local governments have a tendency to blame 'the EU' for things they themselves voted through council or lobbied the commission for.

It must be damn practical for a lot of national politicians to have a scapegoat like the EU.

I wonder how long it will take before the parliament drives a revolution, kicking out dangerously corruptible, interest-conflicted and unaccountable council and commission.

thanks.

[danalien]

that makes (more) sense, now :)

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Khazunga]

Personally I do not believe Europe is ready for transational Governance. There is no true transational political expression today, perhaps with the exception of the "Greens". By contrast, when American federalization occured, there was already well established and popular trans-state political movements and proto-parties, such as Federalists, etc. By contrast, when we look at the EU parliament, it is composed of people elected from strickly individual national political parties. There are no "European Socialists", for example, though there are members of the French socialists, Finland national party, German Social Democrats, etc. This lack of true transational European political expression I believe is why Federalising Europe is impractical at this time, and certainly helps to explain why some believe they could bully through an undemocratic and defective institution onto European nations like the EU system of today.

Although I agree with the gist of your post, this paragraph is simply untrue. Major parties are organized into international parties (example), from where an european-level party could easily emerge, if required.

However, European elections are nowadays largely a nationwide affair, so there's no need for a public view of an European level party. The infrastructure for european-wide parties is there, but not the need.

I can't imagine federalism wouldn't provide the parliament with more power so, even for that effect alone, it would be a Good Thing(tm). Europe is more prepared for federalism than for the current undemocratic, bureaucratic model of government.

The act of not acting is an act all its own

[Anonymous Coward]

A cute quote from Edmund Burke. But their is a level of behavior that is a response to evil, it is a quote from a famous Jewish guy who a lot of folks love:

"Resist not evil"

And then...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the consumers will circumvent the patents. No biggie.

Re:And then...

[Grishnakh]

This is pretty useless. Sure, a consumer can violate a patent in his own home pretty easily, but the patent still blocks the ability of people to do more useful things.

For Free software, this is a huge problem. Free software isn't going to go very far without widespread adoption. It doesn't need to completely replace Microsoft everywhere, but it needs to be large enough to get attention, not some unknown.

If the ability to do simple and necessary things on a computer is locked up by patents (such as browsing most websites), then Free software is in for a rough ride. Sure, you could write your own patent-violating browser to access the same sites as the patented browser (which would be a huge job; too big for one person), but distributing your code so other people can work on it with you, and so that many more people can benefit from it, the way most Free software works, requires that this distribution be unhindered. If it violates patents, this won't be possible; websites that host the software will be taken down by court orders, and operators arrested. The only way to propagate such software would be on websites operated from Vanuatu or other out-of-the-way places. While this black-market approach works for some things with a very limited market (like MAME roms), it's just not feasible for something that both has a huge market, and is absolutely necessary for the widespread adoption of Free software.

It is called checks and balances

[Lonewolf666]

And they are missing in the EU. Right now, the Council of Ministers has at least the same influence on EU legislation as the parliament. This is a bad situation because it concentrates too much power in the hands of a few people who are not even directly elected. If you are from the USA:
Imagine Bush being the only one who can propose legislation, and congress being limited to accepting or denying his proposals (apart from nicely asking for changes). That would be roughly equivalent to the current situation in the EU.
It is rather insane, and I wonder what the national parliaments were thinking when they ratified the EU treaties that established this rules.

More Craziness

[RAMMS EIN]

IIRC (no time to verify now), the dutch representative even voted for, after he had said he would vote against. A grassroots activist group then went to parliament and informed them of the irregularity. In response, a change of the official stance to abstention was requested. AFAIK, though, the representative is still in position, and it seriously escapes me why.

Please do verify what I wrote, I have the feeling I may be mixing up things.

Re:More Craziness

[Halo1]

Please do verify what I wrote, I have the feeling I may be mixing up things.

Indeed, you are. The Dutch minister had said there was an agreement over the text between the European Parliament and the Council, so that there was no problem to support it. Afterwards, this was shown not to be true, so the Dutch Parliament voted a motion asking the Dutch government to change into an abstention. The government claims it's fulfilling this motion, why in fact it is not.

Re:More Craziness

[oever]

In fact the government is saying they they can vote 'yes' because, as they say, the current proposal does not allow for software patents.

The position of the dutch government on software is schizofrenic. At one side they support big companies by voting support for software patents and secretly(!) arranging 5 year contract with Microsoft despite a law ordering big contracts to fulfilled after requesting prices at various vendors and a motion ordering goverment to buy _only_ free software after 2006.

On the other hand , aformentioned motion is in place, but is being ignored, a goverment institution with very little funds is supposed to promote free software and recently a European symposium on free software was organised.

In toto, the government does more against than for free software.

Re:More Craziness

[Halo1]

In fact the government is saying they they can vote 'yes' because, as they say, the current proposal does not allow for software patents.

That is not true. They have claimed in the past that the Council text does not allow software patents, but they never used it as rationale for not changing their vote. They simply interpreted the motion as stating "when there is a new vote, you have to abstain, but since normally there won't be a new vote, we don't have to abstain; and we also won't ask for a new vote by ourselves".

In toto, the government does more against than for free software.

This has little if anything to do with free or open source software. The software patent case is all about Philips for them.

Re:More Craziness

[oever]

Thanks for clearing that up, Halo1. As often in this neverending saga, the subleties are difficult. The main intent of the government is for software patents. I'd wish the Dutch parliament had proposed a stronger motion.

Re:More Craziness

[Halo1]

I'd wish the Dutch parliament had proposed a stronger motion.

What they passed was pretty strong: they asked to withhold support to the Council text from then on. However, Brinkhorst reinterpreted this as that he only had to change if a new vote was held. He's just weaseling out.

There was also a motion to change to the vote to "no" (instead of abstention), and Van Gennip had said that in that case they would be prepared to ask for a new vote by themselves (although Brinkhorst would probably have found a way to subvert that motion as well). However, CDA didn't support that motion, so it did not pass.

The one to blame is Brinkhorst, and not the Dutch Parliament.

Re:More Craziness

[oever]

VVD and D66 have clear points on software patents: they are against software patents. For example, D66 says:

D66 is nooit voorstander geweest van de octrooiering van software, omdat het de creativiteit en bewegingsvrijheid en innovatie zelf in het gedrang kan brengen. ( source)

The only party not having an easily findable public statement is CDA. This is strange. However, I have email CDA EP members and she said she was against software patents but agreed with the current proposal. I don't have the mail here now, unfortunately.

If these parties want to support Philips in its quest for patentability, they should clearly say so.

Re:More Craziness

[Halo1]

VVD and D66 have clear points on software patents: they are against software patents.

VVD is hardcore in favour. They use similar misleading language like the Commission, Bolkestein and the Council, but they're in favour. They voted against the motion in the Dutch parliament that requested abstention by the minister.

D66 is against software patents, but Brinkhorst doesn't care about his own party (or anyone else for that matter, except for Philips).

The only party not having an easily findable public statement is CDA. This is strange. However, I have email CDA EP members and she said she was against software patents but agreed with the current proposal. I don't have the mail here now, unfortunately.

When did you get that mail? And about which proposal was that? It would be nice to have the name as well.

If these parties want to support Philips in its quest for patentability, they should clearly say so.

Of course they should, but that's not how politics work. You say what people want to hear, unless you're someone like Bolkestein.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anonymous Coward]

"By contrast, the European Concil is a body appointed by national governments, that has the authority to directly legislate. While the EU Parliament can approve or "rubber stamp" an act of the EU Council much like the "soviet" era parliament, if it chooses to reject a council law, the Council is given the power to override Parlaiment unless a super majority (66%) chooses to oppose it."

Please correct me if I have this wrong, but the Council doesn't legislate directly. Only the national parliaments can do that. The Council issues a directive, but all that the individual countries are required to do is enact their own laws to implement that directive.
How they interpret the directive, and what other bits they tack onto it, and which bits they play down, is entirely up to them.
The EU isn't a government, it's a club made up of governments.

Pick a representative

[Anonymous Coward]

Go here, pick your contry and one of your representatives to write to and just DO IT (Click "country flag -> name", and there you should have the email adress). If you're an American you can probably send an email outlining (from experience) why software patents is a really bad idea - who knows, they might listen to you too, and yes, I'm pretty sure 99.9% of them speak good english.

If anyone has good links containing information about software patent issues please post them so that we can be well-informed before we start writing.

Here's one - Saving Europe from Software Patents (RMS).
And another - Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together (RMS).

The vote wasn't by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

For them to make a decision it's representative. For the people to make a decision, it's democracy.

Why on earth wouldn't they want patents?

Anything new and exciting should be patentable if it's not obvious. That makes it so all people, not just large corporations, can profit from their ideas. You can license the patents to large corporations or do something interesting yourself.

Re:The vote wasn't by the people

[KD5YPT]

Reality check. Nowaday patent held by individuals is rarely upheld in court (unless you have a ridiculously solid patent, which rarely happens). Large corporations just need to crush you by prolonging the lawsuit and wait for your funding to dry out. Plus lawyers, especially patent lawyers, will know how to stall the lawsuit by raising some dubious points regarding your patent that many judges will gobble right up.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[amorsen]

Every union has a civil war, sooner or later. Some unions survive it.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[dyfet]

Please correct me if I have this wrong, but the Council doesn't legislate directly....The Council issues a directive, but all that the individual countries are required to do is enact their own laws to implement that directive.

I believe you are correct that many EU directives do further require enabling legilsation in individual countries under the present system, thankfully, but this is not always the case. In the case of Software Patenting, for example, the council directive would make legal existing and future EPO issued software patents. I gather this would not require any further enabling legislation at all since the individual governments are already treaty bound to recognize legally issued EPO patents, however the EU chooses to define them. I imagine there are other areas where this is true as well.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[dyfet]

I wonder how long it will take before the parliament drives a revolution, kicking out dangerously corruptible, interest-conflicted and unaccountable council and commission.

I don't know, but I don't think it is soon enough since I think it's long overdue. "Power to the Parliament", now that is a great slogan!

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anonymous Coward]

> Major parties are organized into international parties (example), from where an european-level party could easily emerge, if required.

Yeah right, not a chance. There is such a vast gulf between parties which are supposedly fighting the same cause and such inbred nationalism that it is not going to happen.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[coopseruantalon]

Sure thats going to happen. I am all for working together for the common good. But that does not involve making an exclusive club for the rich European contries. Also it does not involve taking away power from well-established democracies and giving to a large Union that the people can't influence and does not have any interest in. Personally i would like to see a stronger collaboration between the Scandinavian contries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland for the americans :-) ) because those are contries who pretty much share the same beliefs and ways of constructing a society. I don't want French and Italian corruption spreading to my contry. I also find the idea of figting of US with something equally bad is a stupid one. We gotta show that we can do a better job than they have.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[nutshell42]

Now I don't want to interrupt your rant *but* the council consists of ministers of the different EU countries. These governments are democratically elected so the council is democratic. Even better we should ask ourselves why the "more European" institution -the parliament- is apparently more interested in the good of the people than the council of national governments, which -following the accepted logic around here- are less removed from the local concerns and therefore somehow superior.

I also remind you that the Dutch government explicitly *ignored* a decision of the Dutch parliament on how to vote (which was binding iirc. It was on /. a few months ago but I don't remember exactly and I'm lazy so perhaps someone else could look it up). Me thinks we should be less concerned about what is wrong with the EU and more about what is wrong with our national governments. (doesn't mean that there aren't enough things that are wrong with the EU. Unfortunatly the constitution which would solve some of them -e.g. a more powerful parliament- has no chance of surviving the British referendum)

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, with the recent mess about appointing a new council, it's said that Parliament is trying to get more power. Suits me, that Buttiglione (or something like that) guy was quite a bad apple. ...not that I'd have any better view of the man who tried to push him into that place (mr godfather Berlusconi).

Re:Sigh - Too bad!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"It pains me to see Europe slipping down the same slope. Learn from our folly, yeah?"
Not wanting to add injury to your feeling of insult, but wake up man. A "federal" Europe is just a glimpse of what our future can really become. Read Huxley's "Brave New World"...the thinking of the current EU MEPs is so similar in some of their wording. A Federal Eu will be a nightmare of of human drones "governed" by a political elite.

Can't people gather or something?

[Spy der Mann]

Like, declare a "no software patents" day, and all programmers in the european union will go and protest to the government offices. What do you think? The guys at http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com apparently did once.

I think it's time people do it again.

Re: Moderators take note!

[Alwin Henseler]

Pin an angry note to someone's chest?

If you want to moderate the parent post, please take note of this:

The parent poster is likely referring to the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. His murderer pinned a letter on his victims chest with a knife, containing some rant about why Theo van Gogh should be 'silenced'.

If you think that is funny, go ahead. If you think that is bad, but parent comment is funny nevertheless, go ahead. I'd rate it as "funny, but tasteless". If you have any mod points, I'd advise simply not to waste them on comments like the above.

EU regulations affecting America

[puusism]

There is an interesting article in The Nation about how American companies must nowadays take account what is decided in Brussels. It's a long, but pretty illuminating view about the change of focus in American corporate interests.

patents

[Changa_MC]

There's nothing wrong with patents per se.
However, software is not hardware, and software is already protected by copyright law. When you bring patents in as well the redundancy allows stupid fiascos like the "patented one click" meaning I cannot simply click on something to buy it, because that's a patented process.

It's like the way we allow patents on human genes, rather than limiting patents to the machines used to decode those genes, and the machines that recreate them. My genes were there already, I have no intention of paying royalties every time I breathe.

Patents are appropriate for inventions, but not discoveries. Else, Newton PWN's us all.

Re:patents

[AviLazar]

What discoveries have been patented? I did not know that human genes were patented. Are you sure the patent isn't with machines that are able to detect/view/manipulate human genes?Notwithstanding the "one-click" process which apparantly harps on prior art, why is programming a discovery and not an invention. A discovery as far as I know: finding something that was already there. An invention as far as I know: creating something that was not already there. If this is true, then I am pretty sure that Microsoft was not hidden - buried underneath the planet somewhere waiting for Bill Gates to find it. The same thing with any program.

Re:patents

[Todesmetall]

I did not know that human genes were patented. Are you sure the patent isn't with machines that are able to detect/view/manipulate human genes?

I don't know about humans, but genetically modified crops are indeed patented, which causes farmers all around the world lots of trouble.

Re:patents

[AviLazar]

I can understand someone saying that if you want to utilize our techonological breakthrough (in this case, the improved seeds) you gotta pay. However, the law is faulty because apparantly farmers could be growing these suped up seeds without realizing it. But that just means the process (of the law) needs to be improved - not abolished. Again, most people here on /. argue that patents need to be done away with. While I agree the system needs fixing - I disagree that it needs to be removed. And I disagree that patents should not be applied to programs just because it is not tangeable.

Re:patents

[DavidTC]

What I've always thought it WRT genes is that you should be able to patent them, but it only matters if someone else genetically engineers the same gene. If, instead of engineering the gene, they merely took an existing living thing with the gene (Even if it was one of the geneticly modified things you sold.), that should not be subject to patent protection.

I think this would even work with human genes. You can genetically engineer people to have gills or whatever, but you don't get any royalties off their children.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[KontinMonet]

governments are democratically elected so the council is democratic

You clearly went to the political party school of logic. Political hacks appointed into the job by a very small coterie of senior politicians giving a pat on the back to one of their own (who doesn't ever have to have been elected to any post at any time) does not mean the council has any democratic credentials. They might vote amongst themselves but 25 appointed (and very possibly corrupt if history has any say) special interest individuals coming to a conclusion does not fill me with unbridled confidence...

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Halo1]

Now I don't want to interrupt your rant *but* the council consists of ministers of the different EU countries. These governments are democratically elected so the council is democratic.

No, it isn't. The Council's decisions are largely not taken by the ministers, but by faceless bureaucrats holding secret meetings of which the results are often kept secret as long as possible.

In case of the software patents directive, those faceless bureaucrats are the same people that conduct the day to day operations of the European Patent Office. The same EPO that introduced software patents. They are mostly delegates from the various national patent offices.

And of course, the ministers don't decide how to vote on texts by themselves, they have advisors. You can have two guesses who those advisers generally were in this case.

Because the Council operates so intransparently, it's very difficult for the national Parliaments to keep their governments in check. Further, the Council itself does not operate democratically at all. Just look at how Poland is being bullied by the Dutch Presidency to accept a directive it does not like at all.

Even better we should ask ourselves why the "more European" institution -the parliament- is apparently more interested in the good of the people than the council of national governments, which -following the accepted logic around here- are less removed from the local concerns and therefore somehow superior.

Because the MEPs are directly elected by local people and their reports are fully public and their way of working is quite transparent. They obviously aren't all saints, but in general they are quite reachable by "common people" (unlike governmental ministers, let alone governmental bureaucrats). I also remind you that the Dutch government explicitly *ignored* a decision of the Dutch parliament on how to vote (which was binding iirc. It wasn't binding, but the government said they would abide by the result. However, they made a peculiar interpretation of it which does not oblige them to change their vote after all.

It was on /. a few months ago but I don't remember exactly and I'm lazy so perhaps someone else could look it up). Me thinks we should be less concerned about what is wrong with the EU and more about what is wrong with our national governments.

There are definitely also problems there.

(doesn't mean that there aren't enough things that are wrong with the EU. Unfortunatly the constitution which would solve some of them -e.g. a more powerful parliament- has no chance of surviving the British referendum)

Many people doubt whether it will improve more than it will hurt. For example, one of the articles in that European Constitution simply states "Intellectual property shall be protected", without further specifying in any way what this intellectual property is. So forbidding software patents may actually become unconstitutional under that text. Maybe allowing free thoughts will become unconstitutional as well, since you may be using thought processes that someone else used before and he has a constitutional right to "protection" of those.

Re: Moderators take note!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are sooo right! Thank the gods for the "Post Anonymously" check box, because it was really tastless as hell, but I thought it was funny so I did it anyway.

On a side note... Very interesting page you have there, working on something similar myself (but I hope smaller)

I wrote to the French Minister of Industry

[o'reor]

I wrote a letter a few months ago (that was in late june IIRC), just after the vote of the parliament, expressing my concerns as an IT professional about software patents and how they were going to happen if the european council did not follow the amendments voted by the parliament.

I did get a letter back, quite a few months later (mid-October), explaining to me with flawed arguments that I need not worry and "pure software patents" were not about to happen, only patents on inventions "with a technical effect". We all know what it's really all about, and how any telco can put a patent on a vocal codec claiming a "technical effect", while it is just a patent on an algorithm (I was working in a large telco at the time).

So basically my big fat obnoxious Minister of Industry and Small and Medium Businesses fails to see where the problem is, despite a huge number of SMEs having signed the petition online. However, I still invite *you* to write to your own ministers or secretaries of state in charge of the matter. The louder we will shout, the more likely they will lend an ear.

Re:I wrote to the French Minister of Industry

[KontinMonet]

It's worse than that IIRC. "Technical effect", "computer-implemented invention" and the like are not phrases used by any computer professional I know. They are code-phrases for "'pure' software". "Technical effect" is not the same as "physical effect", one-click (TM) has a technical effect but who (in their right mind) argues it is a good patent? Write to your minister, your MP and your MEPs clarifying this (for their own benefit. of course). The argument is:

'To be patentable, an invention must have technical character. This means that the invention must relate to a technical field and solve a technical problem. A computer program has a technical character if it causes a technical effect when run on a computer. This effect must be more than the "normal" physical interaction between program and computer. In practice, this requirement is rarely a problem for inventions that use software for their realization. So it should not come as a surprise that there are many European patents covering software-related inventions.' [Ius mentis]

"See No ePatents and No to swpats for sensible arguments.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the European Union never had a civil war... unless the conflict in Northern Ireland counts.

The end of the beginning

[Anders Andersson]

the war is far from over

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

I began arguing against software patents around the time when the League for Programming Freedom was founded, before I had even seen a software patent or imagined they would once become a problem in Europe, and before I could find anybody concerned to argue with. Now there are plenty of people involved and the issue is high on the agenda, but I have grown tired of arguing. Having one's opponents essentially ignore every argument thrown at them makes it look like a waste of good ammunition.

Since I found no other issue of interest to me in this year's election to the European Parliament, I made the software patent issue the deciding one for me. Not that it mattered a lot in the end; my preferred candidate would probably have been the same even without this particular issue. However, with the Parliament on the right track, we still have to deal with the Commission and the Council, in effect the desires of national governments and (unelected) pro-patent lobbying groups.

Even as I hope to see this issue laid to rest soon and the proposals for software patents scrapped, I'm planning for the worst, simply to make clear that this spoonful of political porridge is getting nowhere near my stomach; it will either remain in the bowl or be spewed out all over the table.

- See this proposal on your desk? Vote it down, or else.

- So, you made that proposal into European law, in spite of what I told you to do? Now watch me spank my national government if you attempt to implement it where I live.

- So you still don't get my point, but you have actually made it national law? So what. Here is a piece of patented software. I wrote it, you try to stop me from distributing it.

- Now, you say my distribution may be legal in spite of the patent claims because it isn't commercial? That's very nice of you and everything, but how does that help my programmer friends who are actually trying to make a living off their creative efforts? I'm not asking for any special treatment; from now on I'll simply charge for my software if that makes you happy. Have you called the police yet?

- Well, I'm so sorry for not having consulted a patent attorney who could have told me that my implementation actually doesn't infringe due to a technicality. Thank you for pointing it out, it will be fixed right away, and I want that lawsuit filed against me tomorrow at the latest.

- Your Honor, you may wonder why I went through all that trouble to formally violate a patent when I didn't have any intent of selling my software in the first place. The reason is that I consider the application of the Patent Act on computer software a violation of my freedom of speech, since the software I have written is technically indistinguishable from speech as it is defined by law. I respectfully ask the Court to apply the rules laid out in the Constitution for resolving any conflict between the Patent Act and the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms established by the same Constitution. We used to have freedom of speech before software patents came around, and I don't think lawyers should try to change established practice in the area of civil rights. So long, and thanks for all the fish!

It may take a long time before we get there, and it may cost a lot of money to our opponents, but it's always easier to show by example than to explain by handwaving.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[mar1boro]

The point is this; the EU has not had a revolution _yet_. Give it time.

From Denmark?! From DENMARK?! Hohum!

[ArsenneLupin]

(I'm from Denmark)

CAN I HEAR FROM DENMARK PLEASE!
Sorry for screaming, it was stronger than me...

I sure would like to get kicked

And me too would like you to be kicked... by the very boot that you licked so slavishly!

So WHO ARE the ministers who will decide? Lobby?

[feepcreature]

So is it the countries' fisheries ministers who will decide? Should there be some last-minute lobbying?

What are their names and contact details?

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyways the contries themselves have to accept the new laws. Then fight for years in courtrooms and be sentenced large fines that they can just refuse to pay. Or maybe we'll be thrown out? I sure would like to get kicked(I'm from Denmark)

A Dane pretending to show some spine about this very question? That has to be a troll!

Yes, I know, trolls are Norvegian, not Danish, but "Can I hear from Norvegia?" just doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely...

*headache ensues*

[kjkeefe]

Advise is something you do.

Advice is something you give.

Just my too scents...
Kaje

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Superjhemp]

The EU is rotten to the core.

I have to bite my tongue very hard not to quote some Hamlet here...

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Eldav]

legislation is created and passed by a (presumably) democratically elected parliament, or that house of a bicamel parliament that is directly elected

I guess a bicamel parliament has four humps ? ;-)

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anonymous Coward]

Also it does not involve taking away power from well-established democracies and giving to a large Union that the people can't influence and does not have any interest in.

You mipselled "... a large Union that the people don't dare to defend their point of view against ..."

I don't want French and Italian corruption spreading to my contry.

You're right about France (who liked software patents so much that they still wanted to vote after the party was already over!), but Italy did abstain (counts same as opposed) during the vote in May.

one BIG reason there is so much pressure for this

[jonwil]

If software patents dont get through in the EU, there is nothing stopping anyone from taking stuff that is patented in the US under their broken system and using it legally. This includes competitors of the company that holds the US patent.
Also, with the power of the Internet and global commerce, it is very difficult to sue for violation of the US patent by people who the patent applies to since there are too many to catch.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confusing the European Commission with the European Council. This is not helped by the fact that we refer to both the appointed 25 and the huge bureaucracy they lead as the European Commission. The European Council is the meeting of the cabinet ministers of member states, but of course the same name refers also to the smaller bureaucracy that is there to support the cabinet meetings. I hope this helps to increase your confusion.

Outlaw intelligence and only criminals will think.

[DimGeo]

Accepting such patent laws would be yet another brave step in the quest for making everyone a criminal by default. In EU this time.

I am glad Bulgaria is still some years away from becoming a member of the EU. If they do accept this... thing (pardon my language, but we are in a public forum)... I will have to move to Norway or something...

Re:Outlaw intelligence and only criminals will thi

[KontinMonet]

I am glad Bulgaria is still some years away from becoming a member of the EU

My wife (being Bulgarian) wouldn't agree! The amount of time, effort and money we had to spend to get her to be able to live and work in the UK was ridiculous. (As opposed to Germany and Holland where it was easy...).

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyways the contries themselves have to accept the new laws. Then fight for years in courtrooms and be sentenced large fines that they can just refuse to pay. Or maybe we'll be thrown out? I sure would like to get kicked

And this coming from a Dane? Oh, the irony!

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[JimFromJersey]

Personally i would like to see a stronger collaboration between the Scandinavian contries

You could call yourselves the Viking Union.

omg...where are my mod points

[Dhaos]

Oh, sweet lord, why am I bereft of mod points??

This is one of the first posts I've ever seen to be actually worthy of the descriptor "Insightful"

If there's any justice, you'll be modded. Up.

send paper

[Eternally optimistic]

Try sending hard copies and/or faxes, it still helps with some of the more technologically backward government types.

my favorite line

[suezz]

"The Dutch Presidency has been using diplomatic pressure to bully Poland. Although everyone knows that neither the Polish government nor the Polish industry supports the directive text, the Dutch Presidency insists that, due to some formal reasons, Poland must vote "Yes" or agree to a formal adoption without a vote" and the purpose of voting was??

s/bandwith/bandwidth/

[danalien]

... and while I'm at it, s/I'd/I/

Re:So WHO ARE the ministers who will decide? Lobby

[Halo1]

No, it is the ministers of economy that decide. But their bureaucrats will try to get an agreement beforehand and if so, only the official signing off of the text is left to do. This can be done without any decision making or discussion at any Council formation.

The least I could do...

[daijo78]

This made me angry enough to send an E-mail to four MEPs and our swedish minister of justice Thomas Bodström. I also tipped a major news paper. Hope you all do the same.

Re:The least I could do...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been planning to write a debate article for Gävle Dagblad, but i simply do not have enough information. Someone with more legal knowledge could easily spank my arguments.

Re:The least I could do...

[daijo78]

Journalist seem to drop this story. Perhaps it's boring, hard and without public interest. I would say it's very important for the average consumer. Watched the news today and I would easily rank this among the top five stories today... But I guess my own priorities are different then the medias.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[mefus]

[T]he Council is given the power to override Parlaiment unless a super majority (66%) chooses to oppose it.

Someone above said an absolute majority (%50 of all the votes, plus one) was required to override the council. You are saying it is a super majority. Which is it? It can't be both.

Ashamed

[rembert]

I'm ashamed of being Dutch and I even feel ashamed for the party I voted on: the minister responsible for the voting in the European parliament is from this party (D66), although the party ITSELF is AGAINST the software patent ruling. All in all, this seems a very dirty way of doing politics. It's enough to drive me out of IT business (I'm running my own company which probably will stop as soon as the software patents are effectuated here in Europe).

Re:1950: What if we had Software Patents back then

[infolib]

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."

-- Bill Gates, 1991

EU parliament uses Diebold voting machines

[ugmoe]

I read earlier on Slashdot that the EU parliament uses Diebold voting machines .

How can the EU allow voting with no paper trail?

software patents at accellerated speed

[LuxFX]

The solution hit me the other night. Patents last for 17 years, right? But I've heard statistics saying that the computer industry moves at about 7 times the speed of traditional industries.

So, let them patent software. But have the patents expire in 2.5 years. If they won't outlaw software patents for good, then 2.5 year patents might be a compromise more of us could live with.

comments?

Re:software patents at accellerated speed

[Halo1]

The TRIPs agreement does not allow for different patent policies, all patents must be equal. Further, a patent of 2.5 years wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on. A trade secret would be much more interesting: free, and it would probably last longer to boot. The last point is not the case if it's a business method or something else which is automatically ideally disclosed by using it, but then society also doesn't get anything for granting a patent on something like that (the disclosure value of the patent is 0).

Not to mention that examination delays of 6 years and more are more the norm than the exception...

Re:software patents at accellerated speed

[LuxFX]

a patent of 2.5 years wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on

exactly! only those companies that absolutely demand that extra edge will bother. it will also work as means to dissuade frivolous patents.

I didn't know about the TRIPs agreement. It should be expanded to allow for different patent situations. The 17 years was selected (from what I understand) so that the innovations could be utilized at a later date by other companies as means of encouraging the use of innovative ideas. (doesn't the USPTO contend [counterintuitively] that they exist to further innovation?) It only makes sense that industries that move at a faster pace should have a shorter time before using patented innovations.

The examination delays is a problem. That will require some more brainstorming.

Re:software patents at accellerated speed

[Halo1]

a patent of 2.5 years wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on

exactly! only those companies that absolutely demand that extra edge will bother.

The problem is that you don't get an extra edge with a patent that's valid only 2.5 years. You pay a lot of money in exchange for a useless trinket.

it will also work as means to dissuade frivolous patents.

No, it wouldn't. A frivolous patent is generally worth a lot more than one on a very complex algorithm, because more people will infringe on it (and most won't be able to afford litigation to have it invalidated by a court).

I didn't know about the TRIPs agreement. It should be expanded to allow for different patent situations. The 17 years was selected (from what I understand) so that the innovations could be utilized at a later date by other companies as means of encouraging the use of innovative ideas.

It was selected because that's what the US government and some large companies wanted.

(doesn't the USPTO contend [counterintuitively] that they exist to further innovation?)

Recently, they indeed changed it to something like that (see slide 5 of this presentation for an overview of their mission statements over the years).

It only makes sense that industries that move at a faster pace should have a shorter time before using patented innovations.

Yet, the patent offices are wary of annoying their largest customers. Once upon a time, the patent system may indeed have been a social contract beneficial for society, but even if so those times are long gone in the mean time (at least as far as most fields of innovation are concerned)...

Re:software patents at accellerated speed

[LuxFX]

Sigh, yep it's true. And it's a shame. I think this just highlights what's wrong with the system.

Frivolous lawsuits more profitable than complex ones, USPTO wary of annoying their largest 'customers'.... Patents should be used to support a business' technology, not to support lawsuits which are the business (financially).

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Guppy06]

"By contrast, when American federalization occured, there was already well established and popular trans-state political movements and proto-parties, such as Federalists, etc."

Actually, no. In fact, institutions like the US Senate and Electoral College were designed and intended to hinder interstate political efforts, using proxy elections to remove the direct decision of office-holders from the people at large in the hopes that a smaller electoral body would be less likely to be swayed by party politics. We only see national parties truly gain a foothold in the federal government outside the House of Representatives a few election cycles later, when the national parties figure out how to short-circuit the Electoral College with candidates for each running on the sole platform of "Vote for me and I'll vote for $party!" instead of their own merits. The also used the same idea to a lesser extent with state legislature candidates who would later decide on US Senators, at least until the Seventeenth Amendment got rid of the middlemen altogether.

(Of course, with the wonders of modern statistics allowing gerrymandering on a block-by-block scale, it's now the House seats that the state legislatures decide every ten years.)

At any rate, these institutions were proposed for the US Constitution to soothe those people who wanted more a federation and less a republic, with the original resulting document compromising with a little bit of both. It's probably sentiments like that which inspired the creation of the Council of Ministers to begin with. Personally, speaking from the US, I'd rather go back to a form of government that hinders interstate political movements. Care to trade?

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anonymous Coward]

the Scandinavian contries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland for the americans :-) )

Finland is not a Scandinavian country, a Nordic country, yes, but not a part of Scandinavia. On the other hand Finland is a part of Fenno-Scandia and there is a strong collaboration between nordic countries, for example we have not needed a passport to enter a another nordic country for decades and working in a another nordic country has been and is very easy.

Yes Minister !

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod Up.

Hard to believe this is real. Sir Humphrey is still going strong. Damm.. thats not a show, its a documentary. The solution here, is to find the weasel(s), and give them a far flung posting.

democracy circumvented in europe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could never happen.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anonymous Coward]

If the EU is to go with stupidities like software patents, then the EU must die. No organization with these kinds of rules have a right to exist at all. It would be a shame if it came to a fighting war over such idiocies as IP law, but if it does take a gun to protect my freedoms against such things, then so be it.

It is actually both...

[dyfet]

Someone above said an absolute majority (%50 of all the votes, plus one) was required to override the council. You are saying it is a super majority. Which is it? It can't be both.

As I recall, in the first reading of the directive, the parliament can object or modify with a standard majority (or of course simply accept the directive as is). Assuming the EP doesn't accept the directive, the council can then either choose to drop the directive, accept the modifications if Parliament made any, or simply choose to resubmit the directive again unchanged (or possibly changed differently). If they simply choose to re-submit the same directive again for a second reading against the original objections of the European Parliament, then a super majority is required to effect a veto (2/3).

Re:It is actually both...

[mefus]

a standard majority

Is that a phrase you just made up?

1. simple majority: More votes than any of one or more other options.
2. absolute majority: More than half the total number of votes.
3. super majority: More than two-thirds of the total number of votes.

It cannot actually be both, and what you described is neither. You are confusing things even further.

Re:It is actually both...

[tricorn]

According to Wikipedia, a simple majority is more than half the votes cast, an absolute majority is more than half of the possible votes (counting not present, not voting, and abstention). Majority by itself means "more than half".

"Standard majority" may not be a standard phrasing, but its meaning was clear: a majority (more than half) that is not a super-majority (a requirement in excess of a simple majority), in this case a two-thirds majority.

Your "simple majority" is what is properly known as a plurality or relative majority.

Re:It is actually both...

[mefus]

Thanks for the correction re: simple, although I disagree that "standard majority" is clear.

Re:It is actually both...

[tricorn]

"standard" "normal" "nothing-special" majority. All he was doing was emphasizing that it wasn't a super-majority.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

^-, MOD PARENT UP

Re:Europe is the suxx0rz.

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally i can honestly say that i dislike over 50% of the american people who voted in the last election.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anonymous Coward]

bicamel

Perhaps you meant bicameral?

I wonder what a bicamel looks like?

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[nutshell42]

No, it isn't. The Council's decisions are largely not taken by the ministers, but by faceless bureaucrats holding secret meetings of which the results are often kept secret as long as possible

But it's not like there is no oversight by the ministers. The council votes according to the policies set by the national governments. Of course it is influenced by the people appointed to represent the ministers *but* these people are appointed by the governments for a reason. If what they did was somehow the contrary of what the countries wanted they would be replaced.

And of course, the ministers don't decide how to vote on texts by themselves, they have advisors. You can have two guesses who those advisers generally were in this case.

Yes but again. The problem with such "advisors" is not a European problem, it's a national problem *in this case*.

For example, one of the articles in that European Constitution simply states "Intellectual property shall be protected", without further specifying in any way what this intellectual property is. So forbidding software patents may actually become unconstitutional under that text. Maybe allowing free thoughts will become unconstitutional as well, since you may be using thought processes that someone else used before and he has a constitutional right to "protection" of those.

Of course. It may also mean that the RIAA has the right to kill all humans because they could infringe copyright. Don't be ridiculous. Most non-anarchists would support the phrase "Intellectual property shall be protected" what it really means depends on the interpretation. Actually I think it's a victory for opponents of the thought police that in the current political climate IP rights haven't been embraced stronger than that. If you look at the last 5 years most countries have been in a rush to protect every idea from breathing to shitting in woods.

Think again

[RPoet]

I will have to move to Norway or something...

I'm sorry, but Norway is a member of the EEA, meaning we have to implement all the bad EU laws with no say and nothing for it. So when the EU introduces software patents, Norway will have to as well (to harmonize, don't you know). So we are concerned, but powerless.

Oh well. Who needs innovation, anyway.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Halo1]

But it's not like there is no oversight by the ministers.

There's little or none.

The council votes according to the policies set by the national governments. Of course it is influenced by the people appointed to represent the ministers *but* these people are appointed by the governments for a reason. If what they did was somehow the contrary of what the countries wanted they would be replaced.

They are more or less blindly trusted. They're the government inside the government. Ministers come and go, bureaucrats remain. They are the ones that take care of the continuity.

For example, one of the articles in that European Constitution simply states "Intellectual property shall be protected", without further specifying in any way what this intellectual property is. So forbidding software patents may actually become unconstitutional under that text. Maybe allowing free thoughts will become unconstitutional as well, since you may be using thought processes that someone else used before and he has a constitutional right to "protection" of those.

Of course. It may also mean that the RIAA has the right to kill all humans because they could infringe copyright.

I never said anything about punishment or potential infringement.

Don't be ridiculous. Most non-anarchists would support the phrase "Intellectual property shall be protected" what it really means depends on the interpretation.

It's pretty ridiculous to have a broad and all encompassing statement like that in a constitution. The problem is that, as you indicate below, interpretations of that phrase have been running wild lately. And are you going to claim that "software patents" are not intellectual property, and thus do not have to be protected according to that article?

It's not like we haven't seen this before. TRIPs requires patents to be available for "all inventions" in "all fields of technology". The result is that a lot of people claim we need software patents, because according to them software innovations can be inventions and software obviously belongs to a field of technology. So the EP had to make all sorts of definitions to make sure that in the sense of patent law, software innovations do no belong to a field of technology for the sake of TRIPs compliance. This kind of mess is not something you want in a friggin' constitution.

Actually I think it's a victory for opponents of the thought police that in the current political climate IP rights haven't been embraced stronger than that. If you look at the last 5 years most countries have been in a rush to protect every idea from breathing to shitting in woods.

I refuse to accept bullshit like that as a victory.

PArliament is ignored totaly

[Portal1]

Yesterday an article on nu.nl (Dutch)
Seems microsoft tries to pull of a deal.
Without public inscription
While the Dutch government unamiously dicided otherwise and to go for open source 2 years ago
The contract even violates european rules about public contracts.

http://www.nu.nl/news.jsp?n=454376&c=52

Seems holland is ruled by corp.inc

Troll....

[Anonymous Coward]

Wooot!

Go software patents... No Macroshaft!

lol

[Makarakalax]

You hate the whole of Europe? Dare I ask why? It's a rather big place with a lot of different Governments and peoples.

I'm tempted to think you're a fucking fruitcake, but I thought I'd allow you a chance to justify your ridiculous opinion before I added you to my foe list and laughed at every comment you ever right from now on.

I find it quite shocking that currently I have you listed as a friend. So I spose you said something vaguely intelligent at some point in the past. Hard to believe.

a clarification

[dyfet]

A "absolute" majority is required to prevent the directive being enacted in the first reading. That happened with the patent directive in it's first reading, and the EP added some changes. If the council decides to then ignore the wishes of parliament after this has happened, they can submit the directive for a second reading, then a "super" majority is needed to prevent it from being enaced. Is that clearer?

Re:a clarification

[mefus]

Yes, that is clear. Thank you.

Is it possible for the council members to be recalled by their respective governments, and replaced with ones more representative of each country's sentiments? I understand something like that happened to (Monti? anti-trust commissioner or something?) in Italy. But that turned out to be a bad thing, a revenge tactic by Berlusconi.

You appear to have mis-spelt capitalism!!?

[pbhj]

Democracy is great ... I'm not sure that it can ever really work in practice [that's a whole other discussion]. But anyhow, I think the problem here is that you think the west is democratic whilst the predominant politics mindset is capitalism.

Re:You appear to have mis-spelt capitalism!!?

[yourmom16]

Democracy is great ... I'm not sure that it can ever really work in practice

Arrow's Theorem says it can't. To have a true democracy you actually need a condition that implies both monotonicity and independence of irrelevent alternatives; voting your true preferences shouldn't hurt your interests.

Re:You appear to have mis-spelt capitalism!!?

[pbhj]

Thanks Mom,

Very interesting ...

patents are a registered right in Europe

[pbhj]

In the states you have a thing called "first to invent" (which boils down to 'whose legal council can prove that they invented it first'). In Europe and practically the rest of the world we have "first to file". So the only important date is the date you apply to a patent office and disclose your invention.

This is good for a few reasons, one being that it embodies the true worth of the patent system (for humanity) that of disclosing your invention to the populace. As opposed to the /more/ finance based system that says "can I make money off this" iff that's true then I'll disclose it. This is a major simplification of the issue, of course, and indeed one can still prevent disclosure after the filing date has been acquired.

Anyway, this is also relevant as governments are considering patent harmonisation and the allowance of software patents appears (at least in the UKPO, but not necessarily by the UKPO, if you follow) to have been considered as the major bargaining chip for agreement in the clash of "first to file" vs. "first to invent".

I could go on ...

Re:patents are a registered right in Europe

[AviLazar]

Except with the first to disclose you run into these problems:
1) I do not know how to patent and cannot afford to get someone to do it for me. I am screwed.
2) I didn't patent my invention, I have been selling it for years, Joe Schmoe company decides to patent my invention - now I have to pay them royalties. aka Prior art.

Now if I invent something, do not patent it and do not make it publicaly known (i.e. i put it in a vault and locked itup) and X years from now someone invents something else just like it and they patent it...I would think that I am screwed - otherwise who is to say I didn't copy the material?

I think most of our problems will be solved when the patent lawyers, processors, and laws are re-educated, updated and fixed. I think that patent/copyright laws are needed. If someone wants to create something and make it freeware/open source/etc - that is their choice. If someone wants to make a buck - that is their choice - not ours (other then saying that we won't pay).

Out of curiousity - how many open source PC games are out there that come even close to competing with games like UT, CS, etc? If open source is so great - why haven't they made headway?

Re:patents are a registered right in Europe

[bit01]

I think most of our problems will be solved when the patent lawyers, processors, and laws are re-educated, updated and fixed.

You are being very naive. It is physically impossible for a small government office to realistically assess all human knowledge to assess whether a particular invention is obvious to somebody skilled in the art. Only a scientist with a lifetime's experience can do that and even then they make mistakes.

See also:

• Re:Prior Art?
• Re:Make more prior art
• Re:Make more prior art
• Re:As a member of the Linux community...
• Re:Missing the point

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as an american...

we know what you meant by "Scandinavian" :oP

and i personally think that would be a great idea!

I am very fond of the way you guys up there think.

Re:Outlaw intelligence and only criminals will thi

[The MESMERIC]

"My wife (being Bulgarian) wouldn't agree! The amount of time, effort and money we had to spend to get her to be able to live and work in the UK was ridiculous."

What? Sacrificing her to this pitiful Island?
Don't you have any love for your wife?

As soon as I get my patent...

[Anonymous Coward]

...on "Method for circumventing European parliament", they are toast.

Originally a bolshevik slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

All power to the soviets!

Like

Peace, land and bread!

Re:Europe is the suxx0rz.

[Anonymous Coward]

You idiot.

Your country deserves to be destroyed like Falluja.
I hate USA, therefore I'm happy with their self-screwing patent laws.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[ReinoutS]

I wonder how long it will take before the parliament drives a revolution, kicking out dangerously corruptible, interest-conflicted and unaccountable council and commission.

I don't know if you've been paying any attention, but this already happened once in 1998.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[ignavus]

"or that house of a bicamel parliament that is directly elected."

That would be a Parliament made up of two camels, both directly elected.

Explain me this please

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who opposes software patents en bloc, explain me one thing please. Say there is a company that develops a shiny new algorithm that compresses all you data to its 1%. Let's assume that it took one year and a hundred of scientists (ie. a lot of money) for the company to develop this algorithm. If it's not possible to protect this invention with a patent, how can we expect companies to invest so much in R&D?

Re:Explain me this please

[Anders Andersson]

Say there is a second company that independently of the first develops the shiny new algorithm that compresses all your data to 1%. Let's assume that it took one year and a hundred of scientists (ie. a lot of money) for the second company to develop this algorithm. If it's possible for the first company to protect this invention with a patent and thereby exclude the second company from receiving any return from their investment, how can we expect companies to invest so much in R&D?

A patent isn't a reward for innovation, it's a reward for being the first to file for a patent, whether or not it covers a real invention. With hardware stuff, you usually don't risk violating someone else's patent unless you actually start manufacturing and selling said hardware. However, when patents are being granted on mere algorithms or the very process of thinking itself, how are you going to catch every infringer who has applied the same thinking in his own business without also hurting a lot of innocent bystanders?

No matter if it costs someone one hundred man years; if all they can come up with is a written explanation of how to solve a particular problem in your head but no new hardware mechanism, they don't deserve a government monopoly on getting a return on that investment.

Re:Explain me this please

[Anonymous Coward]

Aha. I understand (and maybe agree, too), but I do not see the logic here. If we are talking about hardware production, if someone invents something, shall he have the right to patent it so anyone who comes to the same invention on his own (or even before the first), will not be able to benefit from his invention? Why is this distinction between hardware and plain algorithms? Where is the distinction? If someone designs an algorithm and a hardware that utilizes that, should that be patentable or not?

Re:Explain me this please

[Anders Andersson]

There is no fundamental, philosophical distinction between a hardware patent and a software patent. There are however both legal and practical distinctions. The legal ones can be added or removed at the whim of your legislature, while the practical ones are a bit harder to get rid of. The question is, will you accept a practical issue (such as the ability to identify and sue infringers) as the only reason to distinguish between two different kinds of inventions, one patentable and the other not?

If you don't, then you can argue for patents on essentially everything, including various mental processes (since you can learn new ways of thinking on various courses, an innovative mental process may have a commercial value). Problem is, how do you distinguish between those teaching this method as part of their business and those merely telling their friends about it at no charge? Or, do you even care to make that distinction; maybe you expect people to stop handing out free advice to their friends if someone has a patent on that advice? While you technically could legislate also against "non-profit patent infringement", would that be a sensible thing to do?

For this practical reason, patent law has traditionally been limited to deal with hardware inventions, leaving abstract things like business methods and works of art aside as non-patentable, because that's an easy distinction to make even for a layman. People designing and manufacturing hardware in their spare time, for others to use free of charge, are way too few to have any impact on the economy; therefore "hardware" essentially implies "commercial".

This traditional distinction has been blurred by computer software, which to a layman may look like hardware (it comes in a physical box known as a "computer"), but which is essentially a work of "literature" or "art". You can sell it commercially either way, but if you can patent a computer program or an algorithm, what is there to stop you from patenting also the intrigue of a work of fiction, a method of education used in schools, or a way to save cattle from drowning? Will you have the resources to track down infringers and claim royalties, when none of those things come with manufacturing labels and serial numbers? Exactly who "sold" that algorithm to whom, and in how many "copies"? When intellectual property is turned into popular knowledge and back into intellectual property again, any notions of "ownership" and "contract" tied to the original property are effectively lost.

I don't own any patents myself. I do own stock (indirectly) in companies owning patents (probably both hardware and software), but I don't care a lot how they manage their patent portfolios; that's up to them. Not running a business myself, I don't mind a situation where patents are granted for hardware inventions only, and where patents don't interfere with my freedom to tinker with whatever technology I like in my spare time. If and when they do, I'll fight them for that. Either patents should be limited to areas of society where I don't go, say by making a legal distinction between "hardware" and "software", or I'll argue against patents altogether simply because they are unacceptable on software (works of art). Those who claim that patents should be equally applicable on hardware and software will be met by their own argument working against them.

Because patents are too vague.

[jotaeleemeese]

Just read /. for a couple of weeks and you will see the deluge (courtesy of US law firms) of bogus patent claims in software that are either clearly trivial or for which plenty of prior art exists (but the US patent office could not be arsed to find out about).

And why is this? Because software is not an invention in the same sense a physical device is. Software is form of speech plain and simple.
Let me explain, in a computer language you have the following:

a=b+2

you can explain that in plain English (or any other language). Amuse yourself googling for the DeCSS algorythm for a clear example of this.

There already exists (a quite draconian) way to protect written speech. It is called copyright. That would mean that people could not copy your implemeentation of a software algorithm but they could come with their own.

Software is speech, speech is not patentable.

Simple, I don't see why politicians just can't get it.

Re:Because patents are too vague.

[AviLazar]

It's a matter of opinion, and apparantly the software writers want it to be a patent. Whats wrong with it being a patent?
I personally have never seen (or heard of until you) a software program being considered a form of speech. Just because it utilizes text does not make it speech - I think that is a gross viewpoint and maligning of what a program is.

Logical falacy.

[jotaeleemeese]

There is no natural right for a person or legal entity to control an idea (which is what software in particular, but in reality the production of anything in general is).

You are starting form the point were you assume that somebody that "invents" something has the right to control it.

This has been deemed so any Western Capitalist countries, but it was not always so, and it is not like that in other countries with other political or economic systems.

My point is that patents are not something untouchable, if they prove to be more a hindrance than a useful tool we could do away with them. There would be nothing morally worng with that especially if there is a consensus that society would benefit as a whole.

Re:Logical falacy.

[AviLazar]

Counterstrike is an invention. It may not have physical properties, but it was invented by someone. The invention came from an idea (all inventions come from ideas).

I agree that patents are not untouchable, but just because it is broken does not mean it should be gotten rid of. Some things broken must be fixed- but a void would be worse. Maybe not in the minds of people who want everything free - but our society is not built on getting things for free.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[musicmaster]

You exaggerate only a bit. The EU mandarins are on a crash course with the majority of their citizens on many fronts. Besides the software patents there are also the constitution, Turkey and its excess of regulations.

That is the whole point.

[jotaeleemeese]

You should be modded down for whinning pre-emptively about moderation.

Any way, the point of standarizing things like patents in a place with a single market is to have a level playing field for all the economic actors in the single market.

There would be no point to have a single market if each country would pull out of nowhere uncompetitive advantages. That is the ethos of even greather integration in so many areas in the EU.

You may like it, or you may not, but there is a reson for the closer integration, if a country wants to reap the benefits of the European market then they have to adhere to a set of commonly agreed rules. Right now European are deciding what those rules are going to be regarding sofware patentability.

I really hope that they see the light and get rid of software patents altogether. Otherwise Europe will learn the hard way what software patents are a bad idea and will have to scrap them any way once the damage is done.

Re:Europe is the suxx0rz.

[miomao]

Fortunately not all americans are egoist like you and I hope one day the USA will return to be an example to follow for the world...

Tenet, Franks, & Bremer : )

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever happened to recognizing people for outstanding achievements that go above and beyond the call of duty?

These jackasses did their jobs will C level performance - only good enough to pass.

Bush thinks he can paint the diversion from the war on terror in Iraq as heroic by associating the medal of honor with people involved with the war. Who is he kidding? Giving the medal of honor for political purposes only furthers the degree he will be forever remembered as an extreme jackass. Or better - as a fucking criminal.

Warning this post is way off topic.

Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

even the $$$ corporations lobbying for software patents could not afford corrupting the entire european parliament. Unfortunately they just need to corrupt the council in order to circumvent democracy and public interest.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, 'europe' started two world wars (it is
now considered impolite to point ut that it was
actually Germany). But the EU had nothing to do
with keeping the peace for the last 60 years.
That was NATO, and increased wealth and travel
meaning the younger generations of Europeans
(western europe at least) can't be persuaded to
hate each other anymore (not even the Germans).

The EU is a bureaucratic, undemocratic, corrupt,
expensive mess and can't be transformed into a
viable superstate because there is not a strong
enough sense of shared identity to make it work.

You can be good friends with your next-door
neighbours, but how friendly would you be if
you had to share a house?

Remember the US had a bloody civil war when
political disagreements led the confederate
states to try to leave. Did you know EU
treaties have no exit clause?

The EU has a much better chance of causing the
next european war than of preventing it.

(gareth williams, gareth@dgwsoft.co.uk, not anonymous, just too busy to create an account)

Re:Europe is the suxx0rz.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a better idea for you. Propose your President to export democracy in here. :-)

Peace, brother.

Re:Europe is the suxx0rz.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me clarify my position. I am european and I love USA too. I just find _VERY_ funny and a nonsens this recent EU against USA thing. Really.

Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU..

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this free speach?

CKY24-Q8QRH-X3KMR-C6BCY-T847Y

Lets put some pressure on the Dutch government

[johnny.wheeler]

Please send an http://www.minaz.nl/minister-president/vragen/inde x_reactie.htmlemail to the Dutch Prime Minister and ask him to intervene in the process! There is a resolution "Van Dam" of the Dutch Parlement that states that The Netherlands must vote against Software Patents. Ask the Prime Minister to have Minister Brinkhorst (Minister of Economic Affairs) to execute the resolution "Van Dam". Copy your e-mail and send it to the Dutch Television News Agency RtlNieuws. This can be done through: redactie@rtlnieuws.nl With subject: My e-mail sent to your prime minister about software patents. We need to get this issue on the Dutch television! Thanks, John

Lets put some pressure on the Dutch government

[johnny.wheeler]

Ok sorry my first slashdot post. Here again:
Please send an e-mail to the Dutch Prime Minister and ask him to intervene in the process! There is a resolution "Van Dam" of the Dutch Parlement that states that The Netherlands must vote against Software Patents. Ask the Prime Minister to have Minister Brinkhorst (Minister of Economic Affairs) to execute the resolution "Van Dam".

Copy your e-mail and send it to the Dutch Television News Agency RTL Nieuws. This can be done through: redactie@rtlnieuws.nl Use a subject like: "My e-mail sent to your prime minister about software patents."

To put pressure we need to get this issue on the Dutch television!

Thanks, John

Jingoism

[Scrameustache]

hate the whole of Europe? Dare I ask why?

It's called jingoism, or chauvinism:
Extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of a group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group.

Good news!

[RWerp]

Poland forced the patents directive to be removed from the agenda of the EU Agricultural Council. It means that the directive will not be adopted this year.