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

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

Background information from FFII

[Halo1]

• Press release
• English translation of the motion

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 :-)

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: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.

Can you trust the patent system?

[OwlWhacker]

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

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: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".