Slashdot Mirror
EU Software Patent Law Moves Forward
Zygfryd writes "Just when we were all celebrating, the Polish Press Agency (PAP) reports that the Patent Directive is not likely to return to the first reading as the Commission may ignore the Parliament's vote on restarting the process. Revisions are said to be still possible, but under political pressure the Polish government stated they would no longer oppose the directive's adoption and support the former agreement made in May. Polish diplomats will, however, support any opposition initiated by other countries on the February 17 meeting." At the same time, drseuk writes "The Spanish Senate has just voted against Software Patents. This should hopefully require the Spanish EU representative to vote against any attempts by the Council of Ministers to ignore the will of the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee."
As a result, we're organising a demonstration next Tuesday in Brussels. Everyone's welcome!
Donate free food here
If the executive body can simply ignore the parliment, why does the parliment even exist?
The parliament does have some power. It can still vote this whole directive down, and there's at least a chance that it will if only out of anger at being ignored. I think it can dismiss the EU commission as well, though I doubt that's going to happen. It would be satsifying.
Who exactly are the ministers accountable to?
Their own national legislatures and electorates.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
These companies claim to represent "the" European IT industry and that they need patents on "computer-implemented inventions" (which generally are pretty much the same as what would be called software patents in the US). In reality, SMEs represent a much larger part of the European economy (both IT and non-IT, and software patentability obviously goes much further than just IT), they are heavily opposed (see e.g. UEAPME and CEA-PME).
The larger companies are of course much better organised regarding lobbying, so it's mainly their voice which is heard at the top levels. Slowly, we are changing this though.
Donate free food here
No, because of Occam's razor. We have seen tons of lobbying documents from that club of companies. There was also a fax sent by the "Mission of the United States of America to the European Union", and of course there could be a lot of behind-the-scenes lobbying we don't know about, but I really doubt that the US government is a major reason for the fact that the Council and Commission are so stubborn.
Donate free food here
Do you want to do something about this?
Donate money to FFII today:
http://ffii.org/money/account/index.en.html
What may from the outside world (and sometimes from the inside) look like a mess is the result of how the EU has developed.
At first (decades ago) the parliament was selected by the national governments and it was supposed to just monitor the decision making. The actual decision makers comprised the commision, whose members were selected by each local (national) government and whose main task was to propose Europe-wide legislation but to do so without consideration of local / national interests, and the council, which was the organization comprising the actual member governments and who had to approve any new legislative proposal.
With time it was decided that the members of the European Parliament should be directly elected by European citizens (which has now been the case for quite a long time). In addition, it has gained the power to sack the commision (though not individual members, only the entire group) in a vote of misconfidence should it want to. Meanwhile the EU as such has been expanded from a purely economic organization to a sort of quasi-government involved in all sorts of issues, including foreign policy, economic policy, environmental protection, labour issues, law enforcement, etc. The parliament has been granted more and more powers and actually has veto power over some, but not all, of the EU policy areas (in those that it lacks veto powers, it's supposed to have an advisory role).
At this point, an overview of the most important institutions might look like this:
1) European Commision. Members (one per country for small countries, two per country for large countries) selected by national governments and supposed to work for what is best for the EU as a whole. Members have to disavow strictly national interests and concerns. Has the role of proposing new legislation for Europe as a whole.
2) European Council. Comprises national governments and / or their diplomatic representatives. Concerned with the "national" interest. Has veto power over new legislation. In many policy areas a single country can stop an EU law, while in other areas a qualified majority (defined differently depending on policy area) is sufficient to pass any law. Small countries have more votes per person.
3) European Parliament. Directly elected by EU wide elections every five years. Organized in EU-wide political party groupings that correspond to the national political parties (for example, liberals, greens, conservatives, social democrats, communists, independants, etc). In some policy areas has veto power over new legislation. In other areas has merely advisory power. Small countries have a higher percentage of representatives per citizen (sort of like vote distribution in the council) to reduce the risk of large countries trampling all over small ones. Not unlike the vote distribution aspect of the US electoral college, I suppose.
4) European Court of Justice. Overrules national courts and is empowered with interpreting law and treaties / constitutional issues and resolving conflicts. Each country has exactly one judge although judges are of course expected to be legal professionals and not represent their nationality.
5) The European Ombudsman, tasked with investigating abuse by and within EU institutions.
What I think has happened with the patent issue, is that the Council members (i.e. national governments) have decided on their own to go ahead with the patent proposal, bypassing the other EU institutions and making it national law immediately (which would be subject to national parliaments, though). This may seem strange but if we remember that the council is just a collection of the national governments it sort of makes sense, they would be able to do this even if the EU didn't exist just like other groups of countries sometimes get together to form treaties and laws. It admittedly is a problem, though.
Ultimately what happens in the EU is something that national governments and EU parliamentarians have control of. Accountab
That's appearantly next Thursday, not Tuesday. Thursday the 17th of February, 2005. Mentioned just in case someone who won't be attending still wants to know...