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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
I prefer the uncertainty over whether software patents are valid or not to the certainty that they are.
Donate free food here
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.
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.
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
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#
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.
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.
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.
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 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!
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
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
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." ---