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...
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
"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...
Democracy has met it's most important ennemy, and it is the bourgeois
Settle down... One step at a time: first, learn how to spell "its". This will help others take you more seriously. Changing the whole world order is a bit further down the track...
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
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
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 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.
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.
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!
Japan, Australia already have software patents. AFAIK, India, New Zealand, most of Mercosur do not have them, though some laws are under discussion too (IN, NZ). Here you find a (somewhat Euro-biased) list of FFII regional groups, join and take the initiative (not all mailing lists are very active) Thanks.
Hmmm...
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Free peoples, be mindful of this maxim: "Liberty may be gained, but can never be recovered." --Rousseau, Book II, chapter 8, "The Social Contract"
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.
This is true. Microsoft and similar companies only lobby for software patents out of altruism. They are desperately trying to help small companies against themselves. Really.
Unfortunately there is a conspiracy amongst economists to deny the benefits to small businesses. *Boo* *boo* the evil economists. Fortunately the good and just patent lawyers come to the small companies' defense *hurray* for the patent lawyers. They too are acting out of altruism and not lining their own pockets. Really.
Do you want to do something about this?
Donate money to FFII today:
http://ffii.org/money/account/index.en.html
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.
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.
You,obviously, have never worked in the software field and never worked for small s/w companies to whom spending US$5k-10k per patent would be difficult to justify.
You,obviously, have not read the vast amount of literature on the Web which simply shows that s/w patents are very anti-innovation.
You, obviously, are completely unaware of the fact that small and medium-sized companies do not have the time, money or resources to check that every two or three lines of code may not be infringing on a patent. Go see the MIT Web site for an example of a three line program that infringes.
Did he inhale?
Brinkhorst is the Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs. He's not a Minister of Agriculture and not an EU Commissioner, though he does seem to think he's God. The Dutch EU Comissioner is Neelie Kroes, and the previous Dutch Commissioner Frits Bolkestein was one of the big driving forces behind trying to make software patentable in the EU.
Donate free food here
The US and EU are geographical areas, so I can't insult it, but I know what you mean. However, the insult (if it is that) stands.
You may not like to believe this, but in the Real World, all the other countries are trying to kiss the arse of the gov. of the US of A (who after all have all the nukes and WMD, and have shown they aren't afraid to use them).
Some Europeans have, yes, made meagre efforts to question the way in which the US is going around bombing and taking over other countries; but, in practice, over little things like patent law, they'll most definitely do what ever the US tells them and the pressure from that side of the pond (esp. GWB and Bill Gates) on this issue has been well documented by the press and the FFII. The €C have said that this is all about harminisation (with the US); they don't deny this is why the directive was proposed.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
That individual being a patent lawyer who does not actually produce anything and so cannot be countersued.
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." ---
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...
"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." ---