Dutch Say No to Software Patent Directive

Rik writes "Thursday night the Dutch parliament has decided that the Dutch government should not vote for the EU Software Patent Directive at the European Council of Ministers next week. The decision of the Dutch parliament strengthens attempts of MEPs of the European Parliament to send the Software Directive back to the drawing board."

Comments

Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Radiate]

Can't we just get rid of the patent system!

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[DenDave]

God bless them cheeseheads! Lets all wear wooden clogs and chant stranges incantaions in recognition of their greatness!

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't patents, the problem is the patent system. We need to invest more money in the patent system so that we can separate the "stupid" patents from the legitimate ones.

Now software patents, that is a whole 'nother ball game.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[metlin]

...and what incentive will you have, sir, to protect your hard-work from those who'd not hesitate to rip it off you?

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Radiate]

I do not want to protect it. I want to share it so that mankind can benefit from my hard work.

And I will set up a donate with PayPal link for those who want to support me.

"...Now how do i glue the GPL onto a nuclear bomb..."

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

Copyright- which has protected programmers för over 50 years !

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[ceeam]

How many _patents_ do you own? How many patents does your average small-to-medium software house or single (shareware?) programmer own?

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Scarblac]

FWIW, last year I saw some report that mentioned the total number of software patents held by Dutch companies was 4.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[klmth]

Interesting proposition.

The patent system was originally instated to grant an inventor a temporary and artificial monopoly on a new invention. The first patents are found in the 15th century in the republic of Venice.
Patent abuse is nothing new. Prior to the enactement of the Statute of Monopolies in 1623, the crown would issue letters patent providing any person with a "monopoly" to produce particular goods or provide particular services. This was abused by the crown, leading to the legislation setting a term limit for the monopolies granted by a patent.

Most people seem to agree that granting an inventor a patent for novel idea or implementation fosters innovation. Let's say I invent a non-obvious and novel idea for building a smaller, lighter and more secure watertight latch for use in large cargo ships. Using this door would save shipbuilders lots of money in materials and labours. If there are no patents to protect me, any other company or individual could reverse engineer my design and sell a knock-off. Since they have little R&D costs to recuperate, they can sell it a cheaper price than me, thus preventing me from recuperating my R&D costs.

The patent system works by granting me a temporary monopoly on my design. I can choose to license it to other manufacturers, so that if they choosem to enter the market, I can still recoup my development costs.

The problem with the patent system today is that the patents are often not in the hands of those that produce and implement the patents in question. Instead, they are concentrated into holding companies that use them to cash in on patent infringments. Often these patents are neither novel nor non-obvious, so many have no idea they are infringing on a patent before they are slapped with a lawsuit.
If this model of business was to be made unprofitable, many of the problem with the patent system would vanish.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[iwan-nl]

Cheeseheads? You are lagging behind. For quite some time now, we are widthly known to be potheads.

All kidding aside, this is, imho, the first good decision our parliament has made in quite some time. Good to see there are still some remains of our once so liberal nation.

By the way, why would you chant strange incantaions in recognition of our greatness? Am I missing some reference to my own folklore here?

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[R.Caley]

and what incentive will you have, sir, to protect your hard-work from those who'd not hesitate to rip it off you?

Patent's don't protect your work, copyrights do that.

Patents are a licence to rip off other people's work, granted by the state as an incentive for you to publish your work. There were perfectly good reasons for this at the time the system developed, but few if any of the reasons still exist.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[klmth]

Actually, patents are a temporary monopoly on a design. How you choose to use that monopoly is up to you - you can choose to license it to others, or you can choose to be the sole supplier of your design.

In some countries, there laws that force the licensing of patents if there is no implementation available within a reasonable time-frame.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[WindBourne]

Actually, there are more problems with these. While you do point out acurately, that holding companies are abusing these, there is another more common abuse.

A person will obtain a patent and then start a small company(1-5 ppl). However, a large company who watches it sees the potential and simply decides to do the same, but without paying for the patent. The small guy can not afford to take on a big company.

Now, one of the better examples to most here is MS vs. all the small companies that they do this to. What they are counting on, is stalling it in the courts and then paying just a fraction of what it has earned them. In the mean time, they have wiped out the company or buy them at a fraction of what they would have at the height of the company.

But they are no worse (and in fact, better) than many other medium to small. My father has a patent for a archery product. When a larger company decided that they liked it, they started manufactuering their own. When he spoke up and threatened lawsuit, the larger company simply went to all the stores where it was sold at, and stopped them from distributing his product. Since they were not a convicted monopoly, they are not watched by the feds. But they damage is there. And this goes on all the time

Basically, the patent does not protect the little guys. The high costs of the legal system prevents any real action. But it does allow a large company to harass the little guy.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[R.Caley]

Some modest proposals for a perhaps useful software patent system:

• Lifetime of patent limited to something in keeping with software development lifecycle. Say 5 years. (that is long enough to sell alot of copies and time to develop your next idea)
• Patent only enforcable while the holder has a product available which uses the patented mechanism. (no submarines)
• The source code of the up to date version of the relevent part of that product must be kept published and in the public domain at all times during the lifetime of the patent.

So, you get your monopoly for a time to get money out of it, but at the end of that time everyone gets a working implementation of the idea to start from. This basicly reflects the original intent of patents - it exchanges a limited time monopoly for the idea being published and available for others to learn from and to use at the end of the monopoly.

Basicly, what if software patents were a lever for creation of more free software.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[DigitumDei]

Well fine, get rid of patents for software...

But to remove the patent system entirely? Many patents in the world outside of software are held by companies that spent millions developing them. You think a paypal donate link is going to benifit them when once their piece of hardware (or whatever) is out in the world and some 3rd world company reverse engineers it and takes all their profits?

Remove the ability to protect your research and the guy who can sell the product for the least amount of money gets the money. A company spends huge amounts in R&D cannot compete with a company that only steals ideas since the company that steals ideas has far less costs.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[orkysoft]

s/widthly known/widely known/

Sorry hoor, maar je vraagt er zelf om in je sig :-P

Oh, en in-can-ta-tions.

Fout == fout ;-)

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[R.Caley]

Actually, patents are a temporary monopoly on a design.

They are rather wider than that. They are monopolies on an idea. It's not just the specific design of the Amazon one-click buying system which was claimed.

Whichis where the ability to rip of other people's work comes from. If I have a patent and you, in ignorance, produce a better implementation than mine of that idea, I can assume control of your work.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to invest more money in the patent system so that we can separate the "stupid" patents from the legitimate ones.

We don't necesseraly have to invest more money. Plain simple rules are cheaper and easier for everyone and make patents more valuable because a lot of todays uncertainty is removed. Business methods should be totally banned and every patent claim that can be implemented on a universal computing machine (software on computers). The rules have to be easy to understand and easy to follow. You will always have a gray zone of uncertainty but you can keep it as small as possible.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[DenDave]

something I picked up in a dutch pub after a footbaal game"

la luhl ala luh lhuluh la la laaaa!!

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

That is total BS, my father works for Philips and has two software patents under the EPO. There are hundreds of software patents held by the Dutch.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[DenDave]

Investing money... as if the patent office needs more of it.. perhaps a more general rule could determine the rights of creators.. something like copyright..

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Barsema]

How much money should we as a society spend on getting de patent system to work? perhaps there are better ways to spend taxpayer's money to encourage inovation. (grants, sponsoring)
Patents are a means to an end, not en end in itself.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what 'luhl' means, but one time my cousin (who is Dutch) told me, while I was in Holland, that 'lul' meant hello. Well I got punched in the face. Ahhh family.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[file-exists-p]

Dear Sir,

I am a programmer and a researcher in computer science, thus one of those supposed to benefit from a software patent system. And frankly, both from what I have experienced personnaly and from what I see in the press, I dont feel protected *at all* by software patents.

Software patents are so silly that any dispute related to them can not be based on rational argument and any form of justice that should derive from it. Those disputs are pure lawyer technical fights. They require money and are possible only between big entities (read corporations).

So, Sir, software patents are not an incentive at all. They are a way to lock the market to keep small structures and individuals out. Anybody saying the opposite is a liar or an idiot.

--
Go Debian!

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[iwan-nl]

De sig is niet cynisch bedoelt. Bedankt voor de correctie.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[LionKimbro]

The problem isn't solely that inventors themselves aren't the ones receiving the patents;

The problem is also that the number of "inventors" in the realm of computer programming is very very big.

On the left hand: How many people are there that can tinker at home, and make special types of macrophages, or whatever it is that biologists do in research time?

On the right hand: How many people are there who can apply XOR to draw cursors on their home computers? I was doing that when I was 12, and I don't consider myself particularly bright.

The definition of "obvious" or "non-obvious" is not clear. I can easily imagine the baffled patent examiner, considering the XOR drawing algorithm. "Wow! This guy knows about bits, and logic gates, and,... other complicated stuff. Hot damn, that can't be obvious. We gotta do something about this... We gotta... Make sure nobody else does this for 20 years!"

20 years!

Even if the programmers are the ones receiving the checks for their "invention," we still have the same problem:

Specifically, the patent system is prohibiting innovation rather than encouraging it.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[LourensV]

That is one thing, but I also think there is something else more specific to software, and it's not a theoretical but a practical difference.

By far most software in use today is custom-made. People create websites, design databases, and implement business rules. Just check the size of the IT consulting business. The stuff that you see on the shelf is just the tip of the iceberg.

So, the incentive for innovation is not money, it's the simple fact that you're working on a project and your customer has requested feature X. So you figure out a way to implement it. Your development costs are paid directly by your customer, and even if you did not have patent protection and everyone else implemented the same feature in the software they're writing for their customers, you'd still get paid.

Hence, innovation would still occur if software patents did not exist. Software is a service, as they say, and if you work is protected by copyright, others must do the same work (implementing feature X) again.

The big problem with software patents as they exist in the USA today, is that it is these features (one-click shopping for example) that are patented. That just doesn't make sense. It essentially gives the patent holder the right to tax anyone who implements that particular feature, in exchange for what? Thinking up new features? I don't think we need incentives for that.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

lul = dick

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Fruit]

"bedoeld" :P

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[mikera]

There are infinite numbers of ways to ensure innovators are rewarded without patents. It's only a complete failure of imagination coupled with a few hunded years of "we've always done it that way" that makes people assume that patents are the only way.

My favourite idea is a system where inventions get government-funded awards *if and only if* they are successful in the marketplace. The inventor gets the award even if someone else commercialises the idea, hence there is no reson to fear being "ripped off" because it actually increases your chances of earning a big cash award.

It's worth spending public money on because it is strongly in the public interest not to have patent-funded monopolies. Products will be cheaper, innovations will be propagated faster and markets will be more competitive.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Synli]

Precisely. I would bet that, however true your post is, it will not be moderated as insightful nor informative (most people here are GPL zealots). You (and now me too) will be happy when our posts are not moderated as Troll. God bless those who dare to say the truth. Cheers PS - GPL is not perfect and it is capable of preventing research, development, and progress in some fields. Communism does not *always* work.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Fidgety Philip]

On the other hand, patents allow a company that has made one innovation to sit back and relax for the duration of the patent, rather than going on to do further innovation. In fact, the company may block other companies from innovating in the same field.

Although it seems logical that patents should provide an incentive to innovate, there is no real evidence that it does. The most innovative periods in most countries' history are when they have no patent protection. Although there is considerable theft of ideas, the thieves go on to make improvements that the originators do not.

Is this unjust to the originators of the ideas? Not so much that they were deterred from producing their inventions, it seems.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[iwan-nl]

Ik was gisteren jarig, en het is behoorlijk laat geworden. Vandaag is duidelijk niet de ideale dag om aan m'n spelling te werken. :)

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[KontinMonet]

The EPO makes a billion Euros a year for itself (never mind what the patent lawyers make). This might be due to volume rather than quality, of course, but I understand this is sufficient income for a well run PO.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Peer]

something I picked up in a Dutch pub after a footbaal game"

la luhl ala luh lhuluh la la laaaa!!

You're correct there. That's the first line of our national anthem.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[curious.corn]

Of course... wait 'till some $CORP sues you into the ground for that interoperating piece of software you small company wrote to satisfy a customer's spec on a non $CORP owned integrated platform. But the customer can't afford the licensing and wouldn't care less if the IT equipment you try to sell is just a [clickety] scripting customization of some cumbersome, forced upgrade, platform software. The customer probably wants something that just works, that they can forget running on some blade for as long as they please without having to upgrade because the $CORP decided to drop support for it, that they can tinker and refactor for as long as they please and not necessarily by you.

But they can't buy it, and you can't make and sell it because everything from help files to the idea of stored procedures is patented up and nobody wants to contend that in court against a Megabuck $CORP. So you're role is dumbed down to that of VAR, certified [clickety] wizard guy and the customers see their IT costs SOAR because every 3yrs they have to upgrade even if what they've already got is fine: 1. the "platform software", 2. "the Operating system to support 1, 3. new hardware to have 2 run at a decent speed, 4. the custom app because it's not working anymore.

That's not funny... innovation grinds to a halt and a medieval inter-feud toll system bleeds the industry dry while the Seigneurs and their lawyers (who BTW know jack shit about computers) have a collective roaring laugh.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[uberdave]

Simply reducing the amount of time a patent is valid from 20 years, to about 5 years, and making them non-transferrable (ie. Company A cannot purchase patents from Company B, or acquire them by purchasing Company B) might go a long way to cleaning up the system.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Fruit]

gefeliciteerd dan, alsnog ;)

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[KontinMonet]

What about those patents that require little if any work (such as 'ISNOT' or 'a method for paying freelance programmers')? Why do you patent fanboys always assume that patents are there to protect hard work?

The patent system might not be under such fire if patents had a proportionality to the amount of creative effort (original, not patent lawyer-ese) required to produce the patent. Developers often have seven reasonable (but not necessarily original) ideas before breakfast which patent offices seem only too willing to grant (provided all the fees are paid and the company is big enough...).

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[iwan-nl]

Ah, football. That explains a lot. It still puzzles me how a stupid game can turn otherwise "normal" people into a bunch of complete morons. The Brits are worse though! =P

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[cerberusss]

Yep, gefeliciteerd :)

Dit wordt een Nederlandse OT thread...

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[delire]

The EPO is a paper-pushing business- practically a private firm. The last thing they need is more money. Sadly there is alot of under-the-table talk between Parliament members and various corporate (largely US) monopolies. The EU would be much safer with a less 'buyable' source of regulatory control, ideally in the form of a panel of publically nominated experts. This would at least protect the ecology of software development in the EU from rash, uneducated and catastrophic decisions. ..of course, who watches the watchman..

Software patents themselves make little or no sense as an IP protection mechanism, especially considering the vast capital required to register and 'protect' a patent. Many good ideas come from small places, however swpatents discourage innovation through fear of the possiblity of legal consequences for small to medium size developers. For this reason the GPL does more to protect the interests of the developer, and the quality of software in general. If you have a good idea and you want to protect it, tell someone.. and if someone else implements 'your idea' in a better way or before you.. then clearly you just weren't interested in it enough ;)

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[KontinMonet]

But to remove the patent system entirely?

Why not, if it's broken? Replace it with something else perhaps? An Australian govt. research project came to the conclusion that not having patents would be useful to innovation and the only reason they kept it was because of international treaty.

Or how about the Journal of Economic Growth, 2004, vol. 9, issue 1, pages 81-123:
"Furthermore, patents affect the allocation of R&D resources across industries, and patents can distort resources away from industries where they are most productive."

I think the debate should be started to see whether patents are a useful mechanism or not.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[KontinMonet]

Most people seem to agree that granting an inventor a patent for novel idea or implementation fosters innovation.

Can you give us a link which backs up this assertion? (Preferably with good quality facts).

All I have ever seen is this mantra repeated ad nauseam whilst I have read many articles which, with economic data, show that patents stifle innovation and distort the market.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Phil246]

a company that can afford to pout millions into R&D can afford to market the product they get at the end of the day.

The patent system was designed to allow for those 'Joe Averages' who tinker in their sheds for instance, to come up with an idea and make money from it without having to worry about a large corporation stealing it and then cornering the market , giving poor Joe Average nowhere to go.

with software theres no reason for not using copyright to protect it

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Mold]

The GPL has nothing to do with patents. It deals with copyright.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[91degrees]

Clauses 7 and 8, and the preamble mention patents.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey well we did invent it. And well we like water cannons. For a lot of football fans its their yearly wash. :)

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Mold]

I stand corrected.

However, it merely states that if you have been forced to stop distributing the code, that you cannot distribute the binaries. Presumably, the only time this would come up would be a situation in which you've already been stopped from distributing anyway.

It isn't imposing anything that is, as the grandparent post stated, "capable of preventing research, development, and progress in some fields".

However, the GPL 3 is supposed to address IP and patents. I'm curious to see how that turns out.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Adammil2000]

Before my wife's new job I was all for only allowing individuals to hold patents. But the circumstances of her new company made me change my mind: My wife works for a small bio-med company made of about 8 people. They invent and patent a new testing methods for blood and urine that let you detect certain things like medical conditions, check to ensure that the medicine you take is actually working for you, etc. Then they sell the patents to larger companies to fund research on their next patent, rinse and repeat. Half the company are PhD researchers, the others are like office support. This is a sustainable business model if you have smart folks working on problems that are driven by demand to be solved, but perhaps the larger companies don't have the time or expertise to chase down the solutions themselves. Since this small business specializes, they are quickly mastering their techniques and coming up with new patents faster each time. It would be hard to do this type of business if large companies could not hold patents, and instead in some alternate reality, the US government would only grant patents to individuals. This puts the food on the table for several people, solves real world problems, and the folks get paid above industry standard at least. I think this is a showcase company that demonstrates how patents can help small business. Big business doesn't invent everything themselves and they have to buy patents, which spreads money around a little better. This small company often entertains bids from several big companies, which increases their take in. I have no idea how many other companies work like this, but hey here's one example to think about.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[91degrees]

True. Just thought I should mention it as a point of order.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[the_womble]

Patents may work well for mechanical devices.

They do not work for:

• Software: I assume reading this knows that
• Business methods: as with software, inovations has not speeded up after they became patentable, therefore patents do not work
• Pharmaceuticals: only a fractionabout 15%-20% of the extra cost paid by consumers goes back into R & D - i.e. it works but is a very inefficient incentive system.
• Semiconductors: the main motive for R & D is to keep manufacturing capcblities up to advancing stadards - trade secrets would be enough protection. This was confired by a study by Besen and Maskin at MIT. In addition all the big boys cross license to each other anyway so the main effect is to keep new entrants out.

Th patent system works so well that huge government intervention and expenditure is needed to keep R & D spend going. The best examples are again with pharmaceuticals. In the US the FDA gives pharma companies extra incetives like those of orphan drugs, in the UK they get tax breaks. Globally a huge amount of R & D is carried out or funded by univerisites and by non-profit organisations such as the Wellcome Trust.

So why not restrict patents to purely mechancial investions: what they were meant to apply to originally?

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[ThaReetLad]

I'm trying to improve my English. Please correct me on any spelling/grammar errors in this post.

Umm... easy on the pot dude. It's playing hell with your spelling.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[the_womble]

But patents also impose costs on consumers and during the lifetime of the patent they prevent further improvements to the patented idea. In other words they encourage one-off innovations but discourage evolutionary imporvements. Evolutionary improvemnt has a pretty good track-record at coming up with complex designs...

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[EzInKy]

The problem with the patent system today is that the patents are often not in the hands of those that produce and implement the patents in question. Instead, they are concentrated into holding companies that use them to cash in on patent infringments. Often these patents are neither novel nor non-obvious, so many have no idea they are infringing on a patent before they are slapped with a lawsuit.
If this model of business was to be made unprofitable, many of the problem with the patent system would vanish.

You are forgetting one other problem with patents, particularly software ones, and that is simply that there are about ten fold more people alive today then there were centuries ago.

Let's say that your idea was so novel that only one person in a billion would have thought of it. Sure, three hundred years ago you may have been the only person in the world to see the solution to a problem, but today odds are there are at least six other people who see it too.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[iwan-nl]

I would bet that, however true your post is, it will not be moderated as insightful nor informative (most people here are GPL zealots).

I'm afraid you lost that bet. Maybe slashdotters are less short-sighted than you think.

GPL is not perfect and it is capable of preventing research, development, and progress in some fields.

True, but I don't think there is any license that is "perfect" from everyone's point of view.

Communism does not *always* work.

No, but neither does corperatism. I think linux is a pretty good example of a situation where it *does* work. If that makes me a "GPL zealot", so be it. I for one, hope that someday we'll live in a socialistic world (a la Startrek) where money is no longer the most important factor in life.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[mattyrobinson69]

Oi mouth.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

But to remove the patent system entirely? Many patents in the world outside of software are held by companies that spent millions developing them. You think a paypal donate link is going to benifit them when once their piece of hardware (or whatever) is out in the world and some 3rd world company reverse engineers it and takes all their profits?

The "goodness" of the patent system is based on a simple meme: innovation would not happen without monopolies on the inventions made.

This is patently ridiculous, since most inventions in history were made when this was not the case. In fact, if you think logically about it, you would realise that in the absence of patents, the only thing keeping a company's profit margins up would be constant innovation, since every market leader would have to constantly improve its products to outdo the low-cost competition. Imho, it wouldn't be surprising if when studied it would be revealed the patent system discourages innovation.

Have you seen a study where it is demonstrated conclusively innovation would suffer without a patent system? I haven't, and that is the basic meme underlying the entire patent system, without which there is no point to it.

Not to mention patents currently don't even work to protect the lone inventor. They work to protect large corporations from upstart competitors, because you need a patent portfolio (which a lone inventor can not afford) to be able to come out of a legal patent battle ok.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[FinestLittleSpace]

I picked something up at a dutch pub too. Can't for the life of me get rid of the itching down there though.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh, and to think that if you weren't among a group of people having a hard time making enough money writing code, we wouldn't have these profoundly earthshaking insights. Not only might those profound words make you some more money writing code, but it could also revolutionalize the whole of industry itself. It mudst be some kind of serendipity at work.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[WebCrapper]

I completely agree with this. I also think that the Patent think tanks that just think up stuff and wait for people to violate their patent should be illegal.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[bug]

How about a simple restraint of trade lawsuit? Heck, you've got spammers threatening lawsuits of this nature all the time. Wouldn't it be nice to see a good guy winning a case like this for once?

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Synli]

It isn't imposing anything that is, as the grandparent post stated, "capable of preventing research, development, and progress in some fields". The consequences of using GPL might indeed be such. Read the post to which I replied to understand why.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Synli]

Precisely. I would bet that, however true your post is, it will not be moderated as insightful nor informative (most people here are GPL zealots). You (and now me too) will be happy when our posts are not moderated as Troll. God bless those who dare to say the truth. Cheers PS - GPL is not perfect and it is capable of preventing research, development, and progress in some fields. Communism does not *always* work.

Following my own post. I am glad I made the moderators give your post some positive points [which was actually my intention]. (Before I posted the message, your post had no positive points -- now it is at 5... ;-)

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[espenfjo]

All patents should not be removed, but some categories should be removed. Like the ones that benefit the whole mankind. Like medicines. Cure for diseases shouldn't be patented, they should be free.

Many countries(many in Asia and Africa) can't afford to pay the price for those medicines, so the people who need them must pay, and they for sure can't afford it. This is a very common practice in many many countries all around the world. People are dying becouse of the high prices of patented medicines and cures.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Synli]

I'm afraid you lost that bet. Maybe slashdotters are less short-sighted than you think.

The post had _no_ moderator points for 30 minutes! After I posted my message (whose sole purpose was to wake the moderators up), the message is suddenly at 5. :-)

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Synli]

I for one, hope that someday we'll live in a socialistic world (a la Startrek) where money is no longer the most important factor in life.

What you talk about is communism, not socialism. You know, I lived in a former communist country in Eastern Europe, and believe me, I would never want communism to come back... It was a horrific experience.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

Snyggt att skriva "för" i stället för "for" :-D

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[gnarlin]

Ignore this comment, it is a bookmark for myself ;-)

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[DrZZ]

Pharmaceuticals: only a fractionabout 15%-20% of the extra cost paid by consumers goes back into R & D - i.e. it works but is a very inefficient incentive system.

That metric doesn't make sense to me. Do you think a very small pharmaceutical industry that only works on a few "easy" diseases, but puts 50% back into R&D is clearly better? I think a better metric is the total R&D spending with patents vs. without. Of course any estimate of this now is just a guess because we do have patents, but I really can't see how anyone would invest without some kind of exclusivity period. By far and away the major expense of finding a drug is figuring out which one works and proving it. Who would ever invest the money to do this if the results became available for all to use?

Th patent system works so well that huge government intervention and expenditure is needed to keep R & D spend going. The best examples are again with pharmaceuticals. In the US the FDA gives pharma companies extra incetives like those of orphan drugs, in the UK they get tax breaks.

Those subsidies are due to the realization that drugs are very expensive to bring to market, so expensive that there are diseases which affect too few people to ever make finding a treatment economically viable. I can't see how eliminating patents would do anything except increase the number of diseases that are "orphaned".

Globally a huge amount of R & D is carried out or funded by univerisites and Wellcome Trust

Actually this work is fairly orthogonal to what the drug companies do, with the universities tending much more toward the R and the companies much more toward the D. Although it is beginning to change somewhat, there has been quite a reluctance in the academic community to acknowledge importance of D like activities. If you don't believe me, submit a grant that proposes medium scale synthesis, pharmacology, toxicology, or other vital components of develoment and see how the study sections trash it.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[mikael]

The definition of "obvious" or "non-obvious" is not clear. I can easily imagine the baffled patent examiner, considering the XOR drawing algorithm. "Wow! This guy knows about bits, and logic gates, and,... other complicated stuff. Hot damn, that can't be obvious. We gotta do something about this... We gotta... Make sure nobody else does this for 20 years!

At the time (1978), true-color framebuffers were expensive and consisted of an large board of RAM chips and several RAMDAC's. The only people to have access to such hardware were research departments in universities and corporations. Home computers were just coming onto the market, but still used block character graphics as the display system. The novelty for this patent was applying an arithmetic operation to framebuffer data in hardware. This was very much the same technological state as biological/genetic research is in now.

Nobody really anticipated that high-end workstation technology (as this was at the time) would eventually migrate down to consumer devices.

The text for the XOR patent was filed by NuGraphics and can be found by searching for patent no. 4197590

Quantel also filed for a similar patent covering the use of transparency/opacity/alpha blending to implement paint brush strokes (4,633,416).

Owning the XOR patent, simply stimulated companies to develop other more advanced methods of editing (overlays, underlays, transparency color).

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[pe1rxq]

You are basicly arguing that abolishing the patent system won't work because some people have based their business model on it.....
Your wife may be out of a job and so might be some patent-office clerks and a lot of law firms, but would the world as a whole be worse?

A hundred years ago you would have argued that cars are bad because people make a living based on horses. (food on the table, solves real problems, yadda yadda)

Take a look at another thing hapening about a hundred years ago: flying.
The wright brothers may be credited with the first powered flight, but the idea was hardly original. (In fact it was attempted all around the world and the mere fact that they were first is heavily disputed) The patented parts of their 'invention' (most notably their control system).
A hundred years later flying has evolved in an amazing rate. This wasn't because of the patent, this was because all those other pioneers simply ignored those patents and continued experimenting.
It led to a lot of nasty lawsuits and mud throwing but we came out differently.
Imagine what would have happened if the wright brothers really had the power to stop all kinds of flight for a few decades. If they had been able to enforce their patents effectivly they would have had that power. You are giving an awfull lot of power to people who mostly don't deserve it at all. The biggest problem with patents is that it gives far to much credit to people simply doing their job.

Jeroen

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget to smoke some good ganja :D

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Deusy]

"The problem with the patent system today is that the patents are often not in the hands of those that produce and implement the patents in question. Instead, they are concentrated into holding companies that use them to cash in on patent infringments."

Perhaps a solution is to make patents something that only an individual can own (or jointly own if multiple individuals make the discovery). That way, the power would be redistributed from corporations to the scientists/inventors who make the discoveries, and the corporations would only benefit through contractual agreements with said scientists/inventors. It wouldn't stifle R&D as corporations would sponsor projects as part of the contracts to utilize pending patents. And it would reduce frivelous patents because individuals would have less capital to execute them.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

To quote John Perry Barlow:
"Copyright and intellectual property are the most important issues now. If you don't have something that assures fair use, then you don't have a free society. If all ideas have to be bought, then you have an intellectually regressive system that will assure you have a highly knowledgeable elite and an ignorant mass...[P]ersonally [I] think intellectual property is an oxymoron. Physical objects have a completely different natural economy than intellectual goods. It's a tricky thing to try to own something that remains in your possession even after you give it to many others."

And to quote Roderick T. Long:
"...modern electronic communications are simply beginning to make copyright laws unenforceable; or at least, unenforceable by any means short of a government takeover of the Internet -- and such a chilling threat to the future of humankind would clearly be a cure far worse than the disease. Copyright laws, in a world where any individual can instantaneously make thousands of copies of a document and send them out all over the planet, are as obsolete as laws against voyeurs and peeping toms would be in a world where everyone had x-ray vision." ;-)

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[N3wsByt3]

"Owning the XOR patent, simply stimulated companies to develop other more advanced methods of editing (overlays, underlays, transparency color)."

Perhaps, but copyright already does that, adn patents have the disadvantage that they cover ideas on themselves. There are only a limited number of ways to get passed an idea, depending on how broad it was.

If Xerox patented the GUI, how would other companies have evaded that? By using commandlines?

At some point, it becomes clear patents are rather restricting then helping in the innovative process. swp are a prime example of that.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[DigitumDei]

"This is patently ridiculous, since most inventions in history were made when this was not the case"

I would think its safe to say that most of the world inventions have happened in the last 100 years (maybe 200), and patents have been around since long before that. Advancements in technology have grown exponentially in recent times.

Also, just because there wern't patents doesn't mean we as humans didn't institute protections against the loss of knowledge to others. Glass making for instance had many draconian measures to make sure that the secrets did not get out. Similar measures were used with metal working and other major advances of the time. So, inventions in the past were made with the understanding that they would be protected, and as times have changed and inventions get easier to copy (with reverse engineering etc) the need for patents upheld by law became more necessary.

"Have you seen a study where it is demonstrated conclusively innovation would suffer without a patent system?"

Obviously such a study would be impossible or at least always open to interpretation since patents have been around in law for over 500 years. And comparing companies of today to monarchies and guilds of the dark ages would be useless.

This is not to say that the current patent systems doesn't need an upgrade... Your statement that they currently do not protect the lone inventer is true for many (though some individual inventers profit greatly from their patents). The current patent system is also obviously unfit to be applied to software. This doesn't mean that patents must be abandoned completly, it means the patent system must be overhauled, there is no need to throw out the good along with the bad.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[DenDave]

Okay.. I figured it could've been the "ode to cheese" or the like but understand now it may the Purple Haze Rumba... ;)

ROFL!!!

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[DenDave]

What does GPl have to do with communism?

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[brunogirin]

And wear a bright orange t-shirt.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[DenDave]

Where is all this bla bla about communism coming from? Communism is crap, had the GPL been written in the Soviet Union, the first 15 pages would be a dedication to Marxism-Leninism and then another 5 pages dedicating everything to the Politburo... Communism has NOTHING to do with the fact that you can have my source code and make changes jsut as long as you stick to the rules!! Why heck, you think North Korea would give source code and the right to changes things? Socialist/Communist software would never be allowed to deviate from the "Official Peoples Party" standard!! Open Source is collaborative work and is all about FREEDOM!! Communism/Socialism knows no freedom! Neither does Laisser-Faire Liberalism, Fascism or Corporatism. Capitalism as an economic model doesn't per-se stop freedom but it does engender economies of scale which can lead to abusive monopolies, which in turn, can hinder freedom.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[DenDave]

ROFL!!! Ok dutchies, you know they were singing that tune after the game so please correct my loose translation after the above insight: translation Di Dick di di da da di dick dick dick diiiiiiick!! OMFG ROFL!!!

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

LUL!

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[iwan-nl]

I understand and respect your view. However, I think the problem with communism as we know it (Soviet union, China, N-Korea, Cuba etc.) isn't the system itself, but the fact it's being forced upon the people by a fascist dictator. That's indeed something I'd never want to experience. I'm very sorry you had to go trough such horror, and I hope you're not offended by my post.

I didn't mention Startrek to increase the geek-factor of my post, but to point out a global mentality shift would be required to make such a change. I realize this won't happen over night, but if/when we get that far, it would free us from being slaves of our possessions, and allow us to focus on the more important aspects of life.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[iwan-nl]

Yes, we all love teh c0ck over here. ;-)

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

We do?

Hey - it pays my wages ;)

Mr Anonymous - you never know who is watching!

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[DenDave]

I thought that bar in The Hague was a bit.. funny....

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

corperatism

Corporatism. Nice try.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[labratuk]

...is out in the world and some 3rd world company reverse engineers it and takes all their profits?

Oh man, you're right. We don't want people in the third world to have viable businesses. That would be awful.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

But getting this income depends on their not being a well run PO. This is the paradox. A well run PO will receive far fewer patent applications (since stupid patents won't be submitted, let alone granted), make less from rejecting semi-stupid and stupid patents (they get more from granting) and of course there will always be lobbying from those with money and vested interests to keep strengthening the patent system.

Basically, the more patents are created, the more rights exist to buy or sell, license etc., and thus you get 'money for nothing' which people seem to like.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

"A company spends huge amounts in R&D cannot compete with a company that only steals ideas since the company that steals ideas has far less costs." ...you mean, like Microsoft?

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[metlin]

Okay, this just shows that you have absolutely no basic idea of Intellectual Property Law.

Copyright protects the expression of an idea ONLY, while patents protect the idea in and of itself.

That is the fundamental difference.

Both are very different and cater to very different areas. Sheesh.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[johannesg]

I think the debate should be started to see whether patents are a useful mechanism or not.

Absolutely! And _then_ we can see if maybe we should "meet in the middle", so to speak. Just like the pro-swpat groups tell us to.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Synli]

> Open Source is collaborative work and is all > about FREEDOM!! Communism/Socialism knows no freedom! Nope. The philosophy of communism is sharing everything (within a "community") + abolishment of money.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[DenDave]

They get them started young...
They merchandise it too!!!
links thanks to a dutch buddy of mine that pissed in his pants reading this thread...

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[DenDave]

Well gee the "philosophy" can be debated till grow gills... The practice shows that Open Source is thriving in vibrant and "free" economies and that Socialist/Communist countries are repressive.(cuba, Soviet Union, china, North -nuclear- Korea, Albania etc...) I am not against marxist analysis per-se but marxism as a politic is very unsound. Where are the safeguards to defend the citizen from repression? Nowhere.... That is why a Liberal State of Law has written, codified and reviewed laws. Remember.. Trias politica.... I love Open Source, I hate communists.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[ynohoo]

Unfortunately it also cuts both ways - Corporations have often been known to sit on patents for products that could rival their existing products, because the new patent is for something more efficient or longer lasting, and they decide there is more profit in doing things the old way. effectively stiffling progress.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

...and what incentive will you have, sir, to protect your hard-work from those who'd not hesitate to rip it off you?

If "your hard work" is any non-trivial software application, I think you'll find it's not actually your's, but is actually an infringment on someone else's IP.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Synli]

If you care to read my posts, you would not miss the point. What I said, in short, was: GPL and OpenSource have elementary attributes of communist philosophy, which is sharing everything. And note that I do not say that it is wrong. I just say how it is.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[brunogirin]

I know! I was in Amsterdam on the 30th of April last year, the day they celebrate the Queen's birthday by having a huge street party. You needed sunglasses in order not to be blinded by all the bright orange.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[KontinMonet]

Ah well, if I was dictator of Europe, s/w patents wouldn't be allowed at all... However, I was making the more extreme point about all patents. If they are shown to be anti-innovation and distort the market, I couldn't see how (in any logical world), s/w patents could ever get a look in.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Adammil2000]

"You are basicly arguing that abolishing the patent system won't work because some people have based their business model on it....." Absolutely not, I am not arguing that. I am saying that without patents, we have an undesireable outcome. (Yes software patents are bad, copyrights do the job better but should be a lot shorter term.) Abolish patents and the concept that someone can own an idea for a time period, then you reduce the invention business to a place where those with the resources take all ideas for themselves. Right now, as a single person I can invent a new process and I can patent it to develop it further, or sell it to someone who can use it. Without a patent, I can spend however much money and time developing this new idea, but then IBM, Xerox, Proctor and Gamble, etc. can take it, make millions, and I get nothing from it. Does that sound like a desireable outcome to you? Patents are a leveler. You got companies with research divisions spewing patents. Aside from software patents that's fantastic. There is research happening. There are new ways of doing things being invented. I would argue that half of that research wouldn't occur at all without patents to ensure the folks could recoop their costs. "you would have argued that cars are bad because people make a living based on horses." How can you sit there and tell me what I would have argued 100 years ago? Besides, your plain wrong. Your argument is funny because the patent system is one of the reasons there was such motivation and investment in aerospace. Do you honestly think someone is willing to front the millions on commercial research to watch as someone else jumps in and exploits the idea for free? You take away patents and all you'll see are big companies inventing things, and then only those which they can make alot of money really fast. For the processes that take 10-15 years to recoop research costs, they won't bother. Frankly, I think without patents, companies people would have to blow useless money trying to obfuscate systems and devices to keep it harder to reverse engineer, because that would be their only defense. That's a very big waste of resources. Do you think the Wright brothers invented flying for the gee-whiz factor? I noticed you mentioned they filed for a patent. My goodness, why would they have done that if they were only interested in pure research? Hmmmm.... By the way, couldn't patent flying even if you wanted to. Straight from the US Patent Office website: "A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine." You could only patent a flying machine, and even then, only the schematic/blueprint for a SPECIFIC flying machine. The whole argument that people ignoring patents helped develop the aerospace business is bullsh*t. Yes, I agree that lawyers are scum and take advantage of the patent system to file lawsuits and enrich themselves, but they do it with all the laws, so I don't see patents being the root cause of lawyer behavior.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

pages 81-123:
"Furthermore, patents affect the allocation of R&D resources across industries, and patents can distort resources away from industries where they are most productive."

Wow, that's a lot of pages for one sentence. Did they write it in a 72-point font?

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[drsquare]

A few problems with your proposals:

1. Five years may not be long enough to design, implement and sell the idea. By the time it's on the shelf the patent could have expired, meaning all the research and development is for nothing.
2. Your non-transfer proposal means that small-time inventors who lack the means to actually implement their idea can't cash in and let a big manufacturing company make it instead. This takes away freedom from the inventor.

I don't think the problem with the patent system is that the inventors have too many rights and priveledges, the problem is that patents are being awarded to NON-INVENTORS, i.e. people who didn't actually invent anything, or slightly modified someone else's idea, or who patented something obvious. That's what needs fixing, not punishing people who actually DO invent things.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent porfolios don't protect patent holders. Money protects and defends patent holders. If your patent infringes someone else's patent, maybe your invention wasn't worth anything to begin with.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

Døes Slæshdott suppårt the whole Latin 1 now?

Ä,ü and ö are umlauts.
Icelandic ð (eth) passes through, but not thorn. Why not?
German ß (double 's'), but no Euro symbol! What gives?
© (copyright) and ® (Registered) work.
Accents, umlauts and tilde: áéíóúý àèìòù âêîôû äëïöüÿ ãõñ
Cedille: ç
No French quotes

Slashdot do not accept the whole Western European character set.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[nerdlyone]

Ouch, what you suggest would not clean up the patent system, unless by "clean up" you mean "eviscerate." Five years is not enough to make a return on your investment in many areas, especially the more expensive research areas like semiconductor processing (you know, the chips allowing us all to post to this forum) and drugs. Your idea would greatly retard innovation in those areas. Might kill of drug companies entirely.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[RWerp]

Communism does not "share everything". The power lies in party's hands and is not shared with the masses.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[RWerp]

They can have viable businesses without stealing other people's ideas. Most people go into business for other reasons than becoming Mother Teresa, so why should they give away the results of their hard work and investment for free?

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

Foot - Baal?

WTF? How does THAT work?

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[bbc]

"So, Sir, software patents are not an incentive at all. They are a way to lock the market to keep small structures and individuals out. Anybody saying the opposite is a liar or an idiot."

Now, now, don't you go calling anyone a liar. :-)

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[bbc]

I wouldn't mind patents so much if they were awarded after the fact, and after the world had profited from them.

Let people publish inventions, and register them. Wait five years. Collect a small percentage of everyone who has used the invention and pay to the first who registered (or the first three, or whatever).

That way you can be fairly sure that the market picked a fair price for the invention.

The office who collects the registration could live off registration fees.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[bbc]

What you get with non-transferability IMO is that big companies will lock inventors in using over-reaching contracts, becoming the sole licensor or something like that. Inventors will have to take out mortgages to guarantee a return on investment.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Neb Namwen]

Instead, they are concentrated into holding companies that use them to cash in on patent infringments. Often these patents are neither novel nor non-obvious, so many have no idea they are infringing on a patent before they are slapped with a lawsuit.

Or, and perhaps more to the point, many might have no idea that a technology the picked free out of the infosphere is patent-encumbered, because the patent holder -- whether the original inventor or a holding company -- sees no reason to let the fact that the technology is patented stand in the way of its widespread adoption (yet).

Such "submarine" patents are widespread, especially in products with positive network effects (i.e. the more people use it, the more useful it is, for example the GIF and MP3 formats), and they strike me as somewhat fishy. Using a monopoly to end up with a product that is as popular as it is because it was distributed for free, but that you later assert ownership of, seems, well, like cheating.

I'm not sure how I would adjust the patent system to avoid submarine patents. One problem for IT in particular is that a product may already be widely deployed between when a patent is applied for and when it is granted, and no set of restrictions on how a patented technology may be deployed/marketed can entirely mitigate that.

At a minimum, one would hope that there is some causal relationship between the fact that the original patentee invented a technology and the fact of its later widespread deployment. If, for example, the technology is now widely deployed because 10 other companies also invented it at the same time, while the original patentee sat on it and neither marketed, licensed, or published it, that says two things: It was obvious, and thus unpatentable, after all, and we gave you a patent in return for making this idea available to the wider economy, not just for coming up with it, so if you didn't go to any trouble to make it available then, why should we pay you now?

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Synli]

That's how it usually ends. However, the philosophy is that people rule each other all together. Believe it or not. Of course, all this is Utopia, as we already know.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[bbc]

There is no such thing as intellectual property law. The things we are discussing here have nothing to do with property. So accusing somebody of lacking an understanding of your so-called "intellectual property law" is misleading and unfair.

Copyrights do not protect expressions, and patents do not protect ideas. Instead, they protect the interests of publishers and large manufacturers respectively. I don't know how this went with patents/manufacturers, but in the case of copyrights, the basic idea has been from the start to protect the interests of the publishers. This is witnessed by the fact that a law that was initially designed to stem the immoral dealings of (some) publishers was more or less dictated by those same publishers.

It's as if the Maffia helped draft the anti-racketeering laws.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[RWerp]

Unfortunately, it is embedded in Marxist philosophy that the masses should be rules by the 'wise ones'.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

The parliment decided the government should not vote for the patents. Does it mean it should vote against? Or perhaps just to abstain from the vote and let decide others, which also is not voting for? I'm afraid this decision might figure out completely unusefull... It makes the parliment look nice, like they are really having some opinion and its full of determined guys, but in the same time it doesn't require much courage to show and defend some real position. They wash their hands and if it happens, it's the fault of others.
Well, better then nothing...

I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

As an American patriot I hate EU because it makes me hate my own corrupted government who only wants to do what's best for corporations, don't giving a damn about small business or open source. Damn you Europeans! You make me sick! Sick of jealousy!

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit Sherlock. It seems that only European politicians have any balls. Can you imagine US politicians not bending over before millionaires from IBM, Microsoft, etc.? I can't. But every time I read about the EU it feels like some kind of a naive science fiction utopia when the governments are actually doing their jobs working for people, not against them, like in Star Trek, except that it's not an utopia but a reality, only an ocean away from us. Will we ever have such a government in The Land Of Free?

Re:I hate EU

[muttoj]

Sometimes I feel a certain proudness of being dutch.

One of the worlds most progressive country.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

And you've got Ayreon, and people who say "Doei!"

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

And you should. Dutch, Germans, Poles, French should all be proud, not because of who they are, but because of what they do and because they can ellect a fair government. Unfortunately, we Americans can only be proud of who we are, because there is nothing we do that we can be proud of. We all vote for "the second most evil guy" to not "waste our vote" and we get what we deserve. Europeans "waste" their votes in every election voting for people who they actually want elected the most, and it is not surprising that those people do what the public wants. This is how the democracy should work. Europeans should be proud that they can make the democracy work. They have great results. All we have is an empty patriotism and laughable megalomania. Our kids can salute to our flag and recite "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" every day because that's all they really have - an illusion. And this is all our fault, people. We can't blame anyone else but us.

Re:I hate EU

[quintesse]

It must be pretty bad on the other side of the pond if you think the system here is worth feeling jealous about!

Wait a minute... Bush 2! OMG, you're right! ;-)

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

On the flip side, the EU is a horrible, huge, barely functional, partly non-democratic beurocratic nightmare which makes the US government look like a small anarchist collective. If the Repulicans amongst you think the US government is too big; 'hoo boy, you ain't seen the EU.

Personally I think it's about time we killed off the European Commision & European Parlimant entirely and moved to a US style two house system with directly elected officials. The rotating presidency should stay, though. That's actually one thing that works pretty well.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

On the flip side, the EU is a horrible, huge, barely functional, partly non-democratic beurocratic nightmare which makes the US government look like a small anarchist collective.

Oh yeah, the EU is a horrible, huge, barely functional, partly non-democratic beurocratic nightmare and that's why Dutch have no software patents and don't get sued for writing software, don't go to jail for smoking a joint, don't go to jail for sleeping with a 17 years old girl, are not discriminated because they're gay, and don't end up being tortured in fucking Guantanamo if they are suspected of being "terrists"! Yeah, here in the US we have a fascist government but at least it is an efficient fascist government! That makes me really sleep better.

BTW, what's less democratic in EU than it is in US? At least European states are sovereign and can leave the union without starting a civil war!

Yeah, Insightful my ass. Are you mods on crack?

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be pretty bad on the other side of the pond if you think the system here is worth feeling jealous about!

You have no fucking idea. US is a police state. Torturing, propaganda, abuse of power, starting wars with no good reason - you name it. Everyone should be proud that he's not an American. Don't let the US media and movies fool you. Search informations about Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, about CIA involvement in overthrowing democratically elected governments and installing violent dictators... USA is a hell to live in, and there is only one place that is worse: a country that for some reason US wants to attack. And keep in mind that US is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons of mass destruction against civilians - twice! This is scary stuff once you know more than Hollywood and Fox News wants you to know. Believe me.

Re:I hate EU

[mirko]

I'm sorry but I don't think that the French political system is democratic.
And before calling me names : I am French but I now live in Switzerland which is far more evolved than France.
For example, provided enough people sign a petition about a given matter, there WILL be a referendum.
Majority has to be gained by both the population AND the cantons which makes it even more secure for lowly populated areas to get their voices heard.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

May I suggest I'm french, sir ?
Please have mercy of me. :)

Re:I hate EU

[Colm Buckley]

If the Repulicans amongst you think the US government is too big; 'hoo boy, you ain't seen the EU.

The EU directly employs about 30,000 people. The U.S. Federal Government directly employs about 1,900,000 people. Work it out.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Switzerland is far more evolved than EVERYWHERE. Viva Lucerne.

Re:I hate EU

[KontinMonet]

Yes, I like the Swiss system too. At least you can get your voice heard with a bit of hard work. What's the patent situation there tho'?

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the worlds most progressive country.

It won't be for much longer if its up to our current government. They seem to be using the US as a role model and are introducing all kinds of silly laws to curb "terrorism". All internet and communication traffic will be monitored and logged, free speech is limited, soon they'll be able to lock people up without trail etc...

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Those 1,900,000 arn't all directly involved in the political running of Europe. Those 30,000 employed directly by the EU are. Bear in mind that the EU has no federal systems in place; no police, park service, highway maintainance or anything else those 1,900,000 US federal employees make up. If you want a fair comparision, you have to take the total number of employees from every EU state, add them all together, and then add those 30,000 EU employees on top. Even then the comparision is skewed because the EU figure would include certain jobs covered by state employees in the US.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

None of those things you list are anything to do with the EU. The laws that enable the Dutch to do those things are all laws passed by the Dutch government. You are confusing the over-reaching US Federal Government with the EU.

What's less democratic than the US? How about the fact that in the US, the people actually get to vote for both Senators and Congress-people? Contrast to the EU, were we vote only for MEP's who in turn select an unelected European Commision, who can pretty much do what they like without too much interference from the European Parliment. If the MEP's wern't fighting this current Software Patents Bill so fucking hard you can bet your house that the EC would have happily pushed it through with or without objections from the Parliment.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, yes, America, Police State, fine. However, don't think for one second you are free to speak your mind in Holland or anywhere else. Maybe you forgot about Van Gogh or a hundred other examples I could site.

It doesn't matter where you live, the United States will drag the whole world down with it. People wonder why other nations are weary of lending a helping hand... Well it is like lending a helping hand to someone trying to commit suicide on a railroad track, if you help them are you going to save their life, or are they going to pull you down to your death?

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

"beurocratic"

Brilliant. A new word!

(or just bad spelling?)

Anyway I like it.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

american stupidness... you don't even know what a real democracy is

Re:I hate EU

[Jesus_666]

I'm quite happy that I was taught about the "replace democratic governments with dictators" thing in school - which I don't exactly take for granted. I was also taught that German history didn't start in 1928 and end in 1945, so I guess my teachers were not of the usual kind.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

You are contradicting yourself! If EU can't do anything because Dutch government is actually sovereign (unlike US states!) then who gives a fuck that the European Commision is indirectly ellected (like the US president, for God's sake!) especially when the power is in the directly elected European Parliment?

Re:I hate EU

[mirko]

People are allowed to patent anything provided they don't use these against others ;)

OK, I was joking, here's the status:

In accordance with art. 1 PatG patents for new, commercially applicable inventions are given (art. 1 exp. PatG) [ sic ]. Which can be derived however in obvious way from the respective state of the art, is not patentable (art. 1 exp. 2 PatG).

Furthermore it is presupposed that the invention solves a technical problem [... ]

The demarcations are indistinct and disputed in detail, do not need here however not more near to be examined. For the purposes of the available appraisal it is sufficient to assume the patent protection for computer programs can be given after Swiss right under certain conditions. In particular at embedded software, which is in technical devices, it is to be counted on the fact that this can be protected (by patent laws) as a component of an invention.

(English)

So, well : not perfect but not still consistant.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Two related facts that you need to be aware of; 1) I'm am European, posting from England, who intends to vote for the pro-Europe Liberal Democrates this coming UK General Election. 2) This makes you a very silly xenophobe.

Re:I hate EU

[Jesus_666]

The EU is a beurocratic nightmare. We got some things right, but we also have a lot of nonsense happening here - like the whole software patent thing, with some organs of the EU trying to use undemocratic means of getting their swpat directive passed. We have a by-law regulating the import of toffee - with more than 25.000 words. Go figure.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

For fucks sake. Just go away and actually learn the slightest fucking little bit about EU politics, then I'll discuss this with you. Until you understand how EU Bills become EU member Laws and what powers the EU members have in making their own laws, shut the fuck up already.

Re:I hate EU

[dago]

Just remember one thing : just because the majority decides something, doesn't mean that's an intelligent choice nor the best one.

For the record, this "far more evolved" system denied women's right to vote until the 70's.

Neither system is perfect ...

And yep, I'm not Swiss either, just living here as well ;)

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

You know why they are using "all kinds of silly laws to curb terrorism," it's because the US is dragging them down like they are the rest of the world. In Bush's mind you are either with us, or against us.

On a side note, it completely blows my mind that we can say who is allowed to have nuclear weapons and who isn't. I mean talking about being a fucking hypocrite.

I just wish people would stop talking about the "Dutch," the "French," and the "United States" as if these words describe completely the people that live in these countries. People define themselves, not the governments that they are ruled by.

Re:I hate EU

[ZeroExistenZ]

and moved to a US style two house system

How does a *two-system* allow diversity and a whole array of views and oppinions?

I always have found it odd how the US has just the dominating "Rebuplicans", and "Democrats". We have +7 Parties, with all some simular and more diverse agenda's. It'd be a nightmare to just be in the mercy of *two* parties....

Re:I hate EU

[podmf]

Oh really?

The total annual EU budget is about 200 million Euros ( http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/faq/index_en.htm# 2)

The CIA (admittedly an unreliable source) reckons that 2003 US Federal revenue was 1.782 trillion
dollars and expenditure 2.156 trillion dollars. ... tthe deficit has risen considerably since.
(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factb ook/geos /us.html#Govt)

The US population and economy are considerably smaller than those of the EU.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

you could always immigrate until the US changes its way?
might be a long wait tho

Re:I hate EU

[CmdrGravy]

Soon, here in the UK they already can and do lock you up without trial. Fair enough at the moment this only to applies to immigrants but I wouldn't put it past the government to get past the problems with that by applying it to everyone.

Re:I hate EU

[Kirth]

I agree that the EU is a bureaucratic nightmare.

But the main problem is NOT that the governing bodies themselves are too big (the surrounding bureaucracy is). The main problem is that the rightfully elected Parliment has no influence and is constantly overruled by the appointed bureaucrats of the Commission.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

For fucks sake. Just go away and actually learn the slightest fucking little bit about EU politics, then I'll discuss this with you.

Oh, OK. Will you be here next Friday? Fine. I'll see you around. Now, I'll go and educate myself so you could refute my argument next time instead of posting cheap ad hominium attacks YOU ASSHOLE!

Re:I hate EU

[vrai]

The EU budget is 99 billion Euros, or about 127 billion US dollars. Whilst this is far smaller than the US federal budget you have to appreciate that the EU budget is on top of the individual (and in many cases enormous) national government spending. The British Government government spend over half a trillion a year, and the UK isn't the most spendthrift nation in Europe.

There's also the small matter of the EU budget failing its financial audit for the tenth year running. They don't even use double-entry book keeping! So we can safely assume that much of that 99 billion is not going where it's supposed to go.

Re:I hate EU

[Gadzinka]

He wrote "two house" not "two party". As in "Congress and Senate", not as in "Republicans and Democrats".

In Poland we have multiparty, two house system, same in UK and I'm sure other countries.

Robert

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Two house system, not two party.

Re:I hate EU

[Gadzinka]

I was just thinking along these lines after moving from /. to cooking for tomorrow party ;)

Basically problems with swpat arise from lack of accountability of some high-ranking EU bodies. They are not accountable because they answer to no constituency.

I remember some eurosceptics and xenophobes before Access Referendum scaring people with United States of Europe, European Superstate (as opposed to superstate structure of independant states), but I think I'd prefer federal structure with directly elected and accountable government much more.

Robert

Re:I hate EU

[podmf]

And the US Federal budget is not on top of US state budgets? I believe that the Californian state budget is several times larger than the UK national budget.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you were not a voter in florida and did not vote for that other bloke but for of Bu$h..

Re:I hate EU

[KontinMonet]

S/w patenting is not suffering bureaucracy, it's politics. The politicians have been bought by M$, Alcatel, SAP, Nokia etc.etc.

As for directives, they are usually short and simple when they come out of the EU, it's national bureaucracies implementing them that inflate the verbiage beyond recognition. I remember one on meat refrigeration or some such. Seven pages from the EU, 77 pages when the UK had implemented the directive.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

you could always immigrate until the US changes its way?
might be a long wait tho

It's spelled though you stupid idiot! Let me guess: you're American?

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull shit. I am in Poland and we have three house system (four if I count the press - press is also some time counted as power).

Re:I hate EU

[avdp]

I am with you on this one - but I do have to mantion that there is some double counting in here. The state budgets would include money given to the state by the federal government. That money would also be in the federal budget of course.

Re:I hate EU

[lordholm]

Personally I think it's about time we killed off the European Commision & European Parlimant entirely and moved to a US style two house system with directly elected officials. The rotating presidency should stay, though. That's actually one thing that works pretty well.

You want directly elected officials, but at the same time you want to dismantle the parlament!?!? We should build a system based on two houses, but we must keep the parlament as the representatives of the citizens of Europe. The body that must go is the council, a lawmaking body that is indirectly elected. The council should be replaced by a senate 1 or 2 senators per member state that are elected by general elections in each member state. The rotating presidency must go as well, the EU should have a president supported by the parlament and council.

Re:I hate EU

[adesm]

In the context of the parent, 'big' doesn't necessarily mean 'large' or even 'large employer'. What is, methinks, more meant, is that the EU is a classic example of 'big government'. The EU has, in its fairly short existence, managed to attempt to micro-manage every facet of the lives of those who fall under its thrall.

I am regularly consulted by people who are attempting to establish manufacturing and/or services business. Each of them becomes, eventually, bewildered by the morass of regulatory processes, environmental assessments, tax systems, business classifications, waste disposal regulations, employment regulations, discrimination policy advices ... I really could go on and on , but there is little point. The simple fact is that the EU seems incapable of preventing itself making yet more regulations to go on top of the already huge pile of them it has created.

The net effect of all of these regulations is to prevent people going into business and to stifle the entrepeneurial spirit. Of course, this nightmarish vista doesn't even scratch the surface of how and why those regulations are promulgated in the first place. Often they are later found to favour one nations producers or systems over another, as in the case of Per Lindstrand and the heliostats (sorry - URL unavailable). In the end there seems to be nothing which can be done by the people or parliaments of Europe to stop this - as seen with the patents directive where the commisison is continually attempting to override national and european parliaments. Europe just isn't working anymore!

Re:I hate EU

[KontinMonet]

The EU is not a state or a federation. What we need to do is strengthen the parliament considerably so that the democratic voice is heard more clearly.

Re:I hate EU

[Gadzinka]

May I observe, my fellow countryman, that you are confusing "houses of parliament" with "branches of government (power)"?

Modern democratic states divide the power between three (at least in theory) independant branches: legislative (parliament, one or two houses), judiciary (courts) and executive branch (gornment, council of ministers or the cabinet, headed by prime minister of president, depending on the system).

So Poland has three branches of power (government) and two houses of Parliament (Seym and Senat). Press is so called "fourth power", not third or fourth "house".

Robert

PS And it's "bullshit", not "bull shit".

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Futher, as I was reading today, the US was also complict in covering up Japanese war crimes in oreder to gain information on biological agents.

Read up on unit 731.

Re:I hate EU

[daigu]

I think he was talking about the bicameral legislative structure. Although, it is hard to tell.

Re:I hate EU

[mirko]

For the record, this "far more evolved" system denied women's right to vote until the 70's.

It evolved ever more since :)
Look at the Ancient Incas : They ignored the Wheel but they calculated in Base-20 and could divide the year in 365 days.

<troll>And, BTW, I am not sure women should vote</troll>

Re:I hate EU

[I confirm I'm not a]

Soon, here in the UK they already can and do lock you up without trial. Fair enough at the moment this only to applies to immigrants

Note that "immigrants" in this context refers to my US neighbour who married a Scots woman, and to myself - a UK resident since 1979, a British Subject at birth (NZ citizen) and the son of an English woman.

I wouldn't put it past the government to get past the problems with that by applying it to everyone.

They've already decided to do that (although we'll just be put under house arrest - not sent to Belmarch/Dungavel).

(Aside: during the late 90s I read a comic - The Invisibles - which mentioned "Rex 84". I googled for it, and it was an idea that the Federal government was constructing detention camps for undesirables. At the time I thought it was a whacko conspiracy theory. How I wish it were.)

Re:I hate EU

[vrai]

Apologies for the PDF, but this was the only source I could find quickly that had a figure for the California state budget. It puts it at 110 billion USD, or 60 billion pounds. According to this PDF the UK government spend 488 billion pounds last year, or 900 billion USD.

Re:I hate EU

[bergwitz]

May I observe, my fellow countryman, that you are confusing "houses of parliament" with "branches of government (power)"?

I've read it over and over again and couldn't understand how exactly parent has confused houses of parliament with branches of government. Maybe you should read it again too?

Modern democratic states divide the power between three (at least in theory) independant branches:

Actually, only some do. All have three branches, but not all have three independent branches. Look it up.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Point of information:

The members of the European Commission are nominated by the governments of the member states. The nominees are either accepted en masse or rejected en masse - the Parliament cannot selec them or pick and choose them. They can force issues - like they did a little while ago - by threatening to reject the entire Commission but that's about the extent of it. On the other hand, the Parliament has the power (and my God do they use it) to reject the Commission budgets.

On the subject of the democratic deficit in the EU - I have just this to say: the Commission is the executive branch. I don't know where you are, but what happens in this country is you have a general election, and the side which manages to string some kind of a majority or sufficiently big faction together nominates a prime minister and he gets to choose the government. We don't directly elect members to the cabinet. The type of European Commission we wind up with is directly attributable to the kind of government each of the member states elect - it works more or less the same way.

Finally, at least the MEPs are battling software patents. As far as I know, it's the Supreme Court landed software patents on the US. See http://www.softwarepatents.co.uk/past/how_the_us_g ot_there.html

As far as I know, the average US citizen can't vote judges to the Supreme Court.

Re:I hate EU

[Repugnant_Shit]

Go for it, but do the two-system part *the right way*. The American founders originally wanted the Senators to be elected by *state government*, not the people. This was part of their checks-and-balances system. The House of Representatives were elected by the people, to represent their interests. The Senate was elected by the governments, to represent their interests. Our current system makes both houses accountable to the fickle public.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Your right. Actually three main powers in Poland are:
1. premier,
2. szef rzadu, and
3. prezes rady ministrów.
I don't know how it is in English.
Great parent seems to be a little bit confused about it.
Thanks for clarification.
Cheers.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to look up what "big government" means. You clearly don't understand it.

Re:I hate EU

[Gadzinka]

I don't know how it is in English.

Oh, that's easy:

1. Premier -- Prime Minister, also (rarely used) Premier in English
2. szef rzadu -- Head of Government
3. prezes rady ministrow -- President of the Council of Ministers

Robert

PS If you, the (not so) careful reader still haven't noticed, it's all one and the same person/office ;)

Re:I hate EU

[Peyna]

However, since this was changed by a constitutional amendment (XVII, passed in 1913), that means that 2/3rds of the states approved such a reduction in their power.

Re:I hate EU

[dago]

Well, that's symptomatic of the current status of Switzerland and various european organisations.

As they are member of the EPO and not of the EU, they will have to implement whatever is decided, without the possibility of being heard.

But they decided that democratically ;)))

Re:I hate EU

[vertinox]

"On the flip side, the EU is a horrible, huge, barely functional, partly non-democratic beurocratic nightmare which makes the US government look like a small anarchist collective."

I take it that you have never had to call the Internal Revenue Service or visted a US Post Office.

Or a combination of both... *coughs*

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

GP:
The U.S. Federal Government directly employs about 1,900,000 people.

P:
Those 1,900,000 arn't all directly involved in the political running of Europe.

I fuck hope not... though on some days it certainly seems that way...

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

As a guy who is proud to be an American I only have one thing to say:

Get out and travel the world.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

It still sucks ass, and is probably the second worst constitutional mistake ever made. (allowing slavery in 1793 being the worst).

Re:I hate EU

[Peyna]

allowing slavery in 1793 being the worst

Better go back and read that Constitution again, sonny. A literal reading of it gives no feeling that slavery would be allowed, except for Article IV Section 2, "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." Note that this could very easily live in harmony with the Fifth Amendment (due process). By its letter, the Constitution had no room for slavery in the form that existed.

Also, keep in mind that it very likely would have been impossible to have the Constitution approved in the first place were that clause left out.

Original article (dutch)

[smooc]

here

Besides that, I wonder this means they (=Brinkhorst) is actually going to vote or will abstain which would basically mean yes.

Re:Original article (dutch)

[SYRanger]

From the article:

This means that the Dutch government is instructed to *vote against* the Software Patent Directive if it is put on the agenda at a meeting of the European Council of Ministers next week

It seems like they will actively vote against. SYRanger

Re:Original article (dutch)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Als het aan de Tweede Kamer ligt, mag de richtlijn voor softwarepatenten voorlopig namelijk niet als hamerstuk op de agenda van een Europese raad voor ministers verschijnen. Als Luxemburg (op dit moment de voorzitter van de Europese Commissie) de richtlijn toch wil agenderen, moet de Nederlandse regering zich daartegen verzetten, zo heeft de Kamer besloten."

that says it all. There will be no voting on 17th. feb, Brink-morron has to prevent the directive from being voted.

Re:Original article (dutch)

[pe1chl]

But in previous discussions Brinkhorst has stated he will not vote against even if instructed so, because he considers loss of face more important than this case.
(he has voted in favour before, then claiming it did not matter because it was not the final decision but only a decision to go ahead)

Re:Original article (dutch)

[dirkx]

But again - like the last vote - the parliament stops short of ordering the cabinet; it merely request nicely that should things be brough up for the agenda it should abstain from supporting the item. Althouhg this time the parliament is equesting such - last time round, a few months ago, it merely asked. So some improvement :-)

But this is still a far cry from a parliament which tells it minister to vote no (and promises to kick the cabinet out if they does otherwise). And given the past (and the voting lines) one could well imagine some politicians voting yes to be polular - while working behind the scene to make clear to the cabinet that should they sail a different line - they have the coalitions suport anyway.

Shame,

Dw.

Best response possible

[Space cowboy]

Woohoo :-))

Eventually even the EU will have to pay lip service to what the people want, It may be the most undemocratic system of government I've ever come across, but it at least has to maintain the ideal of being the voice of the people...

Simon.

Re:Best response possible

[ooze]

Actually the system of the gouvernment is only of secondary importance. What's by far more important is the people who run it. And although it is never easy to find people to run a gouvernment who are able to do it and are willing to do it for the people, finding those people in the US is virtually impossible with their political culture.

Re:Best response possible

[johannesg]

The EU is the most undemocratic system you have ever come across? You may want to read up on North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan (before the invasion), Iraq (idem), China, or Cuba.

Background information from FFII

[Halo1]

• Press release
• English translation of the motion

Re:Background information from FFII

[oever]

The text of the debate (in Dutch)..

in Microsoft Word format! So no Open Source, but (relatively) Open Democracy.

Great move!

[Phidoux]

Let's just hope that a few other countries sit up and take notice.

GREAT!!! but what would happen if....?

[michalf]

I am glad that the patents are being moved away.

But my doubt is: what would happen IF Polish minister Marcinski had not vetoed the patent bill in December? Was it really so close? I mean - was the majority in the EU parlament for the software patents or against them in December 2004? Why only one veto?

best regards - michal

Re:GREAT!!! but what would happen if....?

[Spad]

No, the majority in the EU Parliament were, and are, *against* software patents - largely because their constituants made such a fuss about them - however, the EU Council of Ministers (Currently lead by the Dutch) decided that they were being paid too much money by business interests to allow such a democratic decision to stand, so they've been trying for the last 6 months to force the legislation through regardless.

It's been widely seen as one of the least democratic actions ever taken by the council of ministers, which is quite a statement given its record.

Re:GREAT!!! but what would happen if....?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing was permanently vetoed, only delayed. The bill was delayed a second time by Poland and more recently by Denmark, pushing it past Feb 17th. No one in the Council has dared to break taboo by asking an informally agreed item to be reopened for discussion, although the circumstances have changed much since the informal agreement.

The delay has given the Parliament time to ask the Commission to restart the process because a new parliament was elected in 2004, after the first reading. The request will be presented on Feb 17th. If it is accepted the bill will return to the Parliament for a new first reading.

If the Commission refuses to restart and the Council formally accepts its current position the bill will return to the Parliament for the second reading, which is also what would have happened if Poland had not delayed it in the first place.

In the second reading the Parliament may either accept the Council position, amend it or reject it. An absolute majority is required for amendments or rejection: absentees count as supporting the Council position. There is also a deadline of four months: if the Parliament fails to decide in time the Council position will be accepted by default.

Thank the Dutch, but not their government

[Scarblac]

71 voted in favour, 69 against. Note that the Dutch parliament has 150 seats, so an extremely close call - could have gone the other way if some more people bothered to vote, it seems.

Voting was along party lines, but the Dutch parliament is like a zoo: in favour were PvdA (labour, largest leftish-center party), SP (socialist, populist, at heart even maoist...), GroenLinks (merger of communist, pacifist, green parties), D'66 (center party, slightly leftish, pro-education, pro-democratic reform), ChristenUnie (leftish christian party). Against were CDA (traditional biggest party, center, christian), VVD (what we call "liberal", i.e. pro-free market, pro-business, traditional values, typical rightish), SGP (right wing hardline christians).

Currently government is formed by CDA, VVD and D'66, who together have a slim majority. So this win is because D'66 defected, and SGP is slightly smaller. D'66 is much the smallest party in government, and this is certainly not what government wanted (remember they pushed hard to pass the directive in the last few meetings of the Dutch EU presidency end of last year). The minister pushing then was Brinkhorst (D'66!).

Anyway, this is the first time I see D'66 do something that makes me actually happy with the vote I gave them :-)

Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government

[defMan]

Anyway, this is the first time I see D'66 do something that makes me actually happy with the vote I gave them :-)

If that is the first time it might be better to give your vote to the SP (Socialist Party) who gave us this motion and have been fighting against software patents all along.

Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government

[Scarblac]

Unfortunately I don't really agree with the rest of their viewpoints...

Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government

[Namespace Full]

Please don't insult zoos this way. A zoo - unlike the Dutch parliament - contains animals with a free will.

Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government

[Scarblac]

Hey, suddenly I notice - it seems the entire LPF abstained then? The LPF ("List Pim Fortuyn") is the incompetent remains of the party murdered politician Pim Fortuyn was building. He was killed before the elections, and the people who are in government in his name since then are amateur chaotic right-wing morons who are only busy with internal fights, frauds, leadership changes etc. They do have 8 seats, and apparently they didn't vote.

Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government

[Cardinal Biggles]

If that is the first time it might be better to give your vote to the SP (Socialist Party) who gave us this motion and have been fighting against software patents all along.

Yes, that way you can a government monopoly on everything, instead of a corporate monopoly.

Socialists don't have a big thing for freedom, you know. These guys & gals are against software partents simply because large corporations are in favour, and they're generally against everything big companies do or want.

Useful votes for the right decision though. :-)

Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government

[Anonymous Coward]

Talking about socialists as a single group is ridiculous. Already back in Marx' days socialist ideologies spanned the spectrum from far left to far right, to the point where Marx and Engels devoted a whole chapter in the communist manifesto to denouncing socialist ideologies they didn't agree with - from groups close to anarchism to groups supporting oppressive feudal inspired government structures.

Personally I'm a Marxist, and hence consider the state a means of oppression which it must be the goal to dismantle as far as possible, to the point where all legislative and executive power has been devolved to communes and the state is left as a purely administrative arm of government subservient to communes.

(For the basis for that view, I'd suggest one of the few works of Lenin I have respect for - State and the Revolution - that gives a fairly easy to read analysis of the Marxist view of the state)

I've been part of political debates where extreme liberals trying hard to distance themselves from the left afterwards were furious at me because I dared agree with almost everything they had to say about the reduction of government...

But I am definitively a socialist.

Socialism and big government are not connected at the hip. European style social democracy which was a result of a reformist and bourgeois movement among "socialist" parties mainly among the wealthier segments of the European working classes starting in the 20's and 30's is consistently pro-big government.

Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government

[oever]

They did vote! They voted in favour of the motion to stop the vote on software patents being an A-item.

For: PvdA, SP, LPF, GroenLinks, D'66, Lazrak

Against: CDA, VVD, SGP, Wilders

Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government

[ghard]

Thus question is whether D'66 wants to risk the little power they have as a pivot by walking out of government if Brinkhorst crosses them again. I do not think the MPs would see this as a big enough issue to end up in a confidence vote on the cabinet. If ever it came to that, it would be relatively safe to assume that party discipline will win as this issue would more likely be used as a pawn to win concessions from the larger cabinet parties.

To sum up: as long as this issue is not considered something that could rock the vote in general elections in favor of the minority party - provided that they could put it to a winnable non-confidence vote AND no other small party were available to form a new majority cabinet AND number of feuding fractions in the parlament would be small enough for a minority cabinet to be non-feasible, THEN we (people against software patents) would have something to celebrate.

Caveat lector: Though I live and work in the Netherlands my knowledge of the intricacies of politics here is superficial to say the least - I come from a republic with a unicameral parliament. This logic should however be applicable to most systems with multi (more than 2 party) system utilizing proportional voting.

This can be a bit confusing for those of you who live in a winner takes all - kind of a system.

Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government

[88NoSoup4U88]

"Anyway, this is the first time I see D'66 do something that makes me actually happy with the vote I gave them"

I also think their stand against limiting our privacy/rights is something I am proud to have voted for.

Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I'm a Marxist, and hence consider the state a means of oppression which it must be the goal to dismantle as far as possible, to the point where all legislative and executive power has been devolved to communes and the state is left as a purely administrative arm of government subservient to communes.

That confirms something I have been conjecturing for a long time: the right-wing free market talibans are every bit as crazy and evil as the commies.

Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government

[bbc]

"Socialists don't have a big thing for freedom, you know."

With the threat of socialism out of the way, most right-wing and center parties seem to have adopted all the socialist policies, albeit for other reasons. Nowadays, our freedoms are taken away from us in the name of anti-terrorism and protection of the multinational that produce our gadgets.

Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government

[defMan]

If i had to choose a government monopoly or a corportate monopoly i'd choose the government monopoly because at least they are controlled by me (the voter) where a corporate monopoly is only controlled by its shareholders which have only one goal (maximize profits).

But it would be better to not have monopolies at all. In some fields it is unavoidable (or very inefficient when avoided). The best example is probably the railway system, in the Netherlands this has been privatized and that was definitely not an improvement (it's a corporate monopoly now instead of a government monopoly). In Britain they privatized it as well and there they chose to make it not a monopoly. Unfortunately this didn't work out very well either (ask a brit).

Finally

[Flyboy Connor]

Finally, the Dutch play a more positive role in this debacle. However, there is still the problem that decisions of the Dutch Parliament may be ignored by its governmental representatives in the EU (it happened before with the software patenting mess). Unfortunately, software patent news is small potatoes, so they won't lose a significant amount of votes by going against the wishes of the Parliament. And on the other side of the fence there are their buddies of Philips, who really would like to have software patents in Europe. And, they reason, what is good for Philips, is good for the Dutch economy. Personally, I think software patents are also bad for Philips, but IANAL.

Re:Finally

[quintesse]

Philips has since then said they would be happy as well if things remained the way they are now.

Re:Finally

[KontinMonet]

Software patent news is not that small, at least to the ministers of Trade, Science etc. Last year after just one piece of news, Lord Sainsbury (the relevant minister in the UK) received over 40,000 letters. Keep writing!

Re:Finally

[johannesg]

They did? I guess they must have looked stupid with their threat to move software production to India unless they could have software patents.

Presumably someone explained to them it is the location where you use/sell the software, rather than where you produce it, that counts...

Do you have a link?

Re:Finally

[quintesse]

Yes, you can read it here http://www.webwereld.nl/nieuws/20607.phtml but I hope you can read Dutch! :-)

Re:Finally

[johannesg]

...but I hope you can read Dutch! :-)

Moet wel lukken ;-)

Re:Finally

[bbc]

Philips became what it is through the light-bulb. One economist has theorized that if Philips had had to pay patent licenses, that never would have happened. The reason that Philips did not pay Edison a dime is because at the time, there was no patent system in the Netherlands.

The economist I mentioned is Eric Schiff, an Austrian who emigrated to the USA. The chapter dealing with Philips can be read at the Vrijschrift site (opponents of software patents), at http://www.vrijschrift.nl/softwarepatenten/philips / (scroll past the Dutch intro to "incandescent lamps").

There are other examples known of companies who made it big thanks to "stealing" "intellectual property". In the Netherlands, Unilever got to be what is because it made margarine without paying its inventor.

Philips, Unilever and Royal Dutch Oil were the three biggest Dutch companies when I was in high-school (I think the latter was number 2 or 3 in the world back then). The start-up of Royal Dutch Oil (better known through their Shell brand) was paid for using government money.

You just gotta love this phrase

[Anonymous Coward]

"In contrast, in this case, the "political agreement" does not really exist. It is pure fiction. Once you call a vote, multiple Member States needed for a majority would vote against.

Therefore, in this case the whole point of avoiding the vote is not the legitimate reason of saving time, but the deeply disturbing wish to fabricate a majority where there is none."

Nail on head.

Would someone explain me...

[Hamster Lover]

the convoluted European political system? Dutch Parliament, European Parliament, Council of Ministers, my head is spinning. It all sounds like some retro Soviet political wet dream.

Anyway, the Dutch Parliament, which I assume speaks for the Dutch people, decided against software patents. OK, so why should they end up with software patents after all is said and done if the Dutch Parliament voted against them? Do the individual governments of the member states not retain their sovereignty in the EU? I realize that for the EU to function as, well, the European Union, it has to have some political will. How far does this politcal will extend?

Just asking.

Re:Would someone explain me...

[Scarblac]

Each country in the EU is sovereigen and has their own government, which is controlled by their own parliament.

The governments work together in the the Council of Ministers of the EU. Here political deals are made - governments that are against patents may agree if they can get some extra agriculture subsidies in return, whatever. They can claim at home that they were against but the pressure of other countries was too high.

In theory the EU parliament controls that process, but their powers are far too weak. Perhaps the proposed "EU Constitution" will meredy this, I don't know. Governments say that giving the EU parliament more power is giving up national sovereignity (i.e., the power countries have to make shady deals).

Voting in the Council must be unanymous. A directive that is finally accepted must be implemented by all the member countries.

Re:Would someone explain me...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no expert either:

laws are made by the national parliaments.
but EU creates guidelines the national laws must conform to.
so atm each country can have their own laws about software patents, which have to change when a guideline by the EU is published.

those are created either by the EU parliament or the council of ministers. nobody really understands which is responsible for what.
it seems to be the council in this case.

each member country sends a minister to it.
the EU parliament is directly voted by people.

Re:Would someone explain me...

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU system is a mix of national sovereignity and super state.

The Minister Council of the EU (representatives from the countries' elected governments) creates "directives". The directives can be blocked given one unwilling minister in the Minister Council.

The EU Parliament (directly elected by the people) can pass or block these directives based on a majority descision.

Once passed and signed, a directive is something that the member states have to implement in one way or another into their national law, given some time.

If somebody feels that a member state hasn't implemented a directive good enough in the national law, the national law can be brought up in front of the EEC Court that decides if the particular national law has to be changed or not.

Re:Would someone explain me...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>perhaps the proposed "EU Constitution" will meredy this

Hence the majority of 'Europeans' (if there is such a thing) are against it.

Re:Would someone explain me...

[Halo1]

Voting in the Council must be unanymous.

That's not entirely correct. It must be unanimous if the Commission does not support their position, otherwise a qualified majority (2/3 majority) is sufficient. That's at least the case with codecision, under which the swpat directive is handled. I don't know about e.g. consultation.

Re:Would someone explain me...

[Colonel Cholling]

Each country in the EU is sovereigen and has their own government, which is controlled by their own parliament.

Yeah, they're sovereign on paper.

Re:Would someone explain me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope once something is passed into a directive all member states must be assimilated or face the consequences of a trial at the European court (shudder) - which could be imposing all kinds of financial punishment etc. to the little anarchistic state that won't follow the rules.

And the EU will keep pounding till the member complies...

No soverignety there - Only if you have made sure you have these rights before signing on to becoming a member or signing new treaties that the EU dreams up. Denmark for instance has a few things where they have a say but not many and they will probably soon disappear...

Like another poster said - a very convoluted system!

Donate today!

[Zeroth_darkos]

I'll say it again.
Don't want to see software patents in EU? Want to do something about it?
Donate money to FFII today:
http://ffii.org/money/account/index.en.html

Re:SLASHDOT IS BANKRUPT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your use of the word "sensative" is very touching to me and "clod", reminds me of a warm bowl of clam chowder...

"should" vs. "must"

[Angstroem]

It's a nice thing that they decided that the voting should be made against the EU software patent directive -- but in the end, this might mean nothing at all. How about deciding that they must vote against it?

In Germany there's also broad consensus about voting should be made against that directive, however, certain people in power vote for what they've been paid for instead of what they should vote for.

Or look at Poland: first voted for it, then decided to be against it, and now in a status of "oh, in case we're the only ones against we'd also vote for it".

Re:"should" vs. "must"

[Halo1]

How about deciding that they must vote against it?

They can't, the Dutch government isn't bound by motions from the Dutch parliament.

Re:"should" vs. "must"

[hdparm]

What is the point of parliamentary democracy then?

Re:"should" vs. "must"

[Halo1]

Well, the parliament can send the whole government home if they really think it's completely ignoring it's will. Additionally, the vote of the parliament is binding when they have to vote about a law, it's just not binding when they file a motion.

Re:"should" vs. "must"

[Scarblac]

They must vote to accept all new laws, they have the power to change laws before accepting them, they can enter original laws and accept them, they vote on accepting the budget, they can send ministers home, etc.

But the thing that is called a "motie" is not binding to government. In this case they have said they will carry it out though.

Re:"should" vs. "must"

[hdparm]

I don't really know how hot this issue is in Holand but let's asume it is. Very hot. We have a situation where parliament suggests a motion, govt declares support but due to possible 'games' on the EU level, they are forced to ignore the motion.

Can this be heavy enough reason for parliament to oust the cabinet and is there a mechanism in Holand constitution to vote governmet out just on motion grounds?

Re:"should" vs. "must"

[Colm Buckley]

The Dutch government isn't bound by motions from the Dutch parliament.

Er. Yes, it is, actually. In all EU countries, the government governs on sufferance of the parliament, and the government must adhere to any motions legally passed by the parliament.

Re:"should" vs. "must"

[Halo1]

In all EU countries, the government governs on sufferance of the parliament, and the government must adhere to any motions legally passed by the parliament.

No, they don't. See e.g. this page (in Dutch) from the Dutch government.

Translation of the relevant part:

A second instrument of De Kamer (= Parliament) is the motion. In a motion, De Kamer voices an opinion or asks a minister or the whole cabinet to do something, or on the contrary to not do something. Such a statement carries much less weight than an amendment, because it's not binding. A minister can ignore a motion.

I think that's pretty clear.

Re:"should" vs. "must"

[Erik Hensema]

No, not at all. Parliament consists of 150 members, of which maybe 15 participated in the debate on the motion of yesterday. On the broader political scale software patents are only a small point. Nothing worth sending the government home for.

The specific reason for this motion was to prevent a clash between the European Counsil (pro patents) and the European Parliament (against patents). When patents are A-listed and accepted, this clash will surely happen. They will be rejected by the EP, so we won't end up with patents either way.

Disclaimer: this matter is very complex and I am sure I don't fully understand it. The above is what I think is true.

Re:"should" vs. "must"

[Scarblac]

Unfortunately it isn't hot, and secondly since the main minister pushing it is D'66 and the other two coalition parties didn't support this motion, there's basically no way that that's going to happen - it'd never get a majority.

It would be extremely unusual though. The thing is that it's currently an "A item" on the agenda - meaning "everybody agrees, no vote needed". Government has explicitly said that they will have it removed from the agenda. To turn around and say five days later that there was no vote needed at all, right after the motion and right after saying they won't allow it, is almost equally inconceivable.

(Not that I'm that much of an expert, of course - and the fact that it was on that agenda in the first place is also quite ridiculous)

Re:"should" vs. "must"

[Przepla]

Or look at Poland: first voted for it, then decided to be against it, and now in a status of "oh, in case we're the only ones against we'd also vote for it".

No, our government is currently in status "we are not going to upset other countries and risk huge lossage of EU financial support for our unemployment stricken country, by acting alone for the 3th (or 4th) time".

Re:but why the dutch

[Anonymous Coward]

The dutch just bitch slapped the rest of the eu like they were misbehaving schoolgirls. you may not have failed it but the dutch suceeded it!

Translated from the WebWereld article...

[Arduenn]

State secretary Karien van Gennip (Economic Affairs) urged not to accept the motion against software patents by using the following argument: Luxemburgh, EU chair, responsible for putting software patents on the agenda, should not be discredited or restrained. That's one hell of an argument! Oooo! Let's not upset the Luxemburgians!

Re:Translated from the WebWereld article...

[4im]

Oooo! Let's not upset the Luxemburgians!

If that's their argument, don't bother - we the luxembourgish people (ok, the IT knowledgeable ones anyway) will gladly accept that "upsetting" of our government, if it rids us of software patents.

The different lux. parties are all +- against software patents anyway, at least representatives in the parliament are. The government unfortunately always has had a rather ambiguous position.

Re:Translated from the WebWereld article...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not upset the Luxemburgians!

With their two towers (well, actually 3...), they must mistake themselves for New Yorkers!

At least the New Yorkers didn't have a "freeway which is no longer a freeway" running between theirs. What are they hoping, that a hijacked bus will smash into one of them, or what?

I'm suprised by this

[Anonymous Coward]

"VVD (what we call "liberal", i.e. pro-free market, pro-business, traditional values, typical rightish), "

I'm suprised, by the sound of your description VVD should be against software patents, and for free market competition.

Re:I'm suprised by this

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely right. The VVD "should" be against software patents. However, government types, and civil servants, and also most other non-thinking people view "big business" as the only form of business. Multinationals are given priority in every way while small business is ignored.

Which is very wrong. Multinationals contribute relatively little to the economy and pay almost no taxes, whilst small businesses, of which there are hundreds of thousands, provide far more employment and pay all the taxes. Big business favours software patents and IP laws, small business doesn't.

Democracy, anyone?

Re:I'm suprised by this

[bbc]

There probably are a number of VVD parliamentarians who are as surprised as you are, but who have to follow the party whip.

Head of the European Commission is Frits Bolkestein, from VVD extraction, and I guess that VVD vote what he tells them to vote.

Some additional notes on this

[neanderlander]

The result of the decision by the dutch goverment is that the Central European Commission cannot continue with it's intention to put the proposal on the agenda for approval. Instead the European parlement has the initiative again: they can rethink the whole plan. The major problem with the current proposal is that it allows for strong ownership/copyright of software-solutions, making it difficult for other parties to expand and further improve on current software, since lot of features may be protected. While i generally support protection of idea's and developments, i consider the software world still a developing one. Strong protection of idea's might easily lead to a halt in new software developments, a concentration of innovative power in that hands of those who already have the power to begin with. Software isn't just good enough right now and the 'powers that are' haven't proven they can innovate the way that is beneficial to us users. And stricter laws won't change that as well. Patenting is intended to reward those that invest in developing new idea's. I think there are still many many commonly shared idea's on how to improve software. For the moment, to develop those idea's, all that is needed is time, time to develop. So companies have a way of protecting their investment: they invest the time, and get a lead on their rivals that didnt invest the time in that particular advancement. When the time comes when significant advancements in software are the result of intense high cost investments and true developement of new idea's and insights, then more strict protecting laws should be applied.

Re:Some additional notes on this

[Alsee]

The major problem with the current proposal is that it allows for strong ownership/copyright of software-solutions

This has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. No one involved has any objection to software copyrights.

This is a question of whether the existing patent system for invented physical objects and physical processes should be expanded to grant patents on logic. Whether you can "invent" and patent an equation or a series of mental steps.

-

Netherlands == Paradise

[Anonymous Coward]

Questions:

1. Do you have to worry about breaking the law by writing your own software? No.
2. Do you have to worry about breaking the law by smoking a joint? No.
3. Do you have to worry about breaking the law by sleeping with a girl below 18? No.

Conclusions:

1. Move to Netherlands.
2. Have a peace of mind.
3. Profit.

Re:Netherlands == Paradise

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you're still a nerd so getting the girl (no matter what age) remains a problem. But then...

4. Do you have to worry about law forbiding you to love your mare? No. :D

Re:Netherlands == Paradise

[LargeNemo]

Do you have to worry about law forbiding you to love your mare? This would explain those Color Climax films I saw. I can't think of a good reason why the goverment should care if someone marrys a horse. It's very odd but as long as they both have had their shots I don't see a problem.

Re:Netherlands == Paradise

[Jedi Alec]

don't forget to mention that downloading movies and music is legal here ;-) software isn't though, but a lot of major isp's heavily advertise about how fast you can download movies/music...i'm sure my fellow countrymen will know what i mean when i mention "7 seconds in tibet", beats the original imo :P

Re:Netherlands == Paradise

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'd wait until after the upcoming civil war, should be in about 5-10 years from now, ask any dutch.

Re:Netherlands == Paradise

[Anonymous Coward]

1. You do not have to worry about breaking the law by paying for sex.
2. You do not have to worry about breaking the law by assisting a chronically ill person to die quietly and painlessly.

Re:Netherlands == Paradise

[NeoSkandranon]

Actually I just spoke recently with someone from the Netherlands, who informed me that in the past several years it has gone from what you said to an utter shithole due to inept government

Re:Netherlands == Paradise

[AgentSmit]

1. Writing your own software in the States can be against the law? Man, what a madhouse!
2. Officially yes, practically no. This is what's called "gedogen" (no English translation, means "allowing something that's officially forbidden"). Legalizing softdrugs is politically difficult since there is no consensus between all parties. The fact that other countries, especially France, are strongly against it, also makes it quite difficult. More and more EU members however see the benefits of allowing softdrugs since it ends the underground softdrug scene and makes controlling and checking softdrug use much easier.
3. As long as it is with here consent of course. Here in Holland we think that a 16 year old girl is capable of deciding herself who she has sex with instead of letting others decide. Yes, we are still quite liberal, even though more and more Dutch think we are not anymore.

Re:Netherlands == Paradise

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Holland we think that a 16 year old girl is capable of deciding herself who she has sex with instead of letting others decide.

That's the legal age in most (if not all) of Western Europe. However, the legal age for porn is another matter; both for participation and purchasing the legal age is 18.

Re:Netherlands == Paradise

[bbc]

I liked the "9.5 Weeks" ad better.

Can you trust the patent system?

[OwlWhacker]

Perhaps it was incidents like this that persuaded the Dutch parliament to make this decision.

Re:SLASHDOT IS BANKRUPT!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm vegetarian you insensitive clod.

Link to proceeding of Dutch parliament (in Dutch)

[TakaIta]

The proceedings of the meeting in parliament can be found here (Word document).

Re:Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

All three of them...

if this continues..

[N3wsByt3]

We might actually win without even have to go to the EU parliament again.

That's about the 4th or 5th country where the national parliament instructed their government not to vote for the directive.

But then again, some caution should remain: the dutch parliament has asked the minister before to change votes, but he merrily ignored that. It is surprising, often, how many time (and how much) so-called democratic governments completely disregard the democratic principle they have sworn to uphold.

If it DOES goe back for a second reading, our anti-swp movement will have to agree (and decide) what we are going to aim for, IMHO.

Do we want the EU parliament then to make a compromise (not a good idea, since the amended version was already the bear minimal, a 'compromise' would probably come out totally bork)? Do we want a complete rejection by the EU parliament? Do we want it back on the drawingboard and have a first reading again?

This might be important, since if it comes that far, we'll have to have 2/3 of a majority. I think option 2 or 3 have the most chance of getting that majority, since even pro-swp-MEPs (like McCarthy) have (in the JURI) voted to restart the process so that we can 'better research the impact of swp on SMEs'.

Copyright won't protect you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright won't protect software from the effects of patents in any meaningful way.

Name one process software can do that can't be duplicated entirely with hardware. There isn't one.

Now explain why the existence of software suddenly throws doubt upon the wisdom of allowing process (method) claims to be patented.

Change the rules to exclude software from being patented and the same thing can be made to look like hardware. Inventions in some technologies (such as many types of embedded systems, communications/multiplexing, data coding, and on) have reached the point where it's common to see the statement that the invention could be made of software, firmware, hardware, or some combination of one or more of these things.

The most prolific slashdotters on this topic will throw up their hands and compose a bold new manifesto with some self-serving stuff about how it's slowing everyone down from becoming a keyboard peripheral device as soon as possible. Blaaah!

Re:Copyright won't protect you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Name one process software can do that can't be duplicated entirely with math. There isn't one. Now explain why the existence of software suddenly throws doubt upon the wisdom of not allowing math to be patented.

Re:Copyright won't protect you.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a large chunk of user interfaces, and control of external devices that can't be duplicated entirely mathematically.

Re:Copyright won't protect you.

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll all just assume you've never even taken the time to understand basic computing theory and think a Turing Machine is some sort of dishwasher then shall we?

Re:Copyright won't protect you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Logic is math, hardware is math, molecules are math, it's all math. Thanks for explaining it. It's all math. Totally refreshing and mind expanding, and it's all because of you. Thanks so much. No, really.

Re:Copyright won't protect you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it is all math. Which is exactly the fucking point; software, math, business processes, physics equations: none of these things should ever be patentable.

Things that arn't math are physical objects. Physical objects should be patentable.

See how that works? It's dead simple. Almost everyone else seems to understand it but you.

Re:Copyright won't protect you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardware processes need code to run on. That's software.

Re:Copyright won't protect you.

[metlin]

> Name one process software can do that can't be
> duplicated entirely with math.

Art.

Go ahead, try duplicating Michelangelo and van Gogh through math. Goodluck.

Re:Copyright won't protect you.

[johannesg]

Art. Go ahead, try duplicating Michelangelo and van Gogh through math. Goodluck.

I'm looking for a software package that can design something like the sistine chapel, for my living room. It appears you know of such a package; could you post a link?

Re:Copyright won't protect you.

[metlin]

No, the point is that you assumed that all software packages can be boiled down to numbers, which is not true.

What about the art in games? Would they not count?

Merely wanted to point out that not all software processes can be broken down purely into numbers. And not all "software patents" are entirely software related, either.

Re:Copyright won't protect you.

[johannesg]

No, the point is that you assumed that all software packages can be boiled down to numbers, which is not true.

I think you may be confusing me with someone else, but ok. The question was:

Name one process software can do that can't be duplicated entirely with math.

You answered "art", after which I pointed out in humorous fashion that there is no software process for art. Software cannot replicate the work of Michelangelo, or van Gogh, or any other great artist - it can make exact duplicates but cannot create new pieces of art. This is precisely _because_ all software packages boil down to numbers. There is no "magical ingredient", as you seem to imply.

What about the art in games? Would they not count?

No. That art is not the result of a software process. Instead it was created by a human being who happened to be using software as a tool. By comparison, van Gogh is widely held to be responsible for his paintings, rather than his brush.

Merely wanted to point out that not all software processes can be broken down purely into numbers.

I'm curious to learn what other secret ingredients you expect to find in software, then?

And not all "software patents" are entirely software related, either.

...ehh. Ok. If you say so. Although I'm not sure how that affects the rest of the discussion, to be perfectly honest.

Re:SLASHDOT IS BANKRUPT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Vegetarian? You'ld eat my ass, just for me? I can see why your dyke roomate's cold turkey is less appealing to my crotch carrot, but why only the corn-hole cassarole? My clods are verry sensative. use spork.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A reformed patent system

[thodu]

Here is an idea for patent reform. The person/organization that applies for a patent has to also submit evidence of the amount of resources (time and money) spent on the invention. In return, patent law, will grant them patent protection for upto 20 times the investment. Either they earn 20 times the money spent or they have protection of 20 times the number of hours spent . The number "20" is just something off the top of my head for now. Thus Jeff Bezos, after proving that it really took him all of 1 week only focussing on coming up with the 1-click process will have patent protection for 20 weeks, while a big drug company spending $1 billion on a new drug will have patent protection till it earns $20 billion on the same. If the drug company spent 4 years on developing the drug, they may also get protection for 80 years in case the $20 billion in royalties is not reached before that. In a fast changing world, 20 years of blanket patent protection for every small idea is simply too much.

Re:A reformed patent system

[Vo0k]

There's a small problem with that. What about the "Blinding Flash of Obvious Truth"?
Take post-it notes.
The guy was working on a new type of super-glue. Only his invention appeared to be a total failure. The glue was barely capable to hold a piece of paper. But he had enough brains to apply it to a piece of paper and sell that.
Investment in the new type of glue: maybe $50.
Time: one evening.
Profit: "3M is an $18 billion diversified technology company with leading positions in consumer and office"

The new system would protect the invention for 3 weeks, or until it gives $2000 (whichever comes first).

Some patents are too dumb nowadays. But sometimes really simple inventions are worth billions.

Re:A reformed patent system

[thodu]

yes, my proposed system will not work in this case. But it will work in getting rid of the 99.5% of bogus patents. Maybe we can ask people who ask for more than the 20 times return on investment, say 1000 times in the case of PostIt, to justify this as an exception with a court before the patent is granted itself. Real lateral thinking, actually few in number, can be protected this way. Also, in an increasingly connected world - the internet was probably not a reality when PostIt was invented, the "blinding flash of obvious truth" may occur to many people at the same time. It is not fair that only the person who filed it first prosper. After all, one-click would have have been blindingly obvious to a lot of people. All knowledge is based on previous processing of information and in a connected world information is literally flowing at the speed of light.

Re:A reformed patent system

[D4C5CE]

There's a small problem with that. What about the "Blinding Flash of Obvious Truth"?
Take post-it notes. (...) The new system would protect the invention for 3 weeks, or until it gives $2000 (whichever comes first).
Some patents are too dumb nowadays. But sometimes really simple inventions are worth billions.

No, there's not. The precise figure of the proposed multiple (call it "lever" ;-)) is open to debate and probably ought to be several times higher than 20, but actually grandparent should be considered +5 Insightful (it hopefully already is by the time you read this).

As the patent system claims to exist only to incentivize innovation, it does not need (or rather, have!) to reward the proverbial "flash of genius" with a long-time monopoly - just because these ideas spontaneously occur irrespective of any such formal incentive (that would justifiably exist for considerable long-term investment in research).
In other words, "really simple inventions" are not supposed (deserving!) to be worth billions (and be protected from competition, and require follow-up inventors to try and negotiate a license - over decades!) if the patent system is true to its own stated aim.

Re:A reformed patent system

[Vo0k]

I don't think the "lever" should be bigger. The companies could overblow the time a lot. Say, they provide proof that origins of the idea appeared 20 years ago (and they were working on design ever since), and the "lever" is 100. 2000 years of patent protection? Thanks, no. If it was logarithmic scale, then okay, say, quadrupling the expenses doubles the protection time.

IMHO other counter-measures should be taken:
1) Easier to invalidate a patent. A bounty system for prior art (some of the application money go towards the eventual bounty), and simplification of invalidating/denying a patent just by showing the prior art, no lenghty lawsuits.
2) Short period to implement the patent. Like, depending on degree of complexity, up to 5 years. So, first actual "real life" implementations must happen within that time or the patent expiers really fast. If you don't plan to innovate using the new invention, leave it to others. No submarine patents.
3) "commonwealth invalidation". Patents covering technologies/products being defined in standards by official bodies or (i.e. plugins - HTML specs) or being in mainstream use and produced by multitude of world industries (i.e. aspirin) get invalidated. Patent holders may be paid a token fee for the invention, i.e. the cost of inventing it x5 or x10, money coming from special tax on these products.

Re:A reformed patent system

[D4C5CE]

I don't think the "lever" should be bigger. The companies could overblow the time a lot. Say, they provide proof that origins of the idea appeared 20 years ago (and they were working on design ever since), and the "lever" is 100. 2000 years of patent protection? Thanks, no. If it was logarithmic scale, then okay, say, quadrupling the expenses doubles the protection time.

I actually called it a "lever" precisely to indicate that this "multiple" is referring to money (max_protected_earnings=expenses*lever) rather than time. For the duration of the monopoly, further extension beyond 20 years would be exaggerated indeed (yet "dynamics" or shortening are also hardly feasible in light of TRIPs and the difficulty of differentiating between certain fields of innovation or protected matter).

Re:A reformed patent system

[Scarblac]

The new system would protect the invention for 3 weeks, or until it gives $2000 (whichever comes first).

And why exactly is that a problem? Why does such an idea deserve $18 billion?

Re:A reformed patent system

[skubi]

patent law, will grant them patent protection for upto 20 times the investment.

Unfortunately, there is no reasonable way to do this, simply because there are too many factors to consider. For example, if the area is difficult, and I have to try out 10000 ideas before getting one that works, granting a patent for 20 times the cost of the idea that works would not be enough.

On the other hand, granting a patent based on the total cost of the 10000 ideas that you had to study would favor stupidity: if a more clever inventor (better intuition, better methods) only needs to study 100 ideas, his invention would be cheaper to produce, thus he would get a "smaller" patent (a patent for a shorter duration) based on the cost of trying out only 100 ideas, not 10000.

Generally, it is a bad idea to base the price paid for anything on the cost for a specific producer. Any such system favors expensive (i.e., inefficient) producers.

This was done under communism: I heard of automobile engineers in communist Poland being ordered to increase cost in order to increase profit. How it works ?

1. There is no competition, so the market does not limit sales when price climbs
2. Price is fixed by the government to be cost plus a 20 % markup
3. The higher the cost, the higher the markup

The slashdot way:

1. Spend more
2. ???
3. Profit !!!

In Soviet Russia, your higher cost benefits YOU !

Re:A reformed patent system

[Vo0k]

Because people are willing to pay as much for it?

Nowadays there are thousands of companies that produce PostIt-alikes but still 3M is the power. The idea by itself wasn't worth $10. But the guy certainly deserves right to test it in real life and try to profit from it, starting small and if it's successful, getting to the top - not staying forgotten and poor while the huge corporations profit from his idea. The problem is nowadays he would most likely make his first million, then sell the business for ten times that and the patent would just protect profit of lazy assholes, not of the inventor.

Re:A reformed patent system

[Halo1]

But the guy certainly deserves right to test it in real life and try to profit from it

For once and for all: the patent system is not about deserving something or not. The work of a mathematician is no less worthy than that of a mechanic. It's all about economic end results: are patents necessary (or at least beneficial) in a certain area or not in order to stimulate innovation and to prevent an excessive amount of copying (a small amount of imitation is actually healthy, since it helps curb monopolies and keeps the market competitive).

If patents were to be deemed not to have an overall positive effect, than they should be done away with.

Re:A reformed patent system

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, Walmart follows a cost plus pricing model.

Re:A reformed patent system

[rmstar]

The new system would protect the invention for 3 weeks, or until it gives $2000 (whichever comes first).

That would be still too much money for such a crappy idea. It is far too simple. Now every time I put glue on a piece of paper I have to pay the guy royalty??

Re:A reformed patent system

[Vo0k]

Everytime YOU put glue on paper, nobody cares. But if you see "Wow, these pieces of paper are really useful" and then try to sell them, well, that wasn't your idea...

Meanwhile, LOKITORRENT has been 0WnED

[cheekyboy]

loki dead

40000000000000 users move to new site

does the mpaa have any say inside china?

just wait till theres are 50000 mirrors

Woohoo!!

[Pflipp]

Finally something good coming out of the country that brought us the Europatent initiator himself (Bolkestein).

(Yes, I'm Dutch as well, but I hardly ever leave my country.)

My country!

[UncleScrooge]

Makes me bloody proud to be a Dutchman. I love my country!

Article is misleading

[Gadzinka]

The article is misleading, the Dutch won't be voting against the patent directive, because there will be no voting.

Basically, the whole patent directive is one big swindle:

• Council erased all ammendments made by the only democraticly elected EU body -- the European Parliament -- and passed the directive as "compromise proposition" which in reality is even harsher than original proposition: it allows patenting of data structures (say "hello" to patents for file formats, internet protocols etc)
• Countries were counted as voting "for" where in reality they abstained (e.g. Poland)
• Ministers lied to their Parliaments about what the shape of the directive really is and what does it do (e.g. Dutch).
• After some countries voiced their protest to the procedure and their parliaments obligated their governments to vote against the final text of the directive, and the voting weights changed from Nicean to new system, presidency (first Dutch, against its own parliament, then Luxemburgish) decided to pass it to Agricultural Commission (obviously the relevant for Patents on Computer Implemented Inventions) without a vote, as an A-item. The A-item is for matters without any controversy, which all countries agree upon. It is the case for a directive for which several countries wrote papers in opposition longer than the directive itself, isn't it? And when Poland stroke this directive from the order of council twice it is still going to be reinstated as an "uncontroviersial" A-item again...

The only thing that Dutch government can do is to strike this A-item again from the order of council. What's gonna happen when Council decides to ignore JURI recomendation for returning this directive to first reading? Honestly, I don't know...

Robert

Re:Article is misleading

[Gadzinka]

What's gonna happen when Council decides to ignore JURI recomendation for returning this directive to first reading? Honestly, I don't know...

I parted /. to do some cooking for tomorrow party and some serious thinking about politics of EU, and I think I've got an answer to this question. (I think) PJ on Groklaw said, that EU came out stronger from every previous clash with other (non-democratic) European institutions.

Anyone reading transcript from JURI meeting regarding returning swpat to first reading had to notice that MEPs were infurriated by blatant disregard to democratic procedures by Council and Presidency. Implemented technics included (but were not limited to) such tricks like moving directive as an A-item to Agriculture and Fishery commision, in last weeks of the year when all professionals went home for Christmas, and permanent representatives who were supposed to do actual voting were even personally blackmailed to not oppose last-minute addition of an A-item. All this at the time were eyes and attention of Europe were turned to Ukraine and its Orange Revolution.

So, if Council disregards JURI recommendation, European Parliament may be infurriated enough to secure 75% majority to ammend the swpat directive in second reading. After all, no one likes to be made irrelevant, especially elected officials... ;)

Robert

PS This isn't even bringing the directive through the backdoor anymore. This is fucking planting by the policeman in owner's presence and disregarding video footage of said planting by the judge.

Heel goed gedaan

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done Netherlands! All Europe should thank you for what you have done for the one-man, small, medium and even large businesses fighting against the giant patent-hoarding corporations of the world.

Bedankt!

Americans stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

A government making decisions for the people, by the people? Decisions being made based on rational arguments rather than religious drivel or buddies big business interests?

Fuck you America! And fuck you Americans! Your piece of shit country is destroying the world. Your shitty way of life is not our way of life, and it never will be. And you're all equally responsible. Please dirl.

Re:Americans stunned

[The MESMERIC]

and would you care to say what is your nationality?
Anonymous Coward?

Don't mix bad American policies with the American population.

For I believe you must be a true hypocrite, the type that would get a boner if offered a green card.
The type that worships Rock stars, Levi's Jeans and Nike trainers.

Bet you dream in having a your own Porsche, being invited to inner Hollywood party -
bet you wank again and again over US blonde bimbos seen on satellite channels.

I sense envy in your trolling - not a shout for justice.
You are the type that if given powers would do more harm than many Bushes and Saddams put together.

Religious hypocrite.

Re:Americans stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you feel better now, Anonymouse Coward?

Re:Americans stunned

[fiannaFailMan]

Er, Porsche is a German manufacturer.

Re:Americans stunned

[The MESMERIC]

oopsie-daisy! :P

Bull

[Anonymous Coward]

Paradise? I left Holland two years ago:
- socialistic to the bone
- taxation: outrageous
- utterly crowded

Yeah. Canada where I live now is better:
- socialistic to the bone
- taxation: outrageous
- utterly non-crowded (at least where I live; an area the size of Germany, with only 40,000 people; great nature)

Re:Bull

[radja]

unfortunately, the netherlands is pretty much right-wing now...

it's about time we became a bit more socialistic.

Re:Bull

[bbc]

I pitty the Canadians for all the right-wing refuse they are getting from us.

Your Local Authority employs more bureaucrats

[Paul Crowley]

Actually, the EU employs fewer bureaucrats than an average UK Local Authority.

Re:Your Local Authority employs more bureaucrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but the EU employs on top of the combined total employees of every EU member state. The EU is a large layer of 30,000 employees on top of several million government employees across the EU.

Re:SLASHDOT IS BANKRUPT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being so immature, you sound silly.

Thanks for the link

[ites]

My company is a member of the FFII already but I just convinced the boss (not hard, it's me) to donate a thousand Euro to the FFII.

It's all math!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey everybody! About software: It's math! The magic words -- it's math. No, it's not just logic, it's math. Making money is math. Pretending the garbage software writers write is good stuff is math. Say it with me, people: It's math! You can't hide it, it's always there for you, taking away your cares and frustrations - math! Tell your representative and watch them nearly faint when the awe-inspiring realization hits them. Just remember folks, it's all math.

NEW MEME

[Anonymous Coward]

An Australian govt. research project came to the conclusion that not having patents would be useful to innovation.

An Australian govt research project came to the conclusion that in Soviet Russia, only old Koreans are belong to YOU... in Japan.

Re:NEW MEME

[Anonymous Coward]

*Samir* This is horrible, this idea.

Software is different

[Holger Blasum]

There is wide consensus even in the patent community that patents work most successfully in chemical and pharmaceutical industry, less well in mechanical industries (Kingston 1997, "Patent protection for modern technologies", Mansfield 1986 "Imitation costs and patents".).

Recent empiricial research suggests patents are even less successful in software. This is because software is different. Or search for "while statement" here. To illustrate cumulative innovation complexity-wise, the 2.6.8 kernel has 300,000+ IF statements, a BMW sedan car has a complexity of "only" 15,000-18,000 pieces (Mr Blabst BMW press department), a typical drug consists of 10-100 atoms.

In other words, the position that there are fields of human activity that the patent system is not so well tailored for is well-defensible even without killing the entire patent system.

Sidenote: there have been a lot of quirks and surprises in the past with the Software Patent Directive, so get prepared to the thought that next week's Brussels/Berlin demos are still needed and useful politically (only one scenario of total fiasco has hopefully been avoided, there is not yet a renewed referral in Parliament nor B-iten in council).

This is your boss

[Anonymous Coward]

Get back to work kiddo, right now!

VVD = traditional values?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gay marriage and euthanasia are not very traditional. Media hype is trying to push VVD into a conservative corner so we can have American style left/right politics, which works so well to distract people from any real issues (Wilders was a complete media creation). I dont think it will work though ... I think they'd perish before giving up being liberal in the traditional sense.

Re:VVD = traditional values?

[Da Fokka]

The problem of the VVD is that they are thoroughly divided. One half is pretty conservative and I guess this is the half the parent poster was referring to. But there are also a lot of VVD MP's which are more progressive.

The movement to endorse gay marriage and euthanasia rights were both started by D66 - the only real liberal party in The Netherlands :)

Re:Would some editor please wake up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I've got good news and I've got good news. The good news is Michael was fired, and the good news is that the poll broke the previous "longest and most boring" running poll record, so it will surely be replaced today.

Let's not exagerate

[N3wsByt3]

The EU as well as the national governments have often have passed laws that were/are restricting our freedoms too. And, certainly with the EU commision, there clearly is a huge democratic deficit. Those guys decide on creating laws that potentially afflict millions of EU citizens...and they aren't even elected, nor do they have any political responsibilty towards those citizens!

So it still can and should be improved. And corruption isn't unheard of here neither, though the kind of open and 'legal' bribing by companies, like is rampant in the USA is a lot less, here.

And that maybe explains your post: when you compare it with the USA, I can understand the feeling...but believe me, it's not an utopia here neither. Only in comparison it is better.

Revise the Judicial system

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, changes with the patent system nedd to go hand-in-hand with changes in the judicial system (ultimately, the patents will be judged by law).

Modifying another poster's idea: how about if the money spent on a trial were split equally between the plantiff and the defendant? So if Sue spends a million and Bob spends $1000, each side gets $500,500 to spend on lawyers and court fees.

Neither side is limited on how much they can spend, but one party can't steamroll the other with massive amounts of cash.

Problems? Suggestions?

European patent system explained

[Husgaard]

Most people here seem to falsely believe that the european patent system is administered or governed by the EU. That is incorrect.

The EU patent system is governed by a multilateral treaty called the European Patent Convention (EPC). Both EU and non-EU countries have signed and ratified EPC.

In 1973 when EPC was signed, all the countries harmonized their patent laws to conform to the text of EPC. At the same time the European Patent Office (EPO) was created as the administrative body to issue patents in Europe.

The big problem with EPO is that they are outside any political or judicial influence and can do pretty much what they want to.

EPC Article 52.2 clearly states that software "as such" is not patentable.

But over the years EPO has changed their "interpretation" of this. First to say that software is not software "as such" if loaded in a computer and having some useful effect (what they call "further technical effect"). Later to say that even software residing on a media without being loaded into a computer may not be considered software "as such". Their arguments for these "interpretations" are really convoluted, and it takes weeks of study to understand them.

This means that EPO illegally has issued a large number of software patents. Most estimates say at least 30,000. Fortunately these software patents cannot currently be enforced in court because they are illegal.

To fix the problem that the software patents cannot be enforced in court they have twice called for a diplomatic conference with the goal of changing EPC to legalize software patents. On both diplomatic conferences the request of EPO was denied.

Only after the second failed attempt by EPO to have EPC changed did EU propose a directive attempting to legalize software patents.

With a directive the EU can force the EU countries to change their national law. If that happens the illegally issued software patents can be legally enforced in court.

Re:European patent system explained

[KontinMonet]

You are right about the EPC - and the EPO manoevering like billy-o to get round its own articles (Art. 52):

(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions [...]:
(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
(b) aesthetic creations;
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
(d) presentations of information.

If you argue that by mathematical method, the Article means algorithm, then it denies software patents twice! The "as such" argument is really the same as counting angels dancing on the head of a pin. But the EPO is really only interested in increasing its own income and does not have the wider interest of the public or countries' economies at heart.

Re:European patent system explained

[gronofer]

Is this the actual text? So as such is not even written there?

Most likely the people working for EPO have convinced themselves that patents are a good thing Therefore it's hardly unexpected that they are going to be in favour of making patents easier to get in as many fields as possible.

Since they make money from the patent system, they have a conflict of interest when giving advice about possible changes to the system. They should restrict themselves to factual information about the workings of the present system.

Re:European patent system explained

[Husgaard]

The citation was only from EPC Article 52.2. The "as such" clause is in EPC Article 52.3:

3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.

Re:European patent system explained

[gronofer]

Thanks, this explains you comment about counting angels dancing on the head of a pin.

I suppose the EPO employees would have only a vested interest, not a conflict of interest, if they have convinced themselves that patents are a splendid idea for everybody.

the EU love/hate relationship

[N3wsByt3]

"The body that must go is the council"

ANd the commision as well, for the same reasons.

"The council should be replaced by a senate 1 or 2 senators per member state that are elected by general elections in each member state."

Exellent idea. I've long pondered about that problem. The counsel isn't elected and has too much power, but abolishing it and giving it to the parliament + president didn't seem plausable, since most (sovereign, after all) countries will want to keep a say in the process.

So, some kind of Senate might be a (far better) compromise.

"The rotating presidency must go as well, the EU should have a president supported by the parlament and council."

No, the councel should go, remember? ;-) But I agree there has to be a directly elected EU president. I would be prepared to give away a bit more national sovereignity (providing cultural safegaurds, ofcourse) IF the EU were a true democracy. As it is now, I'm opposed to give the EU institutions any more power. The democratic deficit is already to high as it is, and I don't trust the lawmaking of bureaucrats which answer to no electorate whatsoever. If they want to pass laws that affect the EU citizens, they should be elected by those citizens, it is as simply as that!

I'm always surprised that many europeans feel just the same and as strong on this topic...but so how comes it doesn't happen? We've been talking about making the EU more democratic and chosing a president for years now, and nothing seems to move. I think it's time people rattle the EU a bit more.

pro-business vs. pro-free market

[Per Abrahamsen]

A lot of the European "liberal" parties have a hard time making the distiction between these two, apparently not understanding that granting big businesses monopolies is about as anti free market as you can posibbly get.

The Danish "liberal" party in power has the same problem. Plus they have decided that not touching the huge welfare state created by the social democrats with a 50% average tax (that is, 50% of each crown earned go to tax) and a 68% marginal tax (that is, 68% percent of the last crown earned go to the state as income tax) is incompatible with being in power.

At least, Bush clearly is pro-big business, with no pretence of being pro free market.

Fuck you asshole.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all of us approve of the way the government is being run, and didn't elect the current crop of shitheads. So why don't you just go stuff your head up your ass and suffocate.

Re:Fuck you asshole.

[Anonymous Coward]

Another AC says:

You do aprove, since you are supporting your so called democratic ways!!!

On many occasions I have said I did not support the war in Iraq, until I realized my tax money says otherwise, This "not supporting war" is merely a thought in my head, I am supporting war with my tax money, so in a way I AM supporting it :(

Just as you are supporting bush in the same kind a way; Or are u on the streets right now to protest??

BTW Bush isn't "fighting" for democracy, he is fighting for kapitalism, many confuse the two!

the real problem with this

[N3wsByt3]

The real problem is, that big companies are going to hugely exagerate their expenses. Or does anyone doubt that?

If they have worked for 3 years on something, and they know they'll get 20 times the reward of that, it's rather trivial to 'dynamically interpret' the figures so that they get a 200 year patent instead of a 60 one (and even that is far too much, I think).

And moreover, even downright lies about the amount of time and money they've put in would hardly be checked. I mean, what, is anyone proposing the patentoffice or some other agency is going to have to scrutinise all the thousands of pantentrequests they get every month? As we can already see, the system already is pretty borked; with such an additional requirement (before being able to tell how long your patent will last), it would become a complete and utter mess.

No, sorry, at face value, it looks like a good idea, but in practise, this is unfeasable. More realistic proposals that may help are:

1)clearly forbid patents on pure ideas, software, businessmethods, etc.

2)Make it obligatory for patentholders to renew their patents. For instance, instead of 20 years, give it for 5 years, and make it renewable for 3 more consecutive 5-year periods, for a nominal fee of 1 dollar, for instance. (The same could be done for copyright)

Advantage: many patents and copyrights turn out not to be the economic succes they were supposed to be, and a lot of works/inventions are rotting away while no-one can use it, or use it as a base for something of their own. If patents/copyright has no use anymore and is only dormant, and good to no1...why not make it available to the public? no use in wasting possibilities that apparently aren't worth taking an additional 5-year protection by the original inventors/authors.

3)Make the fee required for getting a patent in relation to the income of the person/company that requests it. That way, the 'lone developer working in his shed' will have a far better chance then nowadays. with the current fees, the 'poor inventor' has almost no chance of getting a pantent. Ofcourse, when selling or transmitting that fee to another company, that company has to pay according to *their* income.

Otherwise, you will have the same problem of companies evading the fee by creating a small company, getting a low fee, and then 'sell' it (back) to the (mother)company.

All those suggestion are feasable and would greatly improve the current patent system.

Re:the real problem with this

[Vo0k]

1) okay. Just force this through the patent lobby.
2) No effect. One guy to watch over the corporate database and re-submit all the patents when they are about to expire. IMO not "nominal" but "increasing" fee would be reasonable. Discard all the useless patents and pay up really A LOT to hold the profitable ones. If the patent is bringing you $1bln/year, paying $1mln to keep it for the last 5 years out of the 20 shouldn't be a problem. If you can't make profit out of it, isn't it high time to let the others try?
3) Unenforceable, too many possible loopholes. (like, behind-the-scenes contract "allow us to violate your patent for $100.000 without starting a lawsuit against us, and sue anyone else who violates it")

I think something else could be helpful: "protective fee". After pretty short period, say, 2 years, each patent is free to open to the public for anyone who is willing to pay you 500x what you pay for yearly patent protection. Is it it worth to you $1mln? Pay $2000 and you will get $1mln if someone thinks it's worth that much. Want to make sure nobody gets it? Pay $1bln and nobody will pay $200bln to get it. This way a huge company would be able to maintain a portfolio of 10-15 patents, and people willing to innovate would be able to get over such obstacles and inventors would still get a right prize for their work.

Re:the real problem with this

[N3wsByt3]

"1) okay. Just force this through the patent lobby."

We're busy trying (at least in the EU ;-)

2) "No effect. One guy to watch over the corporate database and re-submit all the patents when they are about to expire."

Yes, but it's only meant to weed out those patents and copyrights nobody really cares about anymore. Nowadays, you have lots of works on film, for instance, that deteriorates rapidly, but no1 knows for sure if it's still under copyright or by whome. a system where the author.patentholder would have to 'check in', would solve that.

You could be right that it must be a bit higher then 1 dollar; maybe it could be related to income as well?

3) Unenforceable, too many possible loopholes.

Loopholes are possible indeed, but at least it would provide better access to patents by normal joe doe inventors that haven't got loads of money like megacorps have.

"I think something else could be helpful: "protective fee". After pretty short period, say, 2 years, each patent is free to open to the public for anyone who is willing to pay you 500x what you pay for yearly patent protection. Is it it worth to you $1mln?"

Yes, an interesting idea, but it would still give an unfair advantage to big corps, in comparison with the poor hard working inventor (whome is always used as an example that patents are supposed to protect). It's far more easy for a megacorp to pay 500X whatever amount of money, then it is for an individual, poor inventor. Thus, for the same great invention, such a person couldn't afford more then a nominal period of protection, while a megacorp could get a protection on it for 1000 years. This seems hugely unfair.

Why not reverse engeneer???

[Anonymous Coward]

Western countries were built stealing the world, not only recources, but they stole ideas from each other,
And ever since they are very wealthy it is a crime!?!

Kapitalism is about lowest costprice !?!
AHH about biggest profit ya say, I misunderstood.

Ya all should be happy when a 3rd world country reverse engineers stuff and sells it half he price a westener would, its the kapalistic way ya all have been preaching and practicing yourselves, but when you are on the loosing side it just doesn't feel as good!

Poland

[bollow (a) NoLockIn]

Or look at Poland: first voted for it, then decided to be against it, and now in a status of "oh, in case we're the only ones against we'd also vote for it".

What's your source for the claim that Poland ever voted for it? I recall reading a claim somewhere on the FFII website that their position was incorrectly recorded after they had not even been asked for a clear statement on their position about that "political agreement" because at that time it was thought that the agreement has enough supporters that Poland's position doesn't matter.

Concerning the "oh, in case we're the only ones against we'd also vote for it" point, that is clearly a misrepresentation of the situation. They didn't say anything about "voting for it". They just said that they don't want to be alone in requesting again that it should be taken of the agenda.

rightwing slashdot paradise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Netherlands = slashdot paradise

Netherlands = right wing

right wing = slashdot paradise???

my head hurts...

Re:rightwing slashdot paradise?

[gronofer]

If Slashdot tried to move to the Netherlands today, it would be booted out within 24 hours.

Careful...

[Kippesoep]

I might think the letter I sent to the minister actually had any effect. Can't have that, now can we? Next thing we know, I might actually believe public opinion matters to elected officials in other areas, too. Now that's a scary thought.

bicameral legislature, NOT two party system

[FreeUser]

I always have found it odd how the US has just the dominating "Rebuplicans", and "Democrats". We have +7 Parties, with all some simular and more diverse agenda's. It'd be a nightmare to just be in the mercy of *two* parties....

You're confusing our two party system (which sucks ... European proportional representation is far, far better) with a bicameral legislature.

He is proposing a directly elected bicameral legislature to replace the european parliament and the council, but keeping the rotating presidency (and presumably the european court). It seems like a reasonable idea, particularly given the corruption of the council past, present, and almost certainly future.

The problem of converting a corporate plutocracy (which is what the EU started out as) to a democracy is an interesting one ... it looks like the plutocrats intended the European Parliament as simply a smokescreen to maintina the appearance of a democracy and keep the masses appeased, while allowing business to proceed as usual, but have been surprised as the people have actually insisted on having a voice in policy.

How the patent thing works out will give us an indication of whether or not the EU will successfully transition from a corporate plutocracy to a democracy.

Re:bicameral legislature, NOT two party system

[ZeroExistenZ]

Thanks for the insight.

MEPs on the warpath

[Submarine]

Some MEPs are really angry about the Commission's actions. MEP Michel Rocard (France/"Socialists") pronounced a speech before the JURI (juridical affairs) committee of the European Parliament, in which he accuses the commissionner who pushed the project of sneaky actions. I think that Rocard and others are decided to shoot down the proposal by whatever means.

How about the US government?

[Submarine]

Have you ever been to the US? In the US, both the federal and the state government impose environmental, workforce, etc. rules. The US government and the state governments (and sometimes the county or other local governments, though I do not know the details of this) maintain separate taxation systems run by separate administrations with different procedures. This means that for many purposes, you have to fill one form for the state government, and one for the US government. Furthermore, the state government and the US government may disagree on some aspects - witness, for instance, how the US federal government prohibits the sale of marijuana, while the state of California admits it for medicinal purposes.

In comparaison, the EU largely delegates everything to the member states. Most of EU legislation is implemented through directives, which have to be transposed into national legislations; incoherences are eliminated during transposition. There is no separate tax system nor any separate tax administration. Etc.

Re:How about the US government?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats just because the EU hasn't been around long enough. EU will very slowly get more poweful, then some member state will try to leave and won't be allowed to (by force). It'll all be down hill after that. Hopefully in the US member states will have same rights as Former Soviet Republics and be able to peacably leave by then though, adn the EU and China can't get back to being the worlds biggest imperial asshats by then ..... it just doesn't suit us very well and I tired of it.

Humanists

[Doc Ruby]

As usual, the Dutch are the only signs of rational civilization on Earth. Let's give them back Manhattan.

Re:Humanists

[BaseLineNL]

Let's give them back Manhattan.

You do know we'll hold you to that one, right?

Re:Humanists

[Doc Ruby]

Since you're dealing with a native, born in the territory of the tribe that sold it to your ancestors, I'll have to ask for the $24 back - with our compounded interest, of course ;). Or we could just lease it to you, provided the Mayor of Amsterdam administer it under A-dam law... skoal!

Re:Humanists

[Doc Ruby]

Er, "proost"!

Re:Humanists

[BaseLineNL]

I'll have to ask for the $24 back - with our compounded interest, of course ;)

Very well. We'll consider depositing the amount of trinkets sold to you in 1626 with interest. One more question - how many trinkets will it cost per year when we lease it?

Re:Humanists

[Doc Ruby]

Only one for each qualifying New Yorker. But I have to warn you: trinket style has changed since then.

Re:Humanists

[bbc]

"Let's give them back Manhattan."

I heard somewhere we already own it (or large chunks of it).

Re:Humanists

[Doc Ruby]

It's true that New Yorkers have been clever enough to sell some Manhattan real estate twice to Dutch people. But hardly "large chunks". Unless you've got some hidden deeds and treaties we've yet to break...

This is Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Do you have to worry about breaking the law by sleeping with a girl below 18? No.

This is Slashdot! It should be:

3. Do you have to worry about breaking the law by paying for sex? No!

Now, that's a paradise for slashdotters! *runs to catch a plane*

Re:This is Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Do you have to worry about breaking the law by paying for sex? No!

That goes for most of Europe. Only the Swedes were stupid enough to criminalise the buyers a few years ago. And a large group of women in the Norwegian Parliament were proposing that the prostitutes should be criminalised. For their own good, of course!

Pimping is prohibited, which makes brothels more or less illegal. The prostitutes are not too thrilled about that.

I believe you are wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The result of the decision by the dutch goverment is that the Central European Commission cannot continue with it's intention to put the proposal on the agenda for approval. Instead the European parlement has the initiative again: they can rethink the whole plan."

With all due respect, my limited knowledge of EU politics leds me to believe that you are wrong, and are seriously misinforming people here (especially since you've been mod'd +4).

This vote is not binding on the Dutch Minister. And he will probably vote the same way again, in favour of Software Patents. Which means that Patents will pass, and never get back to the Parliment.

If the Dutch Minister actually DID vote as directed, then you might be correct. But right now, I see absolutely nothing stopping the adoption of Software Patents in Europe.

Now, I'm not European. And what little I know has come from previous Slashdot articles. Of course, such knowledge is inherently dangerous. :)

So, if you could please back up your assertion that the CEC cannot continue? If not, could you please retract or clarify it?
And I believe this parent post should be seriously mod'd down, as it is at best misleading.

Thank you.

Re:I believe you are wrong.

[neanderlander]

If the Dutch Minister actually DID vote as directed, then you might be correct. But right now, I see absolutely nothing stopping the adoption of Software Patents in Europe.

Yes you are right, the issue is far more complex then i thought. (The fact that the dutch press coverage made it appear 'a done deal' is no excuse for my too simplistic response.) So to sort things out, i did look up the actual notes of the session in the dutch parlement. The notes make one thing clear: it's a very very complex dossier: lots of parties involved. What the vote (of the ducth parlement) comes down to is that if the software proposal is put on the european agenda, the dutch representative should vote against it (But she is not 100% obliged to do it). Voting against it, might clear the way for the European parlement to re-draw a new proposal.

The dutch parlement has strong suspicions that the proposal might be sneaked into an agenda and be voted on while strong opposition excists. The opposition (european parlement) though has no influence at this moment because of the current status. A blocking vote might bring the proposal back into the influence of the the european parlement.

The strange thing, though, is that the dutch minister, responsible for representing the vote in the european sphere, seems unwilling to block the vote. She says that we should trust the current chairing country (Luxembourg) in it's wisdom to do what's right and she also says that it is not the right time in the procedure to block the vote. The dutch parlement is not so sure about that. (Note: Luxembourg is responsible for managing the agenda and thus for putting up the proposal for voting.)

Despite the dutch vote, the dutch minister may still ignore the dutch parlementary vote.

EU COMMISION DOESN'T CREATE LAW !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only DIRECTIVES for consideration for the individual sovereign state governments WHO CREATE LAW. Please don't spread misinformation. EU is nothing like US federal government.

Obligatory Monte Python quote

[Inzkeeper]

You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes... We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major... Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

odd

[theco]

Ah, me thinks your geography's a bit off...