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
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?
another country will reist patents until it's the year 2030 and nobody will care and I will hopefully either died gloriously or have taken the right drug to remove my ability to care. and when there are no countries left to resist it will go back to Poland and Poland will CHANGE ITS MIND again and decide patents are wonderfull...
Democracy has met it's most important ennemy, and it is the bourgeois.
So what point is the Parliament if it doesn't even have the capability to influence procedural issues within the EU superstructure?
Though I am afraid I don't know as much about how all of this works as I should, it seems this entire mess ought to be a real wake-up call to the people of Europe that they have given too much power too quickly to an entity without enough democratic safeguards. Either the EUs power needs to be scaled back, or the democratic influence needs to be expanded to give the EU responsibilities to the people in proportion to the powers it holds. Unfortunately I fear that this is an issue that the average person will not understand well enough to realize the significance of what has happened.
Hey, Europe, do you want to be a significant software player, or do you want America to have the ability to artificially lock you out of the market? Because the ONLY people who benefit from this patent directive in ANY way, and the only people who are promoting it, are American companies... and they are NOT promoting it for YOUR benefit.
The EU system has been shown to be such that American companies can engineer and pass EU-wide legislation for their own benefit and there is apparently nothing either you, or your elected local governments, can do to stop it.
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
Exactly how does the EU work? If the executive body can simply ignore the parliment, why does the parliment even exist? Who exactly are the ministers accountable to?
The current EU system looks geared towards creating corporate legislation. My observations are based, though, on only the tiny press the EU government gets in the US, and seen largely through the prism of this ongoing EU patent debate. Please correct me where I'm wrong.
Every time the EU government demonstrates that it rejects patent law, it springs up again immediately. Why not? Just a cost of doing business, until it finally passes. Meanwhile, people without a profit motive get "opposition fatigue" - some of the outrage at first being confronted with these artificial monopolies goes away merely with repeated contact, though the opposition remains. Something like a "three strikes and you're out" rule for laws, where a policy repeatedly fails in its process, should be applied. At least such failed policies attempts should produce a new policy statement, to the effect that no such policy is in effect, despite much deliberation. To be considered the next time such a policy is attempted.
And how can it be possible that the Spanish EU rep can misrepresent the Spanish Senate decision for Spain? Or that Dutch traitor last year? That sounds like sedition to me. What's the power hierarchy here? The parliament exerts its power, merely to suggest something to an unelected bureaucrat, who's unaccountable when ignoring it? The whole contraption is completely geared in favor of corporate gaming, and against any sensible representation of the people.
--
make install -not war
yet again, taking a decisive stand against the forces of tyrrany, the courageous Poles take arm against an implacable foe... leading the way to Victory over software patents.
"apparently nothing either you, or your elected local governments, can do to stop it."
Actually, the problem is that you, your elected local goverments, et. al. could stop this if you wanted to badly enough to actually try, instead of just moaning about it.
Those who want software patents are taking positive steps ( $$$ ? ).
What are YOU doing?
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
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...
any attempts by the Council of Ministers to ignore the will of the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee.
Can anyone explain to me why the EU has established this 'Council of Ministers' and what role it has in making law? It seems to me to be undemocratic.
an ill wind that blows no good
All the power resides in the hands of comissars and the council. They, in turn, are career bureaucrats chosen - undemocratically, mind you - by the member states.
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
Here in the UK it seems our best check is threatening to withdraw from the EU.
With all these forces driving for software patents, its the first time in my life that I truly understand what motivation lies behind terrorists. :-(
Just imagine the situation that a governement is doing something you are convinced is terribly wrong, and you cant find a way to change their mind, you might not have any other choice than using violence. I'm certainly not saying violence is good, don't get me wrong with that, but these days it seems more and more an alternative. I expected such things to happen in, I don't know, Arabia (seems like i'm a little influenced by propaganda as well) or something like that, but even in Europe... I'm truly losing my belief in the world
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 think the the categories with the most patent submissions in a year should have patents of the shortest term.
For example, 17 years is ridiculously long for the relatively new category of software patents. It probably should be on the order of three years.
Once an area settle down then the patent terms can expand again.
Sort of like a Lorentz contraction applied to patents.
Originally the commission called the shots and Parliament just monitored them.
Then the commission grew too strong and the countries objected, so a co-decision process was created to bring more democracy into the EU.
The Parliament and Commission are supposed to agree a compromise under the co-decision process.
The Council of ministers can bypass this (which they did thanks to Brinkhorst telling porkies).
JURI has concluded that Commission are misleading Parliament and the wording they want DOES make software patentable. Commission still claims it does not.
Commissions response to Parliaments request to restart in a more honest transparent way seems to be a diplomatic "FUCK YOU".
Its no longer about patents its about accountability, democracy and the Commission walking all over the co-decision process.
If the Commission can walk all over the Parliament like this then the Parliament has to be strengthened. It is the only democractic part of the EU.
I cannot understand this... really, cannot!
Just how fucking big is the propatent lobby to subvert the European Parlament iniciatives.
We are seeing the democratic representatives of the european parlament being stepped out, without any chance to do anything else but protest!
If this is the way Europe is going to work, I begin to get very scared!
I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
"Il fascismo dovrebbe più appropriatamente chiamarsi Corporativismo perché è una fusione tra Stato e potere corporativo."
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini, Encyclopedia ItalianaI.E. "The banners of The King of Hell advance"
We need more than a demonstration. We need to ORGANIZE. It's almost impossible to oppose a giant conglomeration of rich technology corporations; it's slightly less almost-impossible with a visible "show of force".
There needs to be an umbrella group devoted to uniting everyone against software patents in Europe. And there needs to be one now, or sooner or later (my money's on "sooner") we are going to lose this battle.
Once Europe falls to software patents, it's all over. There's no way in Hell Japan wouldn't follow suit (if they haven't already), and as I understand the Aussies (and probably the Kiwis too) have already followed the US's lead.
Once software patents are legally enforced all over the "civilized world", small programmers will pretty much be completely powerless (as opposed to the "mostly powerless" we are now).
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
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.
http://europa.eu.int/constitution/futurum/constit
I found this line "HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS" in a word document through google
I rather go for the version hosted by EU, instead of one found at Kent University.
Worst than EU approve this nightmare is all development countries that will gonna be pressure to accept this. And for 'development countries' you can understand India, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, all East Europe, Russia, etc... It gonna be a really f*cking nightmare.
I note that in Mussolini's Italy, the trains didn't even run on time. Giuliani NYC was a more concentrated version.
--
make install -not war
It is dead end. Everyone knew that it will happen, for years knew. But all the time we have heard that "no system is working better than this and we should stick that way". Well, it worked for me somehow...to survive. But not to live. I somehow can't live in such ruthless world, as biggest part of people just try ignore it. I can't.
:)
Capitalism and free market can be done only in theory - when people are mostly driven by money. Hoverer, I have my own theory on this. Most big coorporations are not driven by money, but by people with low self-esteem who wants power by any cost. If they have been motivated by money, they have already stop all this after first, second milion. But no...
I guess that is where it has a big problem - our society tends to forget what human being really is - it is NOT ONLY an animal driven by his basic needs, but complex intelligence creature which needs are much more difficult to deal with.
This creature needs attention, care, peace, and yes...that stupid little thing love.
Personally I think behind each crime against humanity, each greedy, stupid demonstration of power like this is one, small tortured soul which has lost it's way to love.
Ok, it was outright sentimental, but it is what I think about it
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
There's a quote that comes to mind when I read about this stuff:
"The American republic will endure until the politicians find they can bribe the people with their own money."
-Alexis de Toqueville
Use your imagination as to how you could apply this statement to modern Europe.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
I'm not sure if Italian trains will ever run on time ;)
Hmmm...
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Many people paint the "software patent" issue as big monied companies versus everybody else. But as a patent lawyer, I can report that quite often the person who would benefit from a software patent is an individual or a small company that does not have a lot of money. In many cases, the only thing that will protect a small inventor against the big companies (who might run off with the idea as soon as it is known) is the availability of the patent system.
So those who would eliminate software patents, thinking they are striking a blow against the Microsofts of the world, might actually be favoring the Microsofts of the world.
Free peoples, be mindful of this maxim: "Liberty may be gained, but can never be recovered." --Rousseau, Book II, chapter 8, "The Social Contract"
and 'our' (Dutch) minister of agriculture.He thinks he's God and voted in favour of sw-patents despite the Dutch parliament told him to vote against. For some reason the parliament has not punished him for that, probably because he is a member of a small party that gives 'our' ruling coalition it's majority. But that's all local politics, so I won't bother you with that...
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
Fuck revolution! Revolutions are just a big waste of energy, you unsettle more good things than fix bad ones. With revolution you put whole nations in frenzy, losing million's of peoples time and money. Why disturb everything good that we have built because of a handful of politicians bought by corporations?
What we need is a very well trained group of volunteer Ninja assassins to kill politicians. Now that's a revolution allright, but with the added benefit that our daily lives will go on as planned!
Democracy is a perfect concept, there are no flaws. However, most installments of democracy forget this essential component, which are the Ninja assassins that kill politicians, sometimes at random, just to make sure the "new blood in the politics" stays new and flowing.
What? does this sound violent and irrational? But don't we drive both innocent people and soldiers to die every day to ultimately fix holes in the system, a "necessary evil"? Exterminating politicians once in a while is good for the system too, and much more efficient than war.
Think about it: if you would take your butt of your chain and murder a pro-software-patents EU politician today, then they would either a) replace it with a politician that is against sw patents that cannot be bought or b) replace it with another son of a bitch, which would now think twice before sucking up to microsoft.
And, rest assured, most people would not cry for them (people usually don't remember who they voted for in the last election)
for going down the road of federalism.
Power concentrates in the hands of a few people who answer to those with the most money.
Europe should have learned from our example in "these United States". An ever growing centralization of power has not served the cause of liberty nor the common man well. Men are corruptible. Thus the more you concentrate power, the fewer people you need to corrupt in order for things to turn to shit.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Do you want to do something about this?
Donate money to FFII today:
http://ffii.org/money/account/index.en.html
There was a reason the founding fathers here in America chose a REPUBLIC versus a democracy.
Unfortunately we have been moving steadily toward a direct democracy. This means we are losing the whole system of checks and balances, protection of the minority from the majority,fiscal restraint, etc.
The historical pattern seems to be Republic-->Democracy-->Dictatorship-->Revolution (or Collapse)
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
i was going to refer to a previous commment i made on a previous thread on this subject, but since it's scrolled off the list of previous comments on my user info page, and slashdot's search engine is broken (searching for user names in comments does not work), i guess i won't. suffice it to say: the corps will eventually win and software patents will be enacted. money talks.
I've been saying this about Microsoft for a while now, but now that I think about it it applies to all corporations as well. Nobody in charge, making ruthless decisions with no regard for the profit of the company, is really in it for the money. They've all got more money than they could ever use already.
It's about power. It's a game and it's all about winning no matter the cost. The more money you make, the higher your score, and maybe you'll feel a little better about yourself. But I don't think someone caught in that treadmill will ever be truly happy, because it's a game that you can never win. Maybe you've got the current high score - someone else will beat it later, or you'll spend forever scrambling to stay on top. But all of it is just a meaningless number.
I think an apt analogy may be Evercrack addicts who neglect their friends, their family, their own health and all their other interests to devote all their time to getting a bigger Level number next to their character. What's the point?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
If we got to invade france, i'd sign up and i have bad asthma and a fat gut - but i'd live with it just to invade france - YEAH!!!
(i know france wasn't a colony, but its a convenient stop for tea and biscuits on the way to africa.
You recognize that people can be corrupted. Yet you then give the government more power? Why?
In the hopes that with more power the politicians and bureacrats will be less corrupt?
If you accept that man can be corrupted does it not make sense to minimize the power that politicians can hold over the people?
Better IMO to keep the playing field of power limited to money. At least that way state sanctioned violence and authority cannot be abused.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Sir, with all due respect, you know nothing whatsoever about the software industry.
It used to be that you could start up a software company on your own. This is no longer the case. Nowadays, you need access to vast amounts of cash; not just for growing the company, but also to be able to pay the lawyers for defense from frivolous lawsuits. Or to pay off the companies which are threatening you with such a bogus patent lawsuit.
This is now becoming big business. One recently announced legal firm has not only made a new business model out of these blackmail tactics, but gotten the likes of Microsoft, Google and other big names to invest in this scheme.
In short, the small guy is now shut out of the market; they can't play anymore. Guess what this does for innovation, when the big guys have no incentive to innovate?
The ONLY recourse that one has is to create your technology as Open Source. And with Microsoft gearing up for the next big battle against Open Source via Patents, it is questionable how long this defense can stand.
The Register (19th May 2004). Google for more info.
"Spain voted against the directive and Belgium, Italy, Denmark and Austria all refused to support it. In previous negationations, Poland, Austria, Latvia and Germany had all expressed reservations."
Spain hasn't changed its mind. Spain already voted against software patents.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines algorithm as "a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end, especially by a computer".
Now if we get rid of the computer part, as these definitions suggest, we are left with a hugely broad definition that would apply to a vast array of patents, many having nothing to do with software. It's not far off from disallowing patents altogether.
That would please many people, but I doubt if the europeans or any country would go for it. If one were trying to convince politicians to disallow software patents, suggesting we disallow algorithms in general would not likely succeed.
The EU is going to great pains to show that they're separate, distinct, nee even better than the US. You think they're going to kowtow on something like this?
That's not only an insult to the US, it's an insult to the EU!
What do you mean? The bloody lot is ours. Henry V was declared the rightfull heir to the French throne. It took some jumped up peasant girl going by the name of Joan to change that :-)
:-) It was rightfully ours, we where in possession of it, so what was all the giving it back idea about?
Personally I cannot understand why on earth we given it back to them in 1945
Wow, am I wrong here! :-(
But Brinkhorst DID vote for sw-pats, didn't he? Or am I wrong in that aspect too?
I allways confuse persons and functions
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
that the US is known to throw its weight around. But what about stuff like genetic food crops?
Steel tariffs?
The new Airbus!
Yeah that US really has things locked down!
(and the others) as an example of the EU not kowtowing to the US' demands of buying from Boeing.
I would add to this comment that the main advantage of a democracy or a republic is that revolutions are useless or unfair. If you can convince a majority of people into electing you and your party, you will have the ability to change the type of government in any way you want. After all, dictators like Napoleon or Hitler were constitutionnaly elected. If you think you have a better vision of what needs to be done in politics, rally as many people as you can and make a political party but there is no such things as "freedom fighters" in a democracy.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
(Although Airbus are IMO a corrupt company, the production and use of those planes is particularly bad for the environment (and aimed at rich people), and they are (for very questionable reasons) receiving lots of public EU money to produce the planes--which ironically (due to deals they have with other criminal companies) is being spent on flouting (good) EU environmental directives (which the EU are turning a blind eye to).)
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
hmm, i never knew that.
I think we gave france back because it was full of french people and crappy little poodles. Why would you want that?
Plus the neighbours are german.
The entire thing can be settled as follows:
-- Any implementation or partial implementaion of anything, when expressed as a program which can run on a general purpose computer, cannot be held to infringe any patent.
-- No patent shall issue or be considered valid, for any task which can be implemented as a program that can execute on commodity general purpose computing equipment.
-- "Business Processes" are not patentable.
The short version is that if you don't pick up a tool and use it, you aren't inventing anything.
If you perform "negative analysis" on most software patents, that is, you remove from the claims everything that isn't being "invented" or which cannot otherwise be patented alone, in the patent claims; you end up with a null set.
For instance, you get some patent on a distributed client server web application. They arn't inventing the client server model, you aren't supposed to be able to patent the divison of labor, they arn't inventing the web, or browser, or web server, they didn't invent the database and they didn't invet the computer. (etc, od nausium.) You are only left with a set of grand parameters that modify how an already atainable goal is reached.
A "software patent" is most identifiable by the addition of a "for a spesific purpose" clause that is tacked onto a basic sequence of common operations. It never "invents a garage roof" it describes "a means of protecting a vehicle by creating a shelter composed of a frame to which overlaping tiles of water resistent material are applied such that the water is directed into a redistribution channel." And the patent becomes all about "protecting a vehicle" and the inherent "but that's just a roof"(ness) disapears into a morrass of secondary claims.
Remember that "one click shopping" is indistinguisable from walking into a brick-and-mortar store with which you already have a relationship, picking up an object, and saying "put it on my tab." Or calling your milkman and saying "bring me an extra pint of milk this week." It is a transaction that has been going on for centuries in various forms and formats, but because it was "making it easy to shop by using a computer to phrase a simple request" (the purpose) the patent was upheld even though none of the _means_ were novel.
In short, in a software patent the invention is described after the purpose in the claims, so that even if the invetion is disallowed the purpose remains patented.
Making it broken.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
The definition of each word is sufficiently vague to the point that the words are synonyms.
From Merriam Webster:
Democracy - a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
Republic - a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
What's the difference?
The mob mentality defense has people disclaiming responsibility for their actions because they got "caught up in the moment" and "everyone else is doing it." Kind of like peer pressure.
Corporations lead to a similar responsibility disclaiming mentality. "I'm just trying to maximize shareholder revenue." People check their morality at the front desk and avoid responsibility for their actions because they're just trying to make other people money.
That's why businesses owned by one person(or a small handful of people) are superior. They are responsible to themselves. They can't blame some amorphus blob of shareholders for their actions. As a result, they'll stick to their ethics.
Now, sometimes, those ethics are still pretty lacking, but I'm willing to bet conscience will come into play with sole proprieterships more often than corporations.
Carl, you appear to have a common misconception about the effect of software patents.
The situation you are describing is applicable only for small players who come up with a very nifty algorithm or solution to something, but don't intend to ever produce a product. If they try to actually do anything, they'll trip over other patents and be forced to cross-licence by the major players.
Most software innovation isn't a single "breakthrough" step like RSA, LZ77/LZ78, DocuComp or whatever (the last of which is not really such a breakthrough), which could be the basis of licensing business strategy. It's loads of things put together into a useful program.
It's extremely unlikely that the negative economic effects of software patents (especially in relation to control of standards, because the ratio of patentable innovations to products is so high compared to other industry sectors, and because of the effect on free/open source software) are countered by the increase in incentives for small players to come up with important new algorithms. That scenario is vanishingly rare compared to the thousands of software patents that are issuing. And let's face it, Rivest, Shamir and Adelman would have been working hard on asymmetric crypto even if there hadn't been the extra carrot of a patent for MIT.
Fixing copyright
And how can it be possible that the Spanish EU rep can misrepresent the Spanish Senate decision for Spain?
Well, the decision was arrived at only this week. Nevertheless, the Spanish representative was the only one that voted against the Council's proposal last May. Abstention counted as votes against, but Spain was the only country that voted no. So rather than misrepresent the decision, the Spanish rep foreshadowed it.
If anything, the Spanish representatives in the EU have done as much as the Polish ones for the fight against software patents.
In any case, the Senate's decision is not such, but only a recommendation to the Government. The Spanish Senate has no decision powers, but is a merely consultive body in this matter. It is more a case of all political groups (unanimous vote!) standing for the public good and reminding the Executive of their duty towards their constituents.
http://barrapunto.com/ - News for nerds, en español
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." ---
I'm dealing with people with a very low attention span, who simply keep repeating ad nauseam: "if in any other field things can be patentend, why shouldn't software?"
Just as a digression: please note that Prodi is no more the Commission President, from November 2004 that role is assigned to José Manuel Durão Barroso of Portugal). So, correct me if I am wrong, I think Prodi is not responsable for EC to have put software patents in the agriculture-ministers meeting agendas (which, as far as I know, is the main sin of European Commission on this topic, since the European Commission is NOT the Council of the European Union)
And as a digression on the digression: I live in Italy so, since Mr. Prodi is now leading the leftist opposition, and I surely have no intention to vote for the Evil Forces of present Prime Minister Berlusconi in the coming Italian politica lelections, my vote will support him as Prime Minister. (Note that in Italy we do NOT vote Prime Minister directly, anyway it's very probable to have him in that role if the Left would gain Parliament majority)
Hmm..I'm a bit puzzled. You seem to convey one thing, but give examples that strengthen the oposite.
Revolutions are unfair, which is shown by the fact Hitler got elected?
Wouldn't that rather point to the fact that revolutions may be necessary, even in a democarcy?
Don't take me wrong; I think think democracy is one of the best systems we have... but it's still a pretty crappy system. It could be made better, ofcourse, and in that respect I take some old ideas of Plato and the lot, who argued for the 'perfect state' - not that I believe there is such a thing. (An oligarchy of 'wise men' (in current times that would be the necessary education/degrees) comes to mind, but then as premise to get elected, for instance).
Anyway, the fallacy you make, is to assume that the current democratic systems are so good, that revolutions become 'unfair' and 'useless'. And all that because you could convince a 'majority' of people. As your own examples demonstrate, this is a dubious reasoning.
Say, hypothetically, you have a country where two ethnic groups that can't stand eachother live together, and one (A) make out 51% and the other (B) 49% of the populace.
A wins and decides to get rid of group B. Now, democratically speaking, this is all very correct...but would it be fair? And if it isn't, wouldn't it be fair for group B to revolt?
Me thinks: yes.
So, in essence, there might be situations where, even within a democracy, a revolution is neither unfair nor useless.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
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...
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "B-topic". In any case, if the Council of Ministers is going to discuss this thing, it definitely shouln't be on the agenda of a fish and agriculture meeting at all. Since they appearantly believe they are finished discussing this, forcing them to discuss it again among themselves is hardly going to achieve anything. They should have to consider the parliament's proposed amendments of 2003 or an entirely new directive proposal, which they appearantly can't do now without a restart of the process.
...it assumes the majority are right.
In this instance, I think the majority are definitely right.
halo, do you know what (or where to find) the options are of the parliament if it ever get passed the counsel? I know it can reject it, but can it also force it to become a first reading, again?
I seem to remember reading about those options, but I forgot where exactly.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Mr. Oppendahl, you are 100% right, as usual, but you are just wasting your thoughtful comments here. The majority of people here are just unable to think. This is why we cannot have direct democracy: allowing general public to pass (or significantly influence) decisions on such critical issues inevitably leads to horrible long-term concequences. From my experience, I can only tell that PATENT IS THE ONLY THING that matters when you are a small independent inventor trying to advance the state of the art in some particular field (In my case, it is digital signal processing as applied to speech recognition etc.) Copyright doesn't provide any protection at all for true algorithmic discovery. Trade secret is not an option either. Everything can be easily reverse engineered by big companies with resources, especially if it's just one tiny critical part of a program that really matters. So, the alternative to patent protection for small independent inventors (and start up companies with no resources) is to stop inventing altogether. Those anti-swpatent activists (including Linus and RMS, with all due respect) are NOT INVENTORS. If they were in small inventor's shoes they would say something different. I say: Fix the patent system, do not destroy it. Yes, it is true that the majority of patents (not just software patents, by the way) are junk patents. Those mostly come from big corporations and used to protect their own products. An independent inventor usually can afford only one patent, so it'd better be a "killer" patent. Long-time software engineer turned independent inventor.
When are people going to understand that patents are good for the smaller companies and inventors? The reason big corporations benefit the most from them are that the patents are too expensive to get and to defend. Instead of banning patents because only an elite few can get them, they should be made available to everyone, i.e., make the legal stuff easier/cheaper.
Patents on business methods, however, should not be allowed since the "inventors" themselves benefit from fair competition, something that doesn't hold true when it comes to actual products.
Open source is the art of letting other people write your bad code.
Does reimplementing the brake with a software controller rather the original hardware controller mean the you are not in violation of the brake patent? I'm not sure, you see, how to interpret that first rule of yours.
That's one possible outcome. Another possible outcome is that the people whose personal freedom and economic future are threatened by software patents (if your job depends directly or indirectly on more than just a handful European high tech companies having a future, you're in the latter category) will realize what's going on, and organize a sufficiently strong anti-swpat movement before it's too late.
Please think about whether you want to be on the side of the activitists (people who do something about the problem, and inspire others to be active also) or on the side of the passivists (people who don't do anything of significance, and influence others to be passive also). --nb.
Under construction: swpat politics overview article