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.
2) Even if it was, why is that a bad thing?
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
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.
Let's hope so. In any case, no victory will be permanent. People will still want to protect their "intellectual property" -- this fight is far from over.
MakePassword.com Mp3 Blog
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!
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.
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.
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
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)
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?
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.
Exactly. The directive stated the legal equivalent of "Software may not be patented with the exception of patentable software". Ha! Of course the "with the exception" part... was written in legalese too complicated for the average computer scientist to understand, so the lawyers thought they would be able to get away with it.
In our economy we often see specialisation in companies. We see this in a lot of area's, for example the music industry where we've got different parties supplying different components of the final product. eg music + nice face + studio artists + marketing + legal 'protection' ... -> britney spears.
Although I don't like most music that's been produced this way, I don't oppose to the method (apart from the extreme copyright protection). It's the consumers 'fault' that they buy it.
I think the same thing should be possible in technology/research etc. Patents can allow companies specializing in research only and sell patents as their product. IMHO it's not neccesary that the company should actually produce the stuff themselves. If it's not possible to sell patents when a company goes bankrupt, investors would be much less willing to invest in a research-only company.
So although I see your point, I think the flexibility of patent ownership isn't neccesarily bad. However it is true that a shopping-cart patent does much more harm when it can be sold this easily. But that is more a problem of patents that shouldn't have been granted.
Well, I wouldn't hold your breath. It's certainly not impossible that the US patent system will be changed, but I don't see it happenning in the near future.
We'll have to first wait and see how the whole thing in Europe turns out. It's still possible that they say that any software algorithms can be patented. I think that is now quite unlikely. Another possibility is that they say no software patents at all - my favourite, but we may not see it happen. The third option would be that they come up with some definition of what is patentable, and we see some restricted form of software patents.
I think that third option is what a lot of them will be aiming for, but I think they will have a hard time getting enough people to agree on what should be patentable, in which case I think we're more likely to end up with no software patents at all, as a number of countries are very much against a free-for-all - Poland and Denmark have been mentioned already; the German parliament agreed that SW patents are not good (that's all 4 major parties, and they almost never all agree with each other), and there may be hope for the UK too. Certainly, the UK patent office is very aware of the problems that patent abuse can cause, as reported here, and maybe, just maybe, the governement will listen.
If the EU actually does rule against software patents, it will be a very compelling reason for IT companies to do development in the EU rather than in the US, and that is something that may trigger the US to review their system, but that will all take time.
Patents are supposed to encourage people to invent and disclose, so that everyone can benefit. If that is not happenning, then patents are not working and the goal is not being reached. Many are using patents as a form of protectionism, and this abuse is something that the EU now has a chance to address. I really hope they do.
-- Steve
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.
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.
Donate free food here
And why shouldn't they?
The term "intellectual property" is rather misleading: there are superficial similarities between patents, copyright and trademarks, to give the most common examples, but their significance is rather different.
In particular, while software patents are one of those ideas that sounded promising but has been shown not to work well in practice, copyright has been quite the opposite. This kind of intellectual property has many of the same advantages to society as physical property (an equally artificial concept if you consider it for a moment). Despite the often made but really pretty shallow arguments against copyright, it has proven to be a valuable tool in balancing modern economies where information is valuable.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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!
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
The broader question is: why should they get special protection, especially when it involves the ability to use government force to override the rights that people have with their own real, physical private property.
If you subscribe to the notion that the "intellectual property" laws exist to enhance innovation & cultural growth for the society as a whole, then I'd argue that society could get a more reliable result with less violation of personal rights by allocating some of its tax money to pay for basic research & subsidizing artistic endeavors which, when completed, would be freely available to all enterprising members of society.