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.
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
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
Hey, don't just thank Poland. Denmark deserves some of the praise too!
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.
What if you just like to use what you regard as the best and most economical tool for the job?
I strongly disagree with Software patents, but I wouldn't put myself into any of your 3 categories - not everyone bases their software choices on political views.
Sorry to be a pedant
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
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
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.
Whether or not you can patent something has nothing to do where the "invention" was made. Company X can perfectly patents it's stuff in company Y's home country (i.e., European countries can perfectly get and enforce US software patents, regardless of what the outcome of this directive will be).
Donate free food here