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."
The only way this can get blocked in the council of ministers is if most votes are against it going through. It does seem that that would be the case. Given that most votes would oppose it, who is the political pressure against Poland from? Just the UK and Holland? How do they get so much influence?
Democracy has met it's most important ennemy, and it is the bourgeois.
I live in the EU, and I'm getting more and more pissed at this. I mean for fuck sakes, nobody outside MS and some other big companies want this. Anybody, even a simple minded politician, is able to understand the idiocy of software patents given a 3 minute explanation. The only possible explanation is that they are all bought (surprise surprise). What makes me *really* furious is the thought that the commision (not publicly elected) will simply ignore the decision made by the parliament (publicly elected). Some people better realise that their decisions might have unfortunate personal consequences for them...
Ignore me, I have nothing constructive to say, I just want to punch someone in the face (preferably Mr. Prodi)
This is starting to get ridiculous, plain and simple. If this is democracy, I don't want to have anything to do with it.
I guess this is where a fascists would-be dictator steps in and uses this case to showcase his agenda, namely that democracy == corruption.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
You know, I normally ignore EU (for that matter political in general) stuff, but this stuff makes me laugh at the comments made about American political issues. I know the EU is attempting to do something immensely complicated by tying together many countries with diverse cultures, languages and political and legal histories, but everything I have seen seems to indicate that the upper tier of the EU basically ignores the local governments wishes and has just about zero accountability to the people. I'm baffled as to the reason that direct elections were avoided in the EU: it is clear that the upper tier politicians have no reason to fear the popular opinion of the actions they take.
Because of that appearance, could someone tell me what the "check and balance" is in the EU system against abuse of power by the actual EU vs the populace? Here in the US, as broken as it is, if someone ticks the populace off enough they have to worry about re-election...
Sig under construction since 1998.
I'm waiting for www.thankspain.info ...
I said it in the last Slashdot story about EU patents. And now it seems to be happening, again. These corporations will never give up. Sooner or later, the side with no profit motive gets tired and grows week, and the other side wins. The pro-patent people will just keep trying and trying and sooner or later get their way, I'm afraid.
These politicians are constantly pressured by the corporations, and that's all they hear. They are told its "good for business and the economy" and then they announce they support "A broad software agenda to increase jobs in the EU" and most people who know nothing about software patents think their government is doing a great job, instead of just selling out.
It really is time for a revolution...
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.
Since the Spanish government opposes software patents and voted against them last May this decision won't change the majorities in the EU council. It would be much more important if both the German and Dutch government finally respected the decisions of their parliaments.
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
Bah - why do you always have to demonstrate when I'm not in Brussels? ;-)
Despite doing a lot of distantly EU and Commission-related work, I honestly haven't a clue what's going on with this patents thing. I do know that the Commission is very pro-Open Source and pro-small-business, and I think half the reason I'm working on various EU-funded projects is because I'm definitely not the expensive, proprietary route.
I just hope that the higher-ups all realise what impact patents could have on software development. At the kick-off meeting for a big project for which I'm programming some web stuff, the Commission bloke described how partners wanting to pay big licensing fees for software and similar would be distinctly frowned upon. Thus, in my subsequent demonstration of my all-singing, all-dancing, all-me document collaboration system (as tailored to the project in the first half of the meeting) I may have somewhat played up its Open Source basis.
I don't think they realised how small a business I was, however - one person, me!
I'd mention the risks of patents to various people I'm working for, but they know far more about the inner workings of the EU than I do, so I'd rather know more about what's going on. Is there some relatively concise document summarising the history of the issue, and how it should develop? From what I've heard so far, 'labyrinthine' would be an understatement...
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
I thought politicians spent thier time trying to do as little as possible aside from helping out thier relatives and donors.
.pl?
Who is the person pushing them? How can we build a defense? Why do I feel helpless about this?
No doubt this is all funded by the eu, and whoever is behind it has little to pay, but any aim of repealing this would cost a lot.
WHat is the point of having a parliament, and who is putting political pressure on
How about we stop letting them play behind masks, and make everyone put thier cards on the table for a change. Anyone who opposes a controversial law is always in the lime light, but those pushing it through for thier own gain, you never read about them.
I met a Polish person on a server playing MTA:VC (multi player GTA), I said I loved them, and chased them around trying to hug them. I ended up stealing thier car and running them over with it, but it is the thought that counts.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
I do not, however, know how one can clearly distinguish between software and non-software patents.
It is not as easy as one might think. Many things we call "software patents" do not mention software or even computers. This didn't use to be the case. They used to insist that an example hardware system be described in the patent, perhaps as a "preferred embodiment". Now many patents simply describe an algorithm. Whether that algorithm is carried out by computer, sliderule, abacus, or pencil and paper is often not explained.
A further complication arises when software is a part of an invention that also has hardware components. There are many such inventions today.
Unfortunately, "I know a software patent when I see one" probably wouldn't cut it in the courts. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could comment on this problem.
Oh come off it. As a patent lawyer, you should know the ridiculous time and expense of attempting to obtain a patent, and the relative odds of an individual defending a patent lawsuit vs. a corporation doing the same. The math always favors the one with the most money.
Occasionally "the little guy" will stick it to the "big, evil corporation" and win, but 99/100 times, it's going to be the corporation protecting its investments. And, as EOLAS vs. Microsoft illustrated, even when the little guy wins, the news isn't always good.
The fact is that software patents are a bad idea, no matter who benefits from them. Locking up information and knowledge prevents progress, it doesn't promote it. Inventions are born out of necessity, NOT out of the promise of financial gain.
Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
Would that be such a bad thing?
Would there be less incentive? Less innovation?
One more question: Of all businesses engaged in creating software, what percentage of them actively seek patents?
Sadly, the once bolshi British (forget the stiff upper lip image and read some english history) have had the shitty end of the stick for so long now that most people can't be bothered any more.
I remember my brother-in law telling us about how he watched a group of police assemble in Wapping at the time that News International bought the Sun, a "newspaper" in the UK. The resulting purge of print workers from the Wapping factory led to demonstrations of striking workers one of which was marching past his flats at the time. He had a perfect view of the whole demo as he lived on the 5th floor and could see nothing apart from a peaceful march in progress.
The police stormed around the corner and piled into the marchers starting a very widespread fight that was reported on the news as evil protestors attack police shock.
The same happened at the Poll tax protest in the 80's when a Police van hitting a pram in Trafalgar Square triggered a riot (seen the film from CCTV at the point the riot was triggered). Further into the demo more Police came pouring out of South Africa House (despite the fact that sanctions were in place against the aparthied regime Maggie was a great friend of SA) but this time their were enough "normal" middle class people there to see what was going on and the "evil commies start riot" line didn't stick.
Funnily enough I feel sorry for the police who, bound by the job, have to put up with being painted as uniformed thugs after carrying out the politicians dirty work. Conversations with many coppers on duty during demos have shown that they generally don't want to end up in a punch up as it sours the taste of the overtime cheque they get.
The repeated use of start a fight and then blame the protestors worked well through the 80's but Maggie overdid it and the strategy was finally seen through. Still, in most cases the government just went ahead and did what they wanted anyway leading people to believe that regardless of what you do it will make no difference. 2 million protest against invading Iraq (biggest march in English history) because no-one believes the "evidence" of WMD - Government goes ahead anyway and refuses to apologies when it turns out that there was no evidence.
Politicians know why voter turnout is around 30% i.e. no-one believes that they work in the public interest anymore. Blair himself is in power not because people believe he's the best man for the job but because he's percieved as the least worst of an appalling range of choices. The patent issue just demonstrates the accuracy of this belief and should, despite the best efforts of those of us who still give a shit, the law go through it'll just strengthen the apathy and feeling of helplessness.
The truly shocking thing is that two of the countries who stand to gain most from the success of Open Source and Linux e.g. France and Germany seem so willing to play along.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
That individual being a patent lawyer who does not actually produce anything and so cannot be countersued.
It wouldn't be bad to send (or give out, at the demonstration) a letter or something, shortly but strongly summarising the objections raised to the current proposal, and the reason (and request) to remove it from any future agenda, or make it a B-topic.
:-)
;-)
Ofcourse, this would involve knowing the adresses of all the ministers (of the counsel) involved, or at least trying to hand it over to them as they enter the building.
But it might be a neat idea that could be worthwhile. Ofcourse, someone has to do it, and that someone is you, halo1!!
Maybe I'll see you at the meeting (although the timing sucks a bit for me on that day).
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"Since they appearantly believe they are finished discussing this, forcing them to discuss it again among themselves is hardly going to achieve anything."
I'm not entirely sure about that. As Polen has demonstrated, not all countries agree with it any longer (see also Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany, which have been under parliamentary scrutiny, the fact that the % of vote-power changed because of the enlargement, etc.) It leaves little doubt that, if it were to be discussed and voted again by the counsel, it would not gain a majority any more. Thus, amendments would have a greater chance of being incorporated.
Ofcourse, restarting the whole proces is an option too...I think. I'm not sure; what ARE the options of the EU parliament again? I know they can get a 'compromise' with the commission, but this seems unfruitful; the amendments made by the parliament were already minimal. If they get watered down any more by a 'compromise', it will just such anyway. and it's uncertain if we would get the 2/3 majority on such a thing.
Better chances we have by outright refusing the proposal, or indeed, if that's possible, to restart the proposal (which they should do now, thnks to JURI, but aparently, the commision and counsel is bound on ignoring it).
Anyway, seen that even McCarthy voted for a restart in the JURI, even when it was her own proposal, makes me optimistic that we can receive a 2/3 majority to revoke or restart the process, possibly make some assesment studies in between, etc. So, even when it would pass in the counsel, I doubt it will pass for the second reading in the EU parliament.
The question rather is, if it comes that far, what should the position of our no-swp lobby go for?
Compromise? (seems very dubious)
Reject? (safe for 2 years, further assesment possible, more awareness of the problem by then)
Restart? (has the potential advantage of making a law that actually forbids swp, instead of leaving it ambiguous)
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---