Slashdot Mirror
EU Software Patents Dead Again
Joe Blakesley writes "Heise is reporting (in German) that the JURI (legal division of the European Parliament who tend to be more pro-EPO) have voted to invoke Rule 55 for a total restart of the software patents process (going back through the anti-swpat Parliament with a totally new directive) following attempts by the EC to get their directive through by the back door. This is an important victory for democracy and it means we can no longer say that the JURI is out. Also see Groklaw's story."
It must be like catch 22: if enough private money is spent on a public issue, it's not for the public's benefit.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This only shows that the U$ is on their way to fasicst/communist copyright rule inposed by the dictatorship of MPAA/RIAA.
It shows that Freewill and Free thinking is still present in the EU and has not been polluted by the deranged thoughts of MPAA/RIAA and others with similar agenda.
I it obvious that soon the U$A will be something similar to the world in Orwells 1984.
And im not blaming Bu$h, but the coperate infiltrators in the senate.
National sovereignity is so 90s...
Also, that's the point of the whole EU. Give up some sovereignity and move closer together. Act as one.
This will give the EU a much needed opportunity to consider the issues properly with the benefit of major campaigning forces on BOTH sides of the arguments instead of just the big boys arguing for unlimited patentability.
2) Even if it was, why is that a bad thing?
This is very reassuring to see that software patents nightmare will most likely never happen in European Union where politicians seem to be concerned more with public good than with lobbying, which probably will lead to their abolishment in the United States as well, because American programmers will never agree to be left behind the whole Western civilization even facing quite different priorities of politicians on their side of the pond. This is a great time to sign this letter and start sending snail mail letters to these addresses. If you know of any other place where people can easily voice their opinion on those issues in a way that actual politicians will see them, please post them here. This is a truly great news, no matter if you are a free software believer, an open source pragmatist, or a proprietary zealot. In the end, every programmer has to face the same problems with software patents. It's wonderful to see a bright future and it's quote amazing to see honest politicians acting in the best interest of Their People.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
But this is another step backwards for European National sovereignty.
:P
I think European National sovereignty has a bigger problem then this. The fact that there is no nation that is recognised as "Europe" would probably be a big problem. There are numerous nations in Europe that have sovereignty, but that isn't the same thing as European National sovereignty
http://kwiki.ffii.org/Restart050202En
Brussels, 2 February 2005 - The Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (JURI) has decided with a large majority to ask the Commission for a renewed referral of the software patents directive. With only two or three votes against and one abstention, the resolution had overwhelming support from the committee, and all-party backing.
The decision is a powerful statement from MEPs that the current Council text, and the logjam of concern it has caused, is simply not a sustainable way forward. It is now up to the Commission to submit a new, or the same, proposal to the Parliament. Parliament will then hold a new first reading, this time under the guidance of Michel Rocard MEP as rapporteur.
The European Commissioner for the Internal Market, Charlie McCreevy, had in the morning assured the JURI Committee that the Council would finally adopt its beleaguered Common Position text. He announced that "the Luxembourg Presidency has now received written assurances concerning the re-instatement of this issue as an A point at a forthcoming Council". Given that A points are to be adopted without discussion, this left no possibilities for renewed negotiations in the Council. Apparently, the Members of Parliament concluded that a restart was the best solution.
Former french prime minister Michel Rocard MEP, PES (FR/PS), gave a very strong speech at the meeting with the Commissioner. Apart from noting several "inelegancies" by the Commission, such as not taking into account any of the Parliament's substantive amendments in its recommendation to the Council, he also took issue with the Dutch and German governments ignoring their respective parliaments and the attempted ratifications of the political (dis)agreement at several fishery Council meetings. He furthermore mentioned that at a meeting with the Polish government, the industry players had confirmed that the Council text allowed pure software patents, and he wondered how the Commission could continue claiming the reverse. He was also curious about how the Commission's perfectly tautological definition of the concept "technical" could help in any way to distinguish between what is patentable and what is not.
Despite his own abstention when voting on the restart later that day, the fact that almost everyone else supported it is probably his personal achievement.
The Commissioner made clear that "any agreement will need to strike a fair balance between different interests", and that "a constructive dialogue between the Council and Parliament will be vital for an agreement". He does have the option to deny a new first reading. But given the strength of feeling in the Parliament and the concerns of so many member states in the Council, the Parliament request looks like the best way to achieve a clean way forward for this Directive that everyone has been looking for.
Comments
Jonas Maebe, board member of FFII:
The Commissioner can jumpstart the constructive dialogue by submitting
a new and more balanced proposal to the European Parliament this time. By
taking into account the countless new facts that have surfaced since the
start of this procedure in 2002, the Commission has a great opportunity to
reinvigorate the Lisbon strategy.
Dieter Van Uytvanck, president FFII Belgium:
We owe this victory for democracy to the members of the European
parliament. Today they have shown once again that they really care
about the concerns of the European citizens. And of course we would
like to thank those as well. I'm sure that without their impressive
support for an innovative climate that is freed of software patents,
this step would not have been possible.
André Rebentisch, FFII Media
The Commissioner was not prepared to take blame for Bolkestein's policy.
Charlie McCreevy is a very straightforward Irish politician.
But unfortunately he adopted a pathetic phrase style. Today at JURI
he 'read poems' while JURI members
it is just matter of time. i already feel to be a european (read my nation is wurope, not any part of it)
Deliriant isti Americani.
In other news, the Gates Foundation was reported as saying that Poland had been evaluated as an unsuitable recipient for any of Bill's money.
Maybe I'm just too cynical, but sooner or later , they will get their way and software patents will come. Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely against them. But they will never rest until they get them passed, and even if the opposition is strong now, sooner or later, someone will come into office who will work to pass the patents and then retire to a nice comfy spot on the board of some tech companies.
ok
where would u be today? interesting question that.. would u even be today?
knowledge is free, and should be free so that we can make the best use of it, whether for profit, charity, improvement, innovation, expandability, documentation, whatever you decide.
which is why the instructions to building any weapon u choose are on the net and/or in your local library.
_ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist
Votes.
I jumped party line the last European Parliament election to hand pick a MEP that was solidly behind FFII's line. And I let all of the involved people, including the MEP and my previous MEP, know it.
Did they care? Did they respond? Yes, they responded to my e-mail. That was a sign in itself.
Politicians ultimately need votes. Regardless of business interests, compromises, if they don't get votes they're out of a job. Let them know what counts. It works.
Actually the Brits are probably one of the most pro-patents nations. Tony likes winners to be on his side, and MS (a fairly pro-patents organisation) is pretty much as far as he sees.
The EU is not a democratic organisation. When people elect people who elect people, democracy is not the correct term. The obvious problem is that the first stage can promise X and then turn around and do Y to elect the second stage. This is the problem that people have with the EU. With the advent of the 'net, we have the ability for true democracy within our society. I'd like to take it.
At the end of the day, there is a decision to be made - is it better to be part of an organisation that is moving and shaping the world in the local neighbourhood, or is it better to be apart ? Britain for one cannot afford splendid isolation any more. It's as simple as that. That doesn't make the EU a great choice. It's just the lesser of two evils.
In Europe, the traditional view of Brits is that of 'little Englanders' obsessed with their petty social rights and demands on society. It's far more complex. Most Brits are far less patriotic than portrayed (for example, I'd like to see a world government), but we just don't think the setup of the EU is a good framework to build on for that ultimate journey.
Under no circumstances ought the EU parliament and the EU council of ministers be so disparate in their opinion that the issue of software patents (or any issue, actually) should divide them so. The EU government (as a whole) is there to represent the people - it's a shame that the council of ministers is far too busy representing (paying) businesses to pay attention to the people whom those businesses ultimately depend on.
Yes, this is politically biased, and I apologise. I'm just sick of being told I'm "anti-democracy" because I disagree with the non-democratic (ironic, huh?) process that the EU takes on these things. I'm especially sick of being told it's "because I'm British". For crying out loud, address the ISSUES, not my nationality.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Well, Rule 55 is the parliamentary equivalent of rebooting.
So, you could say the current status of the patent initiative is like BSOD.
But who knows what will happen next time around?
No, European software patents are not dead yet. But we managed to close the backdoor so it won't be introduced that way.
The patent lobby has not given up. The process will now be restarted and they will try with any means possible to get their way. Fortunately, awareness is rising. Politicians begin to understand that not only big companies and patent lawyers are interested in whether software can be patented. And some of the FUD and lies from the patent lobby is beginning to be exposed. So there is hope for the future.
But the battle is not over yet! PLEASE write your politician and support ffii.org. Now you can make a difference.
)9TSS
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!!!!!!!
This is indeed a great day for Europe and for democracy in Europe.
However, if I understand the story correctly this isn't really a binding decision. The commission could still decide to go ahead with what they were planing (though this is probably very unlikely) and the president of the European parliament still has to forward it to the commission.
Anyway, this really looks like common sense has one over the interests of a few big global players this time aroung. But don't think it's over just now, this merely means that the process will start anew, so the fight against software patents in Europe is far from over.
This is great news!
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
More years of uncertainty. That's not good for anybody.
That's like everything. Any law can be changed, created or whatever in 5 years time.
It's a first step but the patents are not dead yet. Now we need to REALLY get into gear and lobby for the new text saying "software can not be patented", period.
I've donated to FFII, I will write letters and emails again. What will YOU do?!
This is our democracy! Let us take it back!!
The article is in German, not Dutch.
I guess you don't speak German either
That's not Dutch but German, you insensitive clod!
- Leon Mergen
http://www.solatis.com
Do you actually need to be told why this is a victory for democracy? Ok: because the majority of people (at least the people affected by it, the rest don't even know what it is) are against software patents. The only people who want software patents are rich organisations that can afford to use them to choke their competition. QED.
Or perhaps you hink democracy means "people with money rule"?
And a unified European government is not a bad thing (I want one), but software patents are.
everyone in the EU (and around the world, I'm sure) who helped in driving this decision through. I was a bit worried at the end, but this shows that democracy can still work.
:)
I sent a handful of faxes in myself to some of the more critical MEP's, and some emails to the Swedish government explaining my position. While that was the most I could do with my resources and time, it would certainly be interesting to see how far other people went to further this cause
avocade.com
In a free and open internet, who needs Windows
True, what is likely to happen now without the directive to provide a framework is a gradual creep in patentability as applications are taken to appeal in hearing at technical boards in the EPO.
I prefer the uncertainty over whether software patents are valid or not to the certainty that they are.
Donate free food here
If all private money was spent on one "public issue" we would defintely be going against the public interest. Where is the catch 22 unless you are assuming the "public issue" is for sale?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Patents are necessary however not in the state and form that they are now. I personally belive that there should be a databas of who invented what however, there is no way that a coumpany should be allowed to charge anybody for using technology that the first company owns just the pattent for. Sure if you make your money off of something that you invented then you would like other companies that use the same technology to pay you. However, if you no longer use a pattent or you are a company that goes arround and buys patents for profit this sux. I think that companies whose treat patents as assets should be illegal. Pattents exist to protect a company's means of income and not to create ways of legasing mafia like behavior.
... a true open source society.
I really hope that one day patents become just a registry of who invented what when
Perhaps that's being a tad overly cute about it, but the situation is fairly grim. If Europe can't hold out on software patents, then the entire developed world is pretty much SOL as far as technology innovation goes. As far as I'm concerned, software should be just like the halcyon days of pure research science, when discoveries were freely available to anyone who wanted to apply themselves. It's from that sort of spirit that you truly make progress. If it's all about the Benjamins, you just put enough work in so that you don't lose your job. Just like Linus Torvalds alludes to.
(It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
Dear M. Ballmer,
It looks like you failed evenly to FP and in the EEC.
Will this sudden blizzard finally dry your sweat ?
I suggest you get back to what you do best : Dancing and Rhymin !
Trolling using another account since 2005.
1. Learn how to spell.
2. Learn how to use your shift key.
F/OSS may very well dominate the marketplace by the time this bill comes back around. If that's the case, then every business and government that relies on F/OSS will be lobbying against it. It'll never pass.
European national sovereignty has been on the way out since the end of the Second World War, and with good reason. Wouldn't you agree that it's a lot more fun and easy to live when London and Berlin aren't carpet bombing each other? The whole point of the European Union is to establish a tolerant, comprehensive framework for multilateral coordination of tasks common to each nation. This naturally includes patent law. I'm sure the United Kingdom can continue to regulate the length of bagpipe drones if it so desires.
(It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
It seems like the EU is starting to assume powers similar to that of a federal government, but it doesn't seem quite yet to be treated as if it has the responsibilities of one. That is, the EU reps don't seem to behave as if they're directly responsible to the people, and the people don't seem to treat the EU elections as if they're electing people to govern them. Maybe this mindset needs to change.
I mean, I'm not in Europe but from everything I've heard the governments, the EU reps and the people of Europe all approach the EU as if it is an arbitration body between governments, yet it's now making decisions-- such as the patentability or nonpatentability of software-- which very much directly effect the people of Europe on a day to day basis and should not be made by a body which does not unambiguously feel it is directly responsible to the people.
Things in the EU are still taking shape of course but, well, that just means that this is the best time to address these things. I don't think it's a bad thing for the EU to centralize power but if it's done, it needs to be done in a very deliberate and careful way.
Am I making sense?
'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Look, matey, I know a dead patent law when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'!
Sorry, dude, but I live in California and Schwarzenegger is the best governer ever as far as I'm concerned. He's the only politician, with the possible exception of John McCain, willing to stand up to special interests and not steal more of the people's money with which to wipe his ass, the favorite pasttime of Democrats in the California Legislature. It's the people who vote for things like borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars to waste when the state is ALREADY in a budget crisis who worry me.
You got that exactly right.
Now I've said it before and I'll say it again I think there is some misunderstanding in other parts of the world in regards to what is happening in Europe.
Europe; the EU is a fundementally about 2 things. a kind of post WWII guilt and establishing a new super power (particularly with collapse of the Soviet Union)
As the Europe 'project' has festered on it has become more and more of a nonsense (it already was) and is literally about lots of unelected cronies and toads getting huge sums of money to shape and introduce laws and regulations that they have no remit to be involved in at all and trying to establish control and take sovereinty (sp) from those member state countries.
Seperately but related the Euro is a flop and has damaged several economies, notably Germany and his been an excuse to drive up prices across the board.
It is only a matter of time before some so called 'enthusiastic' member states get cold feet and want out of the whole project.
Like the USSR Europe is seeking to absorb more new countries all the time.
People (especially in the US) might look fondly toward how Europe treats the Software Patents issue and other related subjects, but understand that any little thing that Europe does that seems good, there are 20 things which are imposed on member countries against the will of those people that are bad by completely incompetent and corrupt Eurocrats that have no right to be interfering in how other countries run their affairs. Yes I said corrupt and I stand by it. The whole European project is ridiled with corruption.
The strength of Europe has been and always will be the individual member states, a federal Europe is a disaster for everyone.
Yeah right. And the brave French army won the Second World War.
Not to mention that "consent" has a different meaning in Denmark than in the US as well:
Well, it was nice to get rid of McCreevy from the Irish government - but I hope he doesn't cause too much trouble at a European level.
He is typical Fianna Fáil, more concerned with helping business pals than looking after the public.
I mean really - his Minister of Finance period was so heartless (Rich-poor gap growing hugely despite the country rolling in dosh) that after he left the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) declared himself a Socialist just to placate the public. (Quite an absurd statement, there's nothing remotely leftist about Fianna Fáil!!!).
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
.. on the guy who came in at #9 George B. Schwartzman (Ind), 12,370 votes, 0.2%.. that guy got in the top 10 just because his name was close enough to schwarzenegger (at least that's my take on things)
i DO think arnie got in on name recognition, and i agree with n0nsensical, that doesn't have to mean he's a bad governor.. but it just shows that being a person with values doesn't really mean anything unless you have a good PR crew
Suchetha
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad
M$ and friends have vast amounts of money. By prolonging the process of debate the parliament keeps the meter running and members will get some real backhanders.
This is not a signature.
Software patent guideline: European Union parliament requires restart of the procedure
.
The co-ordinators of the responsible legal committee of the European Union parliament approximately set the switches this evening in the procedure around the planned guideline over the patenting barness of " computer-implemented inventions" seriously to restart. "we decided practically unanimously with only two abstentions that our president explained at the commission a Rekonsultation requested", to SPE Koordinatorin Maria Berger after the approximately three-hour meeting opposite heise on-line. As soon as parliament president Josep Borrell Fontelles follows that urge of the legal committee, the commission is requested to be concerned again with the guideline. Concretely the commission is to send their original guideline suggestion either again to the European Union parliament or submit a new.
Thus the legislation way was walked on completely from the front. The delegates support themselves by article 55 of the agenda of the European parliament. It plans a renewed fundamental concerning of the delegates with a guideline suggestion among other things, if the kind of the treated problem changes "crucially" or the parliament assembles again after definition of its point of view by elections. Appropriate requests had placed a group of 61 delegates as well as the Greens.
The legal committee had looked for Charlie McCreevy in the afternoon first together with domestic market commissioner for ways out of the muddled situation. The Irish had called recently the verabschiedung of the legislation still pending "key measure" for the stimulation of innovation and competition . With the meeting McCreevy spoke now of a "delicate affair". The of Luxembourg council presidency received in the meantime written promises for the Abnicken of the position of the Minister committee without further discussion during one of the next meetings. Naturally however a "constructional dialogue" is necessary between advice and parliament for the reaching of an agreement. In the question, whether the commission desire after a new start will follow, it did not want to commit itself. It stressed that "all options were open". At the same time he said the fact that the guideline was actually important since to a "considerable juridical insecurity" leads everything else.
The European Union advice is guessed/advised with its in May negotiated position into a dead end, since this limits the patenting barness of computer programs in the opinion of countries such as Poland not sufficiently . The government of the new entry country prevented therefore the Abnicken of the point of view of the Minister committee already several times . In addition, Denmark blocked past week the official verabschiedung of the advice position again
Hartmut Pilch, executive committee of the promotion association for a free Informationelle infrastructure ( FFII ), made opposite heise on-line clear that he is for a revision of the advice position by the Minister committee. If the advice should not change its attitude however, the way for a restart, hit now, is the secondarybest solution. The Austrian Berger is pleased in particular that "we brought back movement into the thing. We must come in the long run to a legislation, which is closer at the point of view of the parliament than at the advice position ". The European Union delegates had in September 2004 in 1. Reading a guideline version submitted, which would put a latch plate for software patents forward . Also for their land woman, the Green EH Lichtenberger, is the current "courageous" initiative of the committee "a good beginning, but not yet the lucky end in the question of patenting of software."
The parliament correspondent for the guideline, the French socialist and ex Prime Minister Michel Rocard, expressed themselves however against a restart. He fears that the changes from the 1. Reading so to be lost could come and in particular a guideline still more harmful for the middle class or the procedure completely adjust could. Also Piia Noora Kauppi, Schattenberichterstatterin for the people's party, had first doubts about a renewed 1. Reading expressed. In the long run it gave in however, since there is in its opinion momentarily no other way out.
Join the Free Software Foundation
I think non-transferable patents would be an excellent idea. Software is more suited to copyright.
Why does everyone have to pay homage to the creator. If it's for private use then why the hell do I have to pay somebody? If I put together a lawn mower from parts I find at the tip and donate it to charity I'm a hero. Why can't I create something for my own amusement from software/music/dvd's and share it (or gasp the original) with everyone on the planet who is "wired"?
What would be fair and reasonable compensation would be a mandated gratuity based on the profit a copycat has earned. Not forgeting to keep and even refine "fair use". You would also still have the opportunity to negotiate directly with the creator for bulk licenses. You would not be responsible for any dues incured before a judgement was made against you in the "small claims court". For added kick to deliberate abuse the judgement could come with an IP audit attached. If the 'P' in IP signified "prize" rather than "property" then a free speach, cheap access, internet would have a chance to live up to the Guttenberg V2 tag.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Indeed, the Danish (and Irish...) have some rather peculiar definition of consent...
A nice page in italian on the JURI decision by an italian member of JURI itself (Monica Frassoni, verdi):
http://www.monicafrassoni.it/detail.php?id=771#
"European national sovereignty has been on the way out since the end of the Second World War, and with good reason. Wouldn't you agree that it's a lot more fun and easy to live when London and Berlin aren't carpet bombing each other?
"
This is the 'WWII guilt argument' for abandoning Sovereignty.
But it is Sovereignty that people died for. To give it to some fat cats in Brussels is an insult to humanity.
Do you see why your agument is meaningless in everyday life?
The UK giving up Sovereignty to Europe is like the US giving theirs to China or North Korea. Ok not that bad, lets say Canada or Mexico.
If you ask Americans how they would feel about that they would die before it happens.
That is how the majority of the UK feels. We love the member states of Europe. We don't want to be run by Europe and we believe that if member states really searched their hearts they wouldn't either.
What about Chuck Norris as governer ?!?!
The delaying of EU software patents surely means that, at least in Europe, OSS gets a fair "crack of the whip" again and gets to compete on an equal footing with commercial software and without the customer fears of patent litigations. This can only be a good thing because hopefully in a few years time, when the subject of EU software patents rises again, OSS will be far more prevalent in commercial enterprises and, even better, government and educational networks.
And no, this isn't just a "ditch Windows, install Linux" rant either - even if this means Firefox competes better with IE on the Windows desktop, or OpenOffice.org with MS Office, then that can only be a good thing for all concerned because OSS then gets evaluated for it's suitability for specific tasks, not because of the risk of legal issues in using it.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I hope is that the sofware industry won't be able to lobby the Parliament (or rather the Kommsion) into simply resubmitting the directive without real changes.
Or even the worst case scenario: making it even more pro-patent than it already is.
But I guess the good side is that patents are stopped for now
(And just so can mod this Offtopic:
2005-02-02 21:31:30 EU Softwarepatents on-hold (for now) (Index,Patents) (rejected))
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
I am proud of the job the FFII has done here too. Well done guys. Lets get it right next time...Also, thankyou Poland/Polska!!
"a unified European government is not a bad thing (I want one)"
You like being controlled by a governemnt you didn't directly elect ?
Why don't you move to North Korea and don't come back.
But when I try to put myself in the shoes of a European, I can't imagine why they're not all outraged and why they allow the EU to exist and make so many decisions. They're just setting themselves up for a situation where they have less political respresentation, kind of like how us Americans have many decisions "conveniently" made for us by unaccountable people in Washington DC.
Moving power away from yourself, is politically dumb. The only reason to do it, is if you look at it in terms of hurting other people more than yourself, thereby gaining a relative advantage -- i.e. the hope that you're on the majority of some consensus opinion and that you'll get to force your opinion on an unwilling minority.
I know Europeans have had some pretty big historical political problems (and that's putting it mildly), but this ain't the way to solve it. They're throwing away one of the best advantages they had over USA. Give it a few decades, and they'll be as homogenized and as full of political angst as us.
But I don't live there, so I guess it's none of my business if they want to copy one of America's worst mistakes.
From http://www.heise.de/english/:
Determined denial-of-service attack on heise online
On account of the attack www.heise.de was not accessible at times.
They are also offering 10 000e for capture or information leading to the arrest of the person or persons responsible. Watch out Taco!
Most communist nations have little or no patent system. Especially international patents, like China which makes little effort to enforce the patent treaties it has signed.
Communist countries are the place to be if you want to develop without worry about being sued over patents.
Not trying to be pro communist or pro democratic. Just don't see the point in pationate debates on these opposing political systems. They both work much better as ideals than in practice.
If Bill Gates accuses you of being a commie:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4155085.stm
Communism can't be that bad.
If Democracy rejects the USA's "self interest only, to hell with everyone else" lobbying then Democracy can't be that far down the drain.
Rhyming and Stealin?
Props to the Beastie Boys!
Huh?
Every time a directive is passed, it means that all member nations have to implement it into their respective national law. This process is naturally a step backwards for national sovereignity.
However, this time a directive was overturned, which means that all member nations are free to keep or change their respective patent laws as they wish.
How is this a step back for national sovereignity? Please explain.
I'm sure the United Kingdom can continue to regulate the length of bagpipe drones if it so desires.
I think you'll actually find that the UK cannot regulate the length of bagpipe drones since that privilege has been restricted to the Scottish parliment alone. Any attempt by the English, Welsh or NI parliments to involve themselves in this issue of national importance will be, quite rightly, seen as an act of war by all right thinking sons (and daughters) of Hibernia
For those with their humour detector disabled : It's a joke !
"Moving power away from yourself, is politically dumb. The only reason to do it, is if you look at it in terms of hurting other people more than yourself, thereby gaining a relative advantage -- i.e. the hope that you're on the majority of some consensus opinion and that you'll get to force your opinion on an unwilling minority."
Exactly. In fact let's not forget that barmy Eurocrats want to bring TURKEY into the EU too. My God, when has Turkey ever been part of Europe ?
Who on EARTH wants a country with one of the worst human rights records on the planet making decisions about THEIR country ?
Ok sure the power of their vote would be almost nill, but still it would be like Iran and North Korea making decisions for the US
Justsystem ordered to halt Ichitaro sales due to patent.....orz
#Why only by using the standard function of windows....?
those who have themselves bribed in such ways retire to a not so comfy spot inside prison.
just as for high treason, we need the most severe threat of punishment for those that use their power to corrupt democracy.
Bliar has raped the UK good and proper, He should be hung as a traitor and his cronies garotted.
"But it is Sovereignty that people died for. To give it to some fat cats in Brussels is an insult to humanity. ...
The UK giving up Sovereignty to Europe is like the US giving theirs to China or North Korea. Ok not that bad, lets say Canada or Mexico"
78 of those 'fat cats in Brussels' are British don't forget, the same number as from France and Italy, and second only to the 99 of Germany.
This isn't about giving away your sovereinty, this is about Britain no longer being the one in charge, it is about sharing sovereinty, not giving it away.
This is a situation similar to the situation in the US between the Articles of Confederation and up until the US Constitution was ratified.
The EU Council isn't directly responsible to the people of the EU, they are responsible to the national parliament of the member state the respective councillors represent, and those parliaments are responsible to their respective peoples. The EU Parliament is, on the other hand, directly responsible to their respective constituencies. However the parliament only has power to make binding decisions in the areas where the member states have been able to agree to giving up sovereignty to the EU in, which in effect means mostly related to the the affairs of the EU itself.
The Council is a result of the fact that the EU can't directly make law. The EU can makes laws for the EU (as in the organiation, not the group of countries), and treaties regulate how EU law is made into national law in the member states.
This is a compromise because granting the EU Parliament legislative power would mean that the member states would be giving up sovereignty over their legislation, which would be a tough sell in most EU countries.
While EU law is in practice always made into law in the EU member states, there is nothing in principle stopping a national parliament from refusing to accept a new EU law. The EU would take the state to court to enforce the relevant treaties, but it can't force the law into effect - the very act of issuing a directive doesn't automatically create law that is enforcable in the member states.
It's a situation that can create quite weird results, but the parliament has gradually been getting more power as time goes by and the member states manage to agree on giving up power to the EU organs.
You like being controlled by a governemnt you didn't directly elect ?
Why do you assume a European government is must necessarily not elected? We already have elections for a parliament...
Here is a thought experiment:
1. Company X is based in a country which doesn't have laws regarding sw patents. They develop a product Q which has some novel software concepts. They cannot patent it because their patent office won't move on sw patents.
2. Company Y is based in a country which has laws permitting sw patents. They see product Q and think that some concept in it is pretty cool and so they patent such a concept. Brain dead examiner rubber-stamps patent.
3. Company X can no longer sell product Q in any region where sw patents are recognised (due to Berne convention)
The only real solution to this is to have some countries to have a law which explicitly makes sw patents invalid AND is a signatory of the Berne convention. Then they can be safe to exercise their innovation.
Right now, it is exceedingly unfair to permit software patents because the USA has such a headstart in that arena, anyone coming afterwards is automatically disadvantaged.
The major benefit of a law which renders sw patents dead is that other signatories of the Berne convention would eventually have to follow suit or risk some kind of international trade war... and as trigger-happy some people are, I think invading Belgium would not help the pro-sw-patents argument much.
-- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
-- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
It is about laws, rules, regulations and redtape being forced onto populations that did not vote for them.
by and large what you say is right, but you're wrong that the EU cannot legislate directly into national law. (and yes, I am a European lawyer)
The EU can issue three types of legislation: regulations, decisions and directives. The first two are "directly effective", meaning that they automatically become part of national law. A directive is meant to be implemented by the national parliament before it takes effect in national law, but if the national parliament fails to do so, then the directive itself can take direct effect and be enforced through the national courts.
You're also wrong in saying that "there is nothing in principle stopping a national parliament from refusing to accept a new EU law". One of the fundamental concepts of EU law is its supremacy over national law.
The legislative process in the EU is basically that the commission (the executive) has to propose legislation, which can then be adopted by the Council (the legislature). The Parliament is also part of the legislature but has fairly limited powers - hence why it has taken so long for its repeated rejection of the software patent directive to get anywhere.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
There is a huge difference. The USSR were seeking out countries to conquer, while the EU is being sought out by countries who want to join.
Europe; the EU is a fundementally about 2 things. a kind of post WWII guilt and establishing a new super power (particularly with collapse of the Soviet Union)
Guilt has nothing to do with. We europeans have learned the hard way that fighting major conflicts on your own soil is not generally speaking A Good Thing. The EU, quite rightly, seeks to make sure that we will not have a WW3 here. And it has succeeded spectacularly, as witnessed by the total lack of armed conflict within the borders of the EU. The alternative would have been Germany, France, and the UK at each others' throat constantly, and quite possibly a new inter-european war sometime in the past fifty years.
Living as we do in an era of peace (at least within our own borders), there has been no need to set aside resources for waging a potential large scale conflict, leading to significant prosperity within the EU. This prosperity appeals to the countries around us, causing them to seek membership status as well. To obtain this we require them to pass laws that make sense in a modern democracy; thus the EU has caused a very significant increase in the democratic content of this region.
The EU also seeks to become a superpower, not in the way of the US or former USSR (i.e. by being able to make war on everyone and everything), but rather as an economic power. And what's wrong with that anyway? Is there some unwritten law that says we should kneel to the US for the rest of eternity?
Seperately but related the Euro is a flop and has damaged several economies
Care to prove that? Making stuff up is easy, but so far the euro has been a solid coin that is rapidly replacing the dollar as the worlds' currency.
Like the USSR Europe is seeking to absorb more new countries all the time.
No, it isn't. Countries are fighting to be allowed in. Europe has not taken any country against its will, and will let go of any country that wants to leave (as per the new constitution).
People (especially in the US) might look fondly toward how Europe treats the Software Patents issue and other related subjects, but understand that any little thing that Europe does that seems good, there are 20 things which are imposed on member countries against the will of those people that are bad...
Feel free to name these twenty things, if you can. ...by completely incompetent and corrupt Eurocrats that have no right to be interfering in how other countries run their affairs.
Actually they do have that right. All countries involved signed treaties to that purpose.
It is true there have been cases of corruption. The important thing is that this is considered unacceptable, and measures are being taken to stop it from occurring again.
And besides, I'd be interested to hear about political bodies that have never experienced any corruption...
Yes I said corrupt and I stand by it. The whole European project is ridiled with corruption.
The word "project" for the EU unmasks you as a british euro-hater. I don't really mind, but please do understand that your leaders are lying to you about the EU for their own political reasons.
It's a representative republic.
The EU has had federal-like powers right from its start - that was the whole point of the exercise. If you think of it a an arbitration body between governments, then you're very mistaken. EU law governs everything from employment rights to environmental protection. The EU has an executive, a legislature and a supreme court with the power to overrule national governments.
In effect, it's very similar to the US federal government, with the member nations being like US states - except that EU members still retain control over foreign affairs and defence.
However whereas the people in the US federal government are elected directly, with the exception of the EU parliament (a fairly toothless body), appointments to the EU governing institutions are done at one remove: they are made by the national governments (who are democratically elected). It's basically as if the state legislatures in the US got to pick the Senate and the President, with just the House of Reps being directly elected.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
78 of those 'fat cats in Brussels' are British don't forget
77. The majority of us disclaim any responsibility for Robert Kilroy-Silk.
Whatever. It's all Greek to me.
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
The European Parlement, i.e. our elected representatives, voted against software patents. It is the national governments (who are also our elected representatives; non of the EU countries are dictatorships) who try to push this through.
Maybe this mindset needs to change.
Maybe people should know what they are talking about. It is easy to point at "the EU" doing bad things, but in this case we should definitely blame the various national governments for attempting to push software patents through, _against the will of the EU_.
I mean, I'm not in Europe but from everything I've heard the governments, the EU reps and the people of Europe all approach the EU as if it is an arbitration body between governments, yet it's now making decisions-- such as the patentability or nonpatentability of software-- which very much directly effect the people of Europe on a day to day basis and should not be made by a body which does not unambiguously feel it is directly responsible to the people.
I have no idea where you got that idea, but it is much, much more, and I dare say many people here in europe are very much aware of that.
I certainly feel I'm a _european_ first, and Dutch second. National governments are still important and all that, and I have a healthy distrust of any French policy, but in general the EU is a good thing. Within its borders I am free to travel, live, and work where I please; in other European countries I am not 'some foreigner' but part of the same crowd. Admittedly, age plays an important role here - younger people think of this as normal, older people don't do that so easily.
And together the european nations can do things none of them could do on its own, both technically (A380, the space program) and politically (telling the US or China where to stick it).
Things in the EU are still taking shape of course but, well, that just means that this is the best time to address these things. I don't think it's a bad thing for the EU to centralize power but if it's done, it needs to be done in a very deliberate and careful way. Am I making sense?
Yes, absolutely. Since the EU is undergoing chance, there will always be individuals (or outside powers) that will seek to influence this process to their personal advantage. It is very much up to us to make sure this doesn't happen. As with the software patents, we will continue to have to monitor everything that happens... just as in any other democracy.
Well formulated. That is indeed the crux of the matter. Most people's arguments for or against don't keep these basic premises in mind.
Let's hope that more poeple do, and that they remember that companies and government exist to serve us. They are allowed to exist as long as they serve us and provide value for money. If they stop doing that, there reason for us to let them exist vanishes, and so should they.
A company or a person that does a huge amount of research and them comes up with a great invention has earned the right to profit from that effort. The amount of profit however, has to be appropriate to the effort.
A "development" such as writing a program, or making a car, is not an "invention" and so should not be patentable. A way of doing things discovered during the normal course of implementing or using something is also not an "invention", since anybody else doing the same thing would likely come up with the same idea. These things should also not be patentable.
I could go on, but I'd better not. It's been reiterated often enough, only not very succinctly...
This is correct.
The Danish government is very pro-software-patents. Don't put anything into the behaviour at the council May 18th. The government had no intentions to prevent software patents. Maybe they just wanted it to look like they did something.
The only part Denmark had in this is the pure luck that we have an election, which made the largest opposition party demand a ceasefire.
Fortunately the reason for the government pro-patent attitude seems to be that they simple haven't bothered to listen to the arguments against softwarepatents - yet.
Oi, don't insult us Britons by thinking we're all like that idiot.
Our leaders are actually pro-European, as are most Britons who are able to stop dribbling for long enough to weigh up the pros and cons. The anti-Europeans are the tabloids (which for some inexplicable reason prefer to kneel and fellate America) and the Tories, the laughing-stock "opposition" party.
Beat the "dead horse"....some more.....not quite finish... ... yet .. ....hold on......just a sec....I'm not quite done yet..(gasp, wheeze, wheeze).......
... no, wait... Re-Animators!
And (wheeze) they must'a (gasp wheeze) call these career lobbyists...fat cats
'caused "it died, twice."
Hello
First, I'm really sorry I won't cite full names of legal texts but it's not the point of this post. The Berne Convention or the Paris Convention do not cover so called software patents. This is the reason that big companies will start the lobbying for universal patent law treaty (administrated by WIPO imho, well there are some problems with such laws i.e. all countries should ratify this treaty etc.) with regulations about software patents.
The Directive about CII is one step forward for such regulation in EU. One step because it only standardizes internal member states legal systems. The best way is to adopt a regulation about computer/software patents (there are regulations about designs and trademarks in EU - part of industrial property law).
Prior art doctrine in patent law is very good idea. But the problem with patents is that You need a court or patent office to invalidate a "fake patent". And as we all know court actions or oppositions in patent offices may costs too much. SMEs sometimes can not afford such action. Thats one of many problems about so called "patent monopoly".
Have nice day!
Tom
www.rychlicki.net
we can no longer say that the JURI is out
Like Mein Kampf, it's probably funnier in the original German...
I learned a couple of new things here, but I'm going to nitpick ;-)
One of the "fundamental concepts of EU law" may very well be it's supremacy over national law (but of course it's worth noting that this is still limited to specific areas).
To my knowledge none of the EU members have gone through any of the processes their respective constitutions would require for their governments to allow the handover of sovereignty that would be required to grant EU law supremacy, as I understand it, over national law in their respective nations; and nothing prevents these governments from ultimately walking away from the respective treaties.
That is, while the US constitution binds the states to follow US constitutional and federal law and does not allow them to pass laws conflicting with US federal law in their state and to regulate under what terms they may secede from the union, the EU member states have no such restrictions imposed upon them from the outside.
EU member states are bound "only" by treaties between sovereign nations, not (yet) by a common constitution that they can not unilaterally override.
I concede that you're right when you say that the EU can pass laws that are enforcable in the member states without actions by the member states parliaments in the areas covered by the various treaties.
However, there is still a fundamental difference there: In the UK for instance, such laws are enforced only because the European Communities Act of 1972 was passed by Parliament, which in section 2 effectively "imported by reference" all EU legislation covered by the relevant treaties.
As a result, UK courts have since assumed EU law to take precedence if there are conflicts between EU and UK law, and ordinarily the net result gives EU law "supremacy" over UK law for most practical purposes.
But nothing is in principle stopping parliament from either explicitly counteracting EU law by passing and amendment to the European Communities Act to explicly exclude a EU law from being enforcable in the UK.
It's possible that we understand supremacy to mean different things here - to me what matters is that EU laws, while ordinarily enforced "above" national law, are enforcable only as a result of national laws that the member states parliaments have the sovereign right to repeal or modify.
If you by supremacy refer only to the enforcement, we agree, but from your post it doesn't look like that is what you mean.
For the UK again, that the Parliament has sovereign rights to amend the European Communities Act is well recognised and demonstrated by the fact that Parliament has amended it - in 1993 it was amended to take into account the Maastricht treaty, for instance.
Yesterday (Wednesday) Polish government backed off and decided it will no longer try to oppose/delay the patent proceedings. This comes after recent heavy corporate lobbing by the likes of Microsoft and Siemens. (I used to like Siemens.)
3 600,252 6374.html
As I understand it, aby hope now lies in the EU Parliament.
Details (in Polish) here:
http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,5
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
I'm unable to find this issue on the JURI agenda. Am I looking at the wrong agenda, or was the Rule 55 restart issue added too late for it to be listed?
I don't doubt that the decision was taken in proper order, but with all that talk about fishy last-minute changes to council agendas, you may think that JURI would know to be a little more prepared. Maybe these agendas on the Web are all written several months in advance, meaning we shouldn't expect last-minute changes to appear on-line..?
In the end he convinced noone. The audience voted on the subject before and after the debate, and while there was a fifty-fifty split before the debate, it was more like 75 (in favor of unified foreign politics)-25 afterwards.
The problem with the current system is that they can repeatedly reapply without making any changes until it finally gets passed (often because everyone is fed up with talking about it).
There needs to be a "No means No" mechanism which prevents continual repeating retries.
" Most communist nations have little or no patent system."
The U.S. had little or no patent system until the 20th century and our industry was based on patent infringement of european patents throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.
So what were you saying again?
The fact is, patents are mostly used by big companies and rich countries to beat down little companies and emerging countries.
Is it any wonder they refuse to recognize a legal fiction that forces them to choose between food and patent royalties?
The EU has kept the peace? You've got to be joking. The only thing that kept the peace in Europe for fifty years was us and Russia having a staring contest across you. The second Russia gave up, the Balkans collapsed into a genocidal mess, and the EU didn't lift a finger to stop it.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
You are aware that that's exactly how the US Senate used to work, aren't you? And in the early days, there were quite a few states where the presidential electors were chosen directly by the state legislatures.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
I know that's pessimistic, but I'm thinking about this in terms of those cop shows where the cop at the end of the show is cruising around and has some words of wisdom. They always say something like this:
Cop: You know, being a criminal doesn't pay. They have to get lucky every time, and all we have to do is get lucky once.
This is why the SWpat people will win eventually, because the !SWpat people have to get lucky every time in stopping this, and the SWpat people only have to get lucky once and sneak it through the system in some obfuscated form.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
the computer that translated this could get a job as an SCO lawyer.
a Parliment who decisions can be ignored the national governments' representitives on the Council of Ministers, who are answerable to the Government which sent them, not the public. This leaves the gate wide open for lobbyists.
There is still plenty of scope for improving the current balance of power in the EU. Personally I thought the EEC was just fine, and have no desire to see a federal Europe.
need a free COBOL editor for Windows?
Kids! :)
This article contains FUD. Polish govt. didnt withdraw its opposition! An Author of this "lame" article did not have any official statement from PL Gov. So blame lame magazine for FUD
greetz!
Tom
www.rychlicki.net
It sure sounds like the mess the U.S. has become whereby the top overrides the bottom.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Evil Dead 4: The return of the Living Patents.
*BANG!* "This... is my GNUstick!"
Well
We got The EPC (European Patent Convention to be specific: CONVENTION ON THE GRANT OF EUROPEAN PATENTS [EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION] of 5 October 1973 with later amendments) but it is not European Union law per se. It's intergovernmental treaty. EPO as European Patent Organization and its Administrative Body EPO (European Patent Office) are "responsible" for granting about 30k patents which covers so called software inventions.
This draft of Directive about CII was intended to standarize the law inside EU member states and (imho) going further prepare us for the internal regulation about "software patents".
Have a nice day!
Tom
www.rychlicki.net
You do realise that the balkans weren't in the EU. So the EU has kept the peace within itself.
EU Patent Process Restarted 16:29 Wednesday 02 February 2005 Rejected
2nd man: elephant repellent.
1st man: There's no elephants around here.
2nd man: Yup, it's good stuff, isn't it!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Which is why, (aside of all other arguments,) even purely economically speaking, it doesn't make sense to allow swp in the EU.
Currently, SME's in europe can sue companies in the USA for swp infringements, but the USA companies can't do the same. While swp is on itself a bad idea, at least it is an additional and obvious reason for EU politicians why they shouldn't allow it in the EU.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
The only reason for the change in Denmark is that there is an election on feb. 8th.
Those dickheads (danish politicians) are just fishing for some popularity...
Considering most political parties (except UKIP but they barley exist) are rabidly pro euro who's spreading the lies? not labour, conservatives, or Lib dems? Don't make the mistake of presuming that because people question the EU that they are rabidly opposed to it, by believing what you want to believe and not asking legitimate questions you allow undemocratic principals to creep in and the EU is undemocratic enough.
Lemme guess you are british right? At least this sounds like exactly the kind of drivel people get spoonfed over on the other side of the channel.
Let me guess your American and presume that any questioning of authority or an idea is rejection of that authority or idea, after all that's the sort off ("get with the programme, suck it up") drivel you get spoon fed across the channel*.
Your statement shows you to be as ignorant and bigoted as the original poster you replied to.
* That statement is as accurate johannesg's original i.e. a not at all accurate caricature perpetuated by ignorance and the occasional appearance of someone who fit's the stereotype perfectly.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
The modded-down poster said
implying that the EU is bad and we should become isolated nations. I don't agree with that. In fact, I think it's a win for European democracy."And a unified European government is not a bad thing (I want one), but software patents are."
I agree, but on the condition that that government is directly chosen by the people. Personally, I am all for dividing the power that the commision and the counsel of ministers has between the EU parliament and a directly chosen EU president.
As it is now; a pretty weak EU parliament and a pretty strong elitist group of bureaucrats that weren't voted into the position they have: - no, thanks. If the EU doesn't become more democratic, I'd rather have my more 'local' sovereign parliament and governement. I'd rather live in a small and unsignificant but democratic country without the EU-meddling then in a powerful yet undemocratic supra-national entity.
there used to be a strong movement towards more democratic influence in the EU; I wonder what happend to it? Nowadays, it seems the bureaucrats think THEY can decide for the people, yet, they have never gotten any mandate from us and they also don't have to live with any repercusions that politicians - at least to some degree - have to recon with. Even today I'm still baffled that laws (even though they are called 'directives') are made by non-elected people, while those laws effects millions of EU citizens.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
The BBC's a write up is titled by a witty pun. Oh yes.
Ok, not only a list of bad things, but also some of the stupid expensive things.
straight cucumbers
metric weights and measures for food
litres for fuel
common agricultral policy
fishing quotas
fishing zones
VAT
not being able to use the Honda fuel efficient
engine because it had the 'wrong' valve fitted to it
the butter mountain
the beef mountain
increased sugar prices
illegally aiding Spain's banana trade
forcing up the price of school milk in primary schools
stopping border checks
punishing Britain for BSE but not France where the problem was worse
making a tomato a fruit because Portugal makes tomato jam and jam MUST be made from fruit
not being able to call British sausages 'sausages' outside of Britain
not being able to call British chocolate 'chocolate' outside of Britain
forcing Britain to accept inferior French and Spanish milk even when there were no buyers for it
Ignoring the massive fraud in olive oil subsidies
not enforcing the same rules across the EU, like when France twice bailed out Bull with massive state-aid
trying to say that Cornish pasties can only come from Cornwall
letting the French sell un-pasturised soft cheese because it's a cultural thing, but not anyone else
Is there a website buried somewhere on europa.eu.int that lists the results of the vote? I want to know whether the two pro-swpat votes came from my country (the UK).
I (and I doubt I'm the only one) wouldn't mind a strong and united europe - if only to provide some counterbalance to the USA - provided their remains reasonable sovereignity in matters of culture and such, and provided that we have directly elected representatives with real power, also on the law-making.
I would have little problem with a EU government if the power of the counsel of ministers and that of the commision was abolished and given to the parliament and a directly chosen EU president instead. As it is now, I do not like it one bit: the current EU parliament has little real power and neither the counsel or the commision/bureaucrats drafting the directives are directly chosen into the postions they hold. It stinks.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Not to disagree with everything, but....
metric weights and measures for food
The UK started moving to metric measures in 1965 - 6 years before the UK joined the EEC (as it was) http://www.ukma.org.uk/press/timeline.htm.
Stopping border checks
Only in the Schenegen (sic) area - UK and Eire opted out of this and still maintain their own immigration controls.
punishing Britain for BSE but not France where the problem was worse
any numbers for that? this says otherwise http://www.oie.int/eng/info/en_esbmonde.htm
making a tomato a fruit because Portugal makes tomato jam and jam MUST be made from fruit
I always thought tomatoes were fruit because they had seeds.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
ObSigRef:
(Pavlof.... name ring a bell?)
Yes, yes it does..
http://catmydog.keenspace.com/d/20041215.html
To all those who give up on software freedom (like a recent discussion I participated in on GNOME-marketing concerning an upcoming live multimedia CD which may include MP3s and a non-free (for some) MP3 player program), take a look at what the anti-software-patents organizers have accomplished so far. This didn't come about because they used the circular logic so many use to justify pushing aside what they know to be best.
I applaud those who organized this effort for having the courage of their convictions to pursue better policy. You offer us who are burdened with software patents something to aspire to.
Digital Citizen
I live in the UK and I _am_ outraged. Unfortunatly the EU has managed to get itself integrated into so many places. It's like trying to get rid of a HUGE widespread weed.
"But I don't live there, so I guess it's none of my business if they want to copy one of America's worst mistakes."
Since the world is quickly becoming a smaller place I'd say that this IS your business. International politics are everybodies concern as they effect all of us.
Silly rabbit
Ok I should have said relaxed border checks maybe (like not being able to ask an EU citizen what they are doing in the country and where they are staying), prob still not clear enough what I mean, but I've a head cold today and feel like crap. ur right about tomatoes, i was wrong, it should have been carrots (now that makes no sense at all) there are no accurate figure for French BSE because lots of the farmers buried the dead cows in fields and did nor report them. This prob did not happen in the UK because all our cattle are recorded. Some of the EU laws and ideas make sense, but governments and countries don't seem to like sensible stuff so pass all the stupid things. Now if they could force the UK to adopt the French roundabout design I'd be happy.
Wow, where to begin... Here, perhaps. Straight cucumbers indeed...
An influential European Parliamentary committee voted yesterday to ask the Commission to send the proposed Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions back to Parliament for a first reading.
Simon Gentry, founder of the pro-patent Campaign for Creativity, wrote a letter to his supporters today: "The assault on patents - based on a deliberate distortion of the facts - has, in effect, won."
Gentry added that he is considering winding up the lobbying group. "Set against the apparently limitless resources - both human and financial - of the anti-patent lobby, the cause seems lost."
The current draft has changed radically since the Parliament first considered it, while the membership of the Parliament and the European Union itself has also altered. These are reasons for a restart, say many MEPs.
The draft Directive, often known as the Software Patents Directive, has been on the verge of approval by the Council of Ministers since May, when European Trade Ministers rejected amendments made to the draft by the European Parliament. Some MEPs expressed fears that the wording of the Directive risks bringing to Europe the more liberal regime of software and business method patenting that exists in the US.
Progress on the draft Directive then stalled, as political manoeuvring kept the proposals off the Council agenda, where it was due to be included as an "A" item, being one that is voted through without discussion.
The Polish Government has been influential in delaying the vote, taking advantage of new voting weights that came into force on 1st November. Denmark also appears to have disrupted progress of the draft in the run up to its Parliamentary elections on 8th February.
Once successfully rubber-stamped, the Directive is due to be sent back to the European Parliament for a second reading. But some MEPs argued that the legislative progress should be restarted instead, allowing the enlarged Parliament to give full consideration to the issues, instead of rushing it through in the three-month timescale that a second reading allows.
The issue came to a head yesterday in a meeting of the Parliament's legal affairs committee (JURI).
In what has been described as a heated debate, Charlie McCreevy, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, explained that the Council of Ministers had now reached consensus and that the draft was due to be re-instated as an A point at a forthcoming Council meeting.
Committee members reacted to the news by voting by 19 votes to two in support of a motion to ask the Commission to send the proposals back to the Parliament for a first reading, effectively restarting the process.
The Commission does not have to comply with the request. It may instead continue with the existing process, in the knowledge that once the Directive is put to the Parliament for a second reading, consensus is unlikely to be achieved.
According to UK Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy, it is more likely that the whole process will now be delayed for up to six months, in order to assess the impact of the legislation. "Under the circumstances this is the best solution," she said.
Austrian JURI member Eva Lichtenberger said: "The Legal Affairs Committee's initiative is a good beginning, but does not yet offer a happy ending to the software patents story."
She added: "Today's courageous decision introduces the possibility of a better solution. I am very happy that we now have an opportunity to prevent software patenting and to obtain a better directive that will benefit the whole of the industry. We may now be able to stop market giants - aided by an American-style patenting law - from forcing innovators and SMEs out of the market."
But Simon Gentry of the Campaign for Creativity believes that the Committee vote "will open the way to a deluge of anti-IP amendments that will probably result in the final stripping away of IP protection for the IT sector."
He continued: "At the very least we
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
The constitutional position is not clear. Theoretically the UK Parliament can override EC legislation. And yet in the Factortame case the House of Lords threw out an Act of Parliament because it failed to comply with EC law. Now that wasn't an act which was explicitly passed to infringe EC law, but it was the first time since before the Civil War that a British court felt it had jurisdiction to strike down primary legislation. According to the 'unwritten' rules of the UK constitution, if an earlier act of parliament is contradicted by a later one, the later one wins, no questions. Factortame showed that different rules apply to EC legislation.
Moreover, under the current EC treaties it is actually not possible for a state to secede from the union. So secession could not be done unilaterally - it would need an amendment to the treaties which in turn would need ratification by every other member state. (By contrast, the proposed constitution allows any state to leave on giving a few years' notice - don't remember how many).
So, as a matter of EC law, the UK can't just amend the 1972 act and secede. Trying to work out what would happen if Parliament tried to do so keeps a lot of law professors in their jobs. There's a fair number on both sides. (there's no doubt the ECJ would not recognise it.) Amending the 1972 Act for Maastricht proves nothing, since it didn't involve any attempt to break EC law.
(It's even harder to work out what's going on in countries with written constitutions according to which their own supreme court is supreme. E.g. the German constitutional court has ruled that EC laws that infringe the German constitution are not valid, while the ECJ decided the opposite. Since then the EU has been very careful to make sure there is no conflict between EC and German constitutional law. If it happens, who knows what the outcome will be.)
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
> However, this time a directive was overturned, which means that all member nations are free to keep or change their respective patent laws as they wish.
No, all EU member states are bound by the European Patent Convention (EPC), and harmonized their patent laws in 1973 when the treaty was signed.
This multilateral treaty has nothing to to do with the EC. It is administered by the European Patent Office (EPO), an autonomous organization outside any political control who gets their income from patent fees.
Over the years they have changed their interpretation of EPC article 52.2 from the original wording (software "as such" cannot be patented) to allow patents on all software.
So software can be patented in Europe today. The only problem is that these patents are illegal, and thus nobody can enforce them in a court of law. So far about 30.000 software patents have illegally been issued by EPO.
I have seen EPO call for a diplomatic conference with a request to change EPC article 52.2 to fit their new interpretation. At the conference their request was denied.
I have seen EPO call for yet another diplomatic conference with a yet another request to change EPC article 52.2 to fit their new interpretation. At this conference the request was denied again.
Only after these two failed attempts to change EPC to allow software patents did the European commission come up with the directive proposal that was restarted by the European Parliament.
The patent laws of all EC member countries forbid patents on software. The aim of the proposed directive was to force the member contries to change their laws to allow it, so that EPC article 52.2 later could be changed to harmonize it with the patent laws of the countries that signed EPC.
It's one of those noise phrases (like "War on /Generic Noun/") that's a sure giveaway that the speaker is a fool or thinks you are one. I mean why don't you just come out and say "people I don't like" and be done with it?
(In this case I'd bet it's because even that would take too much thought - I'd bet dollars to donuts that you don't even know which interest groups own Gov. Steroids - and thus have no idea who the folks that are going to lose as a result of him being made governor.)
You can be sure that whenever a politician is railing against "special interests" it's cause they really don't want you to look behind them and see who *they* represent.
If any member state wants to secede, their parliament wants to secede, and their courts consider itself supreme arbiter of their laws, then the opinions of the ECJ and the EU are not relevant - at the very least not in the countries with written constitutions.
What the treaties say has no bearing on it - history is littered with treaties ignored by one or more of the parties.
Fact is, law is only enforcable if you have the power to back it up, and in the case of sovereign nations that means either accepting that any treaty can be broken at will by any party OR grabbing at weapons such as embargos or war.
The risk of having the ECJ whine won't leave anyone sleepless.
I also doubt that the issue would be very hard if the UK parliament truly at any point wanted to secede. It would perhaps cause a "war of attrition" between the legislative and the courts, but unless such a secession did not have the support of the people, no government intent on doing so would allow the courts to stop them.
Particularly as under the Parliamentary Sovereignty doctrine, the House of Lords does not have the power to strike down a Act of Parliament except as provided by the European Communities Act - an act that can itself be unilaterally struck down by parliament.
Hence, should the parliament decide to repeal the European Communities Act, the House of Lords would lose it's (extremely limited) power to excercise judicial review, and since the European Communities Act is the only basis for establishing EU law in the UK, the ECJ would lose it's legal basis for making rulings binding to the UK at the same time.
In any case what lawyers often seem to ignore is that laws are not absolute. They don't exist in a vacuum. They exist at the mercy of whoever holds power to enforce them, and are interpreted within the context the expectations of current society. If the courts starts "inventing" interpretations of law that does not have support of parliament or society at large, laws will change regardless of what the courts might decide they think is legal.
Any constitutional "issue" here is as interesting as discussing how many angels fits on the head of a pin - it has no practical relevance, as the law is what you make it.
For that matter, looking at the history of the US, the only thing that have kept the states in line and prevented them from repeatedly challenging the federal government has been the treat of force - as recently as during the civil rights struggles in the 60's.
And that in a country where the legal foundation for federal supremacy is clear.
In other words, the thing that defines law is will and power.
You're right, I DON'T like them. They are, by definition, special interests. What else am I supposed to call them? At least I actually cited a specific instance of what the Governator is (or isn't, in this case) doing, unlike your post which is a far worse abuse of political rhetoric than mine. No matter which groups "own" him, at least those groups' interests don't involve taking away my rights or stealing and wasting more of my money. I presume it's a good thing YOUR candidate isn't in office.
And here is the EP's Rule 55 (for those wondering whether the €C will argue that it is not bound by the it):
Also, see FFII's (interesting but hopefully no longer needed) explanation about reversing council decsions
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Also, it is the unelected €C who are mainly in favour of this directive and who are also where member state's goverment's powers are going (not that I am against them losing their powers to a European body in principal--it should just be an elected one as opposed to a pile of slimey unaccountable civil servants.)
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
I see you cited a completely objective and unbiased source. It's not as if you quoted the minister for rail based transportation of meat-juice based sauce or anything, is it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
...brought to you by the Open Text Summarizer:
The European Parliament is unequivocal: the software patents directive needs to go back to the drawing board. But the jury is still out on whether the Commission will listen
The European Parliament's request for the software patent directive to be started from scratch was ratified by senior members of the Parliament on Thursday, but campaigners from both sides are split on what will happen next. A Parliament spokesman said on Thursday that this request was approved without debate by the Conference of Presidents -- the President of the Parliament and the chairmen of political groups -- and can now be passed to the European Commission, which must decide whether to agree to the request. "It is not certain that the Commission will comply with the request of the Parliament, nor that it will use the opportunity to draft a good text," said Pilch. "The new Commission is not obliged to follow the Parliament's request and they might still try to keep all options open and ask the Council to adopt the agreement of last May without a new vote, so as to gain even more options for themselves." "There is a desire for the Council to adopt the directive to uphold the current working methods -- to show that every political agreement leads to a political decision," he said.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.