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.
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.
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
Actually, we already have Software patents in the EU. The layers have been using a small loophole where a computer application is said to be patentable if it has a "technical effect", meaning a physical effect. The technical effect has been quite loosly interpreted to the point where it,for example, can be a technical effect if you compress data before before transmitting if across a (physical) line, since it will be transferred faster.
With this kind of definition of a technical effect almost anything becomes patentable. It has not been tested in court though. But we do already have thousands of software patents approved in the EU. This would just have put an official approval on the whole buisness.
Not having it go through will still leave all software patents where they are, but it will also give us a better chance to fight them off.
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
Pattents exist to protect a company's means of income
I disagree.
Patents are monopolies handed out by the government. The original reason we allow the monopolies is that we want the technology behind the patent to be exposed rather than kept secret. This way, the public gets a benefit from handing out the monopoly, the knowledge in technology can advance.
Since I'm pro free market, I'm very much against monopolies. I would rather have the companies compete. The company that can produce the best products win, in an open competition. We should not pass laws to protect the income of companies. If they can't earn it, too bad! That said, I can tolerate patents if they are truly inventive. And helps progress. Tolerate!
However, when it comes to software we need to understand that it is not technological but mathematical. Software is written, not manufactured. And since it is written we have copyright protection for it. You protect cars and machinery by patents, not copyright. You protect films, books and software by copyrights, not patents. With software patents, the author of software texts is denied his right to publish his independently created works.
)9TSS