Slashdot Mirror


European Parliament Rejects Software Patents

heretic9 writes "The European Parliament unanimously rejected the software patent bill recently put before it. Hugo Lueders of CompTIA, a pro-patent lobby group, said that the benefits of the bill had been obscured by special interest groups, which muddied debate about the rights and wrongs of software patents." Meaning, essentially, that the Conference of Presidents got its way.

357 comments

  1. The Europeans Get It Right, Again by the_mad_poster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another example of the far more sensible approach our friends across the pond take to things. Even though the majority of people are citizens, not corporations, we only value the corporations when it comes time to protect "people" over here in america because they have the majority of money.

    --
    Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    1. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by JeremyGL · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think you can attribute this to things being more sensible over here. In this instance I think we just got lucky (or got some politicians who have figured out that patents will mainly benefit large corporations, most of whom are American)

      Cheers
      Jeremy

    2. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by stinerman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Thats just the thing. Corporations are legally entitled to all the rights of people. That is what makes them so powerful. You can't jail a corporation; indeed, the worst you can do is revoke its charter (which doesn't happen very often). Basically most corporate punishment comes down to fines, which, if not hefty enough, don't deter future misconduct.

      Read up on Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886). This is the case that defined corporations as legal people, with all the fun rights we enjoy.

      IMO, a constitutional amendment to revoke such rights is in order. I do recall presidential candidates David Cobb (Green), and Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) calling for those rights to be eliminated. Cobb asked for a constitutional amendment, but Badnarik did not endorse an amendment outright.

    3. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Jack+Taylor · · Score: 1

      True, but it still worries me how many people in Europe are willing to pander to the interests of corporations with laws like these *cough*tonyblair*cough*... It's a good job there are lots of people in the EU lobbying for open source, and just the people in general.

      --
      One good turn - gets all the covers.
    4. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      And also know that Union Pacific now owns Southern Pacific, so it can be said that Union Pacific is what caused the downfall of our country. They also (through a grandfathered law of the 1800s) have the only private security force in the US with full arresting and authorization to use lethal force.

    5. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Joules+Burn · · Score: 1

      If corporations have the rights of people, and people can't own other people, then why can a corporation own or be owned by another corporation?

    6. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by lspd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Another example of the far more sensible approach our friends across the pond take to things.

      If you mean sensible because they because they rejected software patents....sure.

      But dear lord, look at how much trouble it is to kill this one stupid bill in the EU. How many times does a bill have to be rejected before it really dies over there?

    7. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by morganew · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This bunko quasi-political rhetoric is getting tired. While in some cases there is a legal difference between people and corporations, who do you think makes up corporation?!?

      People!

      People with jobs, families, communities, little league teams, the works.

      This business of trying to make out corporations as some kind of faceless inhuman creature is just silly.

      Government officials works hard to assist corporations because they know that if those corporations go under, people lose jobs, and then so does the Government official!

      And do you really think it is any different in the EU? Do you think that government subsidies to a Corporation like Airbus is somehow 'better' because it was done on the other side of the pond?

      Get a grip! Corporations are a way to pool resources to get tasks completed in an efficient manner. The structure rewards the risk takers (investors) and creators with greater remuneration (cash, stocks) and allows them to pick who will direct the efficient use of the corporate resources. At the end of the day, all of this is done by people.

      I don't think even one faceless robot is involved! Fancy that...

      --
      A sig?!? I don't think so.....
    8. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by stinerman · · Score: 1

      I have often thought the same things. If corporations are legally people, then they should have all the same rights of people.

      For instance, why can't corporations wed? Why can't they adopt children?

      This kind of craziness happens when rights are given to abstract concepts.

    9. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by jcdick1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that coporations pay taxes. As such, this entitles them to those rights. They pay, they gain. However, what they pay in taxes is minimal compared to what the citizenry pay. The solution is not a constitutional amendment. The solution is to eliminate corporate income tax. If they don't pay taxes, they would no longer be "corporate citizens."

      This would also go far in eliminating political finance problems. If they don't have that "freedom of speech" ability to make contributions, the parties would have to rely expressly on federal campaign funds and those from individual voters.

      --
      What?
    10. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But those same people aren't held responsible when the corporation harms someone or breaks the law. Limited liability gives investors all of the freedom and none of the responsibility that would normally go with a free market.

    11. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by SunPin · · Score: 2, Informative

      What country are you in? Corporations don't pay taxes in addition to their many other benefits as "people." That's part of the problem. They have a million loopholes to get out of taxes.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    12. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by the_mad_poster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...and those from individual voters.

      You are aware, I assume, that individual voters run corporations and that it would be a trivial book keeping matter to redirect the campaign funds business gives through the respective business owners who could, then, legally give them to the people running for office?

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    13. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's not the majority of those people's intent that gets the priority. It's money, the majority of which never gets to those people anyway.

      Corporations are inherently greedy, and will do whatever they can to keep the profits up, even if it looks unethical.

    14. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Lisandro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For instance, why can't corporations wed? Why can't they adopt children?

      Wasn't this the driving idea behind The Truman show. Scary... let's not give them any ideas ok?

    15. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by jcdick1 · · Score: 1

      You have to think about the family store down the street that is owned by "Family Grocery, Inc.", with the mom and pop being the sole shareholders. They pay a good chunk of taxes. But exempt them, too. Sure, individual income tax would have to go up a bit to compensate, but the economy would go like gangbusters...

      --
      What?
    16. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      For instance, why can't corporations wed? Why can't they adopt children?
      What do you think mergers are?

      And many private foundations take care of abandonned and orphaned children.

    17. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by stinerman · · Score: 1

      Corporations are a way to pool resources to get tasks completed in an efficient manner.

      Agreed, 100%. The "corporations are evil" nonsense coming from my fellow liberals needs to stop. It is the people of which the corporation consists that need to be punished.

      This problem is what happens when you give an abstract concept the rights of people. Describe what a corporation looks like. What are some of its hobbies? What does a corporation sound like? ...

      It seems redundant that the corporation itself has rights as well as the people who make up the corporation.

    18. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by NoMercy · · Score: 1

      The problem is, when blinding helping the coroprations to ensure they can continue to grow and provide jobs, the little guys who employ just as many but don't have a single voice to speak up get ignored.

      Hundreds of small businesses have formed alliances against software patents, but they don't have anywhere near the same clout as bill gates saying software patents are good.

    19. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This bunko quasi-political rhetoric is getting tired. While in some cases there is a legal difference between people and corporations, who do you think makes up corporation?!?
      People!
      People with jobs, families, communities, little league teams, the works.
      This business of trying to make out corporations as some kind of faceless inhuman creature is just silly.
      Bourgeois nonsense.

      Business is what free people do. Business is an act, not something tangible.

      Businesses are NOT people anymore than the shopping spree you did last week-end is human.
      Corporations are NOT human, so they cannot enjoy any kind of human right whatsoever.

    20. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by jcdick1 · · Score: 1

      But individual campaign contributions are already regulated. There are pretty steep restrictions on how much any single contributor can give to a single candidate, candidate committee, party committee, etc. $2000, if I remember correctly for any single candidate per election cycle.

      --
      What?
    21. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but unfortunately they still smell and their women do not shave, which probably explains their men's homo-erotic tendencies.

    22. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by stinerman · · Score: 1

      I agree. Eliminating corporate taxes is job #1 in reforming the tax code.

      Of course, being a rabid pinko-commie leftist, I think the capital gains tax should be >= 50%. It just seems to me that labor should be taxed the least.

    23. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      wow you stupid?

      corperations are there to SHIELD the people behind it from penalty.

      without a corperation a scumbag CEO would think twice before doing something tha twill get his ass personally sued out of existance. under a corp he can do what he pleases without any reprocussions other than getting fired ...oooohhh so scary... Fired ceo's get hired as CEO at other places quickly. look at the enron Executive staff...

    24. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      A corporation is a single entity the way an ant colony or beehive is a single entity.

      It is composed of many individuals working together for the benefit of a select few under penalty of expulsion, oblivious to the effect its work has on the world around it.

      A corporation creates an environment where a person is told to place profits ahead of legality, the global environment, human rights and its workers' quality of life. Those who make those types of decisions are difficult or impossible to punish.

      No faceless robots make up a corporation, but a publicly-held corporation is certainly a faceless thing. It is a single entity with an incredible amount of resources and concern for nothing other than short-term profit.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    25. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The problem is that coporations pay taxes. As such, this entitles them to those rights.

      Ah, no, whether or not a not-real legally-defined entity like a corporation pays taxes is pretty much irrelevant to whether the government considers corporations people. The problem is the Supreme Court decisions giving corporations "personhood". See this link for an interesting little essay on how the Supreme Court managed to "create" corporate personhood.

      They (the SC) may have successfully tied the concept of corporate personhood to enough precedents to make it "Constitutional", which means that the legislatures would have to pass a Constitutional Amendment to explicitly "undefine" corporate personhood. Of course, given corporate lobbying power, what do you think the chances of THAT happening is?

      Actually, a Constitutional Amendment to restrict personhood to real-life individuals makes a _lot_ more sense to me than a stupid amendment to define marriage as "between one man and one woman". Hey, if corporations have personhood, can you marry a corporation?

    26. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the economy would go like gangbusters

      You think?

      I suspect that probably 90% of the big corporations (not incorporated mom&pop places) would end up with a CEO that said "Hey look, massive profits in my watch! Bonus!" and walk off with the difference.

    27. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      The problem is that coporations pay taxes. As such, this entitles them to those rights

      All they really earn from paying those taxes is the right to transact business. The rest are artifically granted thanks to a stray supreme court ruling.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    28. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is really good news for those of us in the US worried about the economy!
      No corporation with a CEO with higher than a 3rd grade education is going to spend R&D dollars in the UE!
      Welcome to America new corporations!

    29. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Strangely enough, I don't believe you. If a corporation has the same rights, it should have the same responsibilities. That's so obviously not true that I leave it to you to demonstrate to your own curiosity.

      Furthermore, if a corporation kills, it should be jailed for it. When's the last time that happened? Right, it never has.

      Until the Corporate Death Penalty is explicitly enacted de facto or de jure, then I'll start believing in a corporation's "personhood".

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    30. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      How about the death penalty? Corporations that commit crimes should face the death penalty. Why is Union Carbide still in business after killing thousands of people in India?

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    31. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by David+Leppik · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Thats just the thing. Corporations are legally entitled to all the rights of people. That is what makes them so powerful.


      (Disclaimer: IANAL.)



      That's not entirely true. Corporations have the right to enter into contracts as people. They like to pretend to have other rights, such as freedom of speech. As I understand it, the NRA tried to get a radio station last year to bypass restrictions on their speech-- that is, the tried to join the constitutionally protected press.



      Despite the corporate personhood implied by Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), corporations have not been allowed to vote or excercize similar rights.



      If you honestly believe that corporations have all the rights of a person, try to get married to a corporate entity. If Starbucks spurns you, try a non-profit entity such as the ACLU.


    32. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People with jobs, families, communities, little league teams, the works.

      I don't see anyone calling for people to lose the right to vote because they work for Wal-Mart. I don't see people calling for the end to individual donations to campaigns.

      Get a grip! Corporations are a way to pool resources to get tasks completed in an efficient manner

      Yes to "get tasks completed". Not to bribe public officials. No, government subsidies to companies/people that provide the president/congressman/whatever-voting-official a hefty kickback are bad on any continent.

      This business of trying to make out corporations as some kind of faceless inhuman creature is just silly.

      Penny Arcade has a good tutorial on this. These CxOs and what have you get behind the corporate veil and go hog wild. When they get caught behind the wheel after a drunken joy ride they go "I'm a an incompetent manager who had no idea what the people in my charge were doing. I guess I'll take my $20 million bonus for being a loser and go home now." And hey, thats ok, because even though they're paid to be the "face" of the corporation, they're just as blameless as everyone else in it.

      Maybe if the people in charge didn't hide behind the corporate veil when they screw up (or better yet, not screw up in the first place), people would quit calling them "faceless inhuman creatures".

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    33. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      look up "Piercing the Corporate Veil"

      You Can Have One, Too!

    34. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Can we make this a consistant rule? I mean, I currently pay taxes and I'm not a citizen (and it's not exactly a rubber-stamp process to get citizenship either.) Can you persuade the IRS to let me off paying taxes (plus get the State of Florida and the Feds to refund usage taxes I pay), or could you, conversely, ask them to treat me as a citizen?

      Thanks in advance,

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    35. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the fine upstanding WWE wrestling, abu graib sodomizing Americans.

      Nothing homo-erotic there.

    36. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 1

      And that's a lot of why I consider myself Green/Democrat/Libertarian.

    37. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Eternal+Annoyance · · Score: 1

      This only applies in the legal insanity which is called United States of America. The U.S.A. doesn't encompass the entire world, you know (although its economic and military power is felt worldwide).

      Most other nations had some time to think about a descent law system.

    38. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by nutrock69 · · Score: 1

      - Despite the corporate personhood implied by Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), corporations have not been allowed to vote or excercize similar rights.

      Right. Which is why they simply buy the candidates directly instead. Eliminates the middleman and takes the voters out of the equation.

    39. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (Disclaimer: IANAL.)
      Me tarzan, you anal!
    40. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 1

      Why should an investor be liable for a company? If I tell Bob that he can give me $500 and expect $600 at a later date why should he be liable if I use the $500 for the gun I shoot the bank teller with when I rob him?

      If my father owns stock in Wal-Mart and they get caught running puppy-mills and pimping out cashiers should my father be arrested or just lose all the money he invested?

      The liability is limited to the amount of money you want to invest in the company. The more money you invest the more responsible you will be held when the stock price bottoms out.

      Corporations aren't mindless automatons, they're groups of people who've agreed through their charter to share financial responsibility. If a crime is being committed it's not by a corporation, it's by a subset of the people in the corporation.

      --
      Direct away from face when opening.
    41. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by betasam · · Score: 1

      Sensible or not, they got the general idea: The term "patent" originates from the Latin word patere which means to lay open (to public inspection) and the term letters patent, which originally denoted royal decrees granting exclusive rights to certain individuals or businesses. [src:wikipedia]. So enough sensibility that we aren't royalty forms of governments and as francis bacon once said, knowledge (today information) in itself is power.

      --
      No Greater Friend, No Greater Enemy! (Lucius Cornelius Sulla)
    42. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by EiZei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But in europe they necessarily are not considered to have all rights. The finnish constitution explicitly states that the same rules do not apply to corporations for example.

    43. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      If you honestly believe that corporations have all the rights of a person, try to get married to a corporate entity. If Starbucks spurns you, try a non-profit entity such as the ACLU.

      You could also start a hundred numbered corporations in order to get 101 votes in the next election.

    44. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "If you honestly believe that corporations have all the rights of a person, try to get married to a corporate entity. If Starbucks spurns you, try a non-profit entity such as the ACLU."

      The united states (and most countries) denies that right to people to. Try getting married to some one of the same sex.

    45. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Corporations don't pay taxes in addition to their many other benefits as "people." That's part of the problem. They have a million loopholes to get out of taxes.

      Indeed, setting the corporate tax rate at 90% of revenue and eliminating all loopholes would solve all of our problems.

    46. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Spodlink05 · · Score: 0

      You can't jail a corporation; indeed, the worst you can do is revoke its charter (which doesn't happen very often). Basically most corporate punishment comes down to fines, which, if not hefty enough, don't deter future misconduct.

      Actually you can jail a corporation - well, you can jail the CEO or whoever has overall responsibility. This is a bit iffy as you have to link a person, or persons, to the corporation which is not always going to be easy. This is a relatively new law in the UK AFAIK.
      Have a look at this summary"

    47. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction,

      US citizens got it right too.
      It's just the EU politicians that are doing their job. Most of the time they get criticized (I guess, because they make more money than plebs like you and me). Though I am sure there are rotten appels like in any national parliament, I bet the amount of idealists vastly outnumbers them. Think of it, how many EU politicians do you know? And how many National politicians do you know? The national top they leave behind usually has more fame too it than a EU career. And the money? Well, you too can apply for their job.

      disclaimer: I'm just working in IT in a public company, nothing political related and that's the way I like it. But this case showed for me again how productive it is to work together in a stuctured way, something that we tend to forget.

    48. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Corporations aren't mindless automatons, they're groups of people who've agreed through their charter to share financial responsibility. If a crime is being committed it's not by a corporation, it's by a subset of the people in the corporation.

      As far as what you say goes, this is true. However, let's say that you and 3 other people all give Harry $200 each, and say that you expect $250 each back after a specified time, as long as he handles the money the way you want him to. You then tell Harry that you've all decided together (with you personally being a bit unsure about this, but the other two overruled you) that you'll pull your money out unless he gets your interest money very soon, and if you don't see that he has a gun and a mask in his posession within 3 hours, you'll pull out your money immediately.

      You see, although a lot of people look on the stock exchange purely as a way to grow their money, investing in a company involves becoming part of the group that decides how that company is run. The Board is responsable to the shareholders, and the employees are responsable to the Board. The Corporation is made up of the shareholders and the Board, and they hire employees. It is ultimately the shareholders as a body who are responsable for what happens in a company. If the Board does something against the wishes of the shareholders, the Board bears full responsability for those actions. If the employees do something against the wishes of the Board, those employees bear responsability for those actions. Thus, just as parents (the corporation) are responsable for the actions of their children, investors are responsable for the actions of the corporation -- and the individuals are also responsable for their individual actions.

    49. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you knew ahead of time he was going to use that money to buy a gun and rob a bank, you will definitely be liable!

      I'd be funding criminal activity.. and that in itself is a crime.

    50. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      companies would invest more in people, unless you plan on taxing IP as well as goods and profit.

      What country so you live in '90%' tax for people.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    51. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      If I tell Bob that he can give me $500 and expect $600 at a later date why should he be liable if I use the $500 for the gun I shoot the bank teller with when I rob him?

      This analogy is begging the question. For it to work, it assumes that a corporation is a separate person with a mind of its own. If Bob's $500 loan somehow gave him partial ownership of your free will, then the situations would be comparable. A CEO is obligated (by law, not just by contract) to maximize the return on that $500, you are not.

      Corporate crime tends to be more ongoing than your example. Suppose a corporation has been increasing its pollution over several years, up to 99% of the legal limit. Here the CEO is just carrying out the will of the shareholders. Then the company pollutes just a little bit more. Now suddenly, the CEO is a lone wolf criminal and the shareholders are completely off the hook? I don't buy it.

      If my father owns stock in Wal-Mart and they get caught running puppy-mills and pimping out cashiers should my father be arrested or just lose all the money he invested?

      Should he be completely off the hook either? How about something in between? If your father happened to sell his stock at the high before the scandal was discovered, why should he get to keep his ill-gotten gains? He should lose any profits he made trading Wal-Mart's stock during the period in which illegal activity was occuring. Shareholders do bear some of the blame in their silence. Your puppy/pimp conspiracy could never succeed without the shareholders willfully looking the other way as long as their portfolios increase. They can hire these shady CEOs and turn a blind eye because they know that there are no real consequences for them personally. Occasionally the shareholders do get burned (as with Enron), but overall the expected value of investing in a criminal enterprise is positive.

    52. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      A CEO that said "Hey look, massive profits in my watch! Bonus!" and walk off with the difference.

      Isn't that what they do anyway?

      If I set up a company and work as a sole trader, I can deduct, heating costs, part of my rent, travel expenses, company car, any cloths I may need for my job etc... I can then pay my self via dividends &co. so that I pay less tax than I otherwise would.

      With the VAT and Income tax coming off of the 10-20% of my purchases that are deductible I save about 50%.

      Anyone earning in the UK earning more than £50,000 a year can probably save themselves £5,000 by setting up a company.

      I can also keep myself in a lower tax band.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    53. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Lysol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First off, yes, people make up corporations. However, it was also people that worked for Bechtel that decided it was ok to own all the rain water in Bolivia. Of course, so did their government, but those people went home and slept well at night knowing that they ok'd owning the rain water of another country.

      While corps are a way to pool resources, they also grant legal rights combined with (usually) vast cash resources. Combine those two and you have an entity that pretty much does what it wants (see Microsoft:MSFT).

      I've been to the EU many times and can definitely feel the 'work to live and not live to work' vibe. In fact, I'm ok with some of the US capitalist ideals and values. I definitely believe in hard work and have no prob putting as much as I can into projects I see worthy.

      However, the way the US capitalist system is now, is unbalanced and not sustainable. While EU does have corporations, you don't see any CEO's of energy companies here talking about green energy like the CEO of BP does. After two world wars, the EU and its people finally understands that they are here for the long haul.

      Their rejection of patents isn't a us vs. them thing, it's more like, they understand the importance of software in the coming future and instead of allowing the priviledged, wealthy few (corporations), to control it all, they'd rather let everyone compete on a more equal level.

      Granted, Europe is not the holy grail of life. And they have bad guys there too. But at some point you have to go in another direction. You can't keep going in a straight line and hope u don't run into a wall. The capitalist system has served the US pretty well (some would argue not) up to this point. But Bush's ownership society and collapsing of social programs will hurt only the poor and elderly even more. And what good is a society that doesn't help the poor and elderly? It's in the best interest of everyone that we are all taken care of to some point. Of course how much is always the debate.

      While I don't see the law governing corps being substantially changed by government - ever - it will be up to those not just on the inside (cuz, hey, why should they change when they got it good?) but by those outside as well. They'll demand more responsibility, integrity, and ethical behavior from the corps. And it'll happen because not only is it happening elsewhere - like the EU - but because it's just plain not sustainable.

      So, sure, give credit to the fact that people do make up a corporation. But hold them accountable for what they're involved with. And bring down some of the barriers that protect them so easily and thusly encourage them to step over the line.

      How much does that VP soccer mom, whose 'group of people' (did) own all the water rights to Bolivia's water, feel for those other children? No much because she has no one to answer to. She is shielded behind laws designed to protect that behavior and the bottom line.

    54. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by innerweb · · Score: 1
      Which is why so much is done in India and China where they have no protection either. Right.

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    55. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can save money, sure. But in your scenario did you pocket the difference or did you hire someone, invest in research towards a new product, or do anything to "make the economy go like gangbusters"?

    56. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...For instance, why can't corporations wed?..."

      Because Bush says a mariage is the union between a man and a woman. And he no doubt wants it to be a union between corporations and government too. What gender is a corporation? Who is going to be on top? Who will be saying not tonight, I have a headache? Who will be forgetting the wedding anniversary or the their first date? Soon, we'll have cats and dogs living together... what's the world comming to?

    57. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by nerdlyone · · Score: 1
      Furthermore, if a corporation kills, it should be jailed for it. When's the last time that happened? Right, it never has.

      This makes me laugh. How, exactly, would you jail a corporation? Put all its employees in jail? Or put a copy of its corporate logo in jail?

      A corporation is a legal entity, yes, but this is not quite the same as it being an actual person. Corporate status as a legal entity is a good thing, it provides liability protection, which fosters investment, and also allows corporations to sue (and, more importantly, be sued) in court. Why do people think this is the root of all evil? The US is a market leader in the world because we have strong corporations (among other reasons). Corporations provide jobs. They are simply organizations of...humans.

    58. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 1

      Corporations have the right to enter into contracts as people. They like to pretend to have other rights, such as freedom of speech.

      Corporations can only act through human agents, so the question of whether the "corporation" has a right to freedom of speech is meaningless. You can't prevent an employee of the corporation from expressing the corporation's message without interfering with the employee's freedom of speech.

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
    59. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Bluetick · · Score: 1

      Why would a corporation need to vote when it can just buy politicians? This isn't a right granted to most citizens.

    60. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by equivocal · · Score: 1

      As legal people shouldn't corporations have the right to vote and run for elected office? After all, corporations are subject to the political process, they should be able to fully participate in it (essentially the same argument made in 1886).

      Best part about fines (and lobbying costs too) is they're just expensed and passed back to the consumer.

    61. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Hey, if corporations have personhood, can you marry a corporation?

      Only if it is at least 14 years old (depending upon the state), and of the opposite gender.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    62. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      That's the current system, as it is today.

      The idea isn't to 'pocket' the difference but spend in a way that 'duel use' products are purchased by the company, tax free.

      I personally sped a reasonable amount of money for things that I will only ever use or mainly use for work, like my car, the petrol I put in it, work cloths (those ties in the cupboard aren't an extension of my suicidal tendencies) etc... I still have to pay 100% of the taxes on this.

      'fat cats' who do drain off company, and get substantial 'fringe benefits' would never even think of paying tax on those kind of things. So, who's the keeper of the Inn, the companies, the fat cats, or us poor people.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    63. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If a person can be jailed, then we can clearly see that their freedoms can be taken away. Hence, to "jail" a corporation, we should similarly take away their freedoms. After all, we have long had the precedents of "receivership" and other forms of managed bankruptcies; therefore, some variant could be used for the jailed corporation.

      In other words, the corporation that breaks the law to the degree where jail seems necessary, should effectively be nationalized for a period. That should be a sufficient scare tactic to convince them to obey the law; after all, that's the philosophy of individual legal punishments, right?

      So ... are you really so lacking in enough imagination that you can't come up with these kinds of solution? If anything, you appear to be under the impression that We The People simply cannot apply controls to corporations. We can. And unless we want to continue sinkling into economic slavery, we should.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    64. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by bbc · · Score: 1

      "Why should an investor be liable for a company?"

      The word investor is perhaps a bit misleading, lending an air of impartiality to the person who's investing. An investor is an owner. As such, he has the last word as to what a company does or does not.

    65. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by BenTels0 · · Score: 1
      But dear lord, look at how much trouble it is to kill this one stupid bill in the EU. How many times does a bill have to be rejected before it really dies over there?

      Only once, which it hasn't been yet. It might look like that to the casual observer, but the status of this bill so far has almost always been "in negotiation between Parliament and Council". Somewhat like the American Congress, both "houses" of the EU's law-making apparatus are allowed to amend -- whih means bills can go back and forth while the two boedies try to work out a text that satisfies both.

      Note that (as far as I can tell), even now the bill hasn't actually been rejected; the Parliament has simply demanded that the entire process start over from scratch. If this is refused, then it becomes likely the Parliament will reject outright and toss the entire bill on the heap.

      Just to be clear about the difference:

      • If the process is started again, we will probably end up with a European patenting law (albeit probably one that will not allow anything like American-style software patenting).
      • If the Parliament rejects, there is no more proposal and therefore no law.
    66. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah....

    67. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Subsidies, protectionism have been rife in the air industry for decades, US protectionism predates Airbus' subsidies/loans.

      But what really pissed the Europeans off was Concorde. Undoubtably superior technology it was designed for intercontinental flights (can't go supersonic over land to avoid sonic booms) across oceans therefore main routes were Europe - USA and USA - Asia. The US airlines blocked purchases of Concordes so there was no efficiencies of scale and prices stayed high.

      Somewhat similar is the Harrier jump jet invented by the Brits. As the Brits suck up to the yanks more they allowed themselves to be bullied in to giving the tech to the USA and getting a deal on planes they bought from USA. But the yanks didn't get the tech right so the plane is to heavy, as a result carriers have had to have their decks strengthened and the range of places the planes can land/take off from is more restricted (the extra thrust required to lift the extra mass destroys the landing place).

    68. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by anonymous22 · · Score: 1

      So the corporations pay taxes. So what. I pay taxes, not in Europe though. If the corporations can have that sort of lobbying power just because they pay taxes, my lobbying power should be as much as their's.

      --
      Anyone who runs is V.C. Anyone who stands still is well-disciplined V.C.
      Door Gunner, Full Metal Jacket
    69. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by ralphclark · · Score: 1

      I fully agree with the sentiment in principle. But "We the people" doesn't exist in America and hasn't for a long time now. The establishment rules, and I think you'll find that (short of a popular revolt by the majority) they will only continue to increase their hold on things.

      s regards the prospects of such a revolt (whether armed or "velvet" as in erstwhile Czechoslovakia), don't hold your breath. That could only happen if the economy tanked so badly that the middle class were to disappear. As long as the majority are at least comfortable, there can be no revolution and thus no change.

    70. Re:The Europeans Get It Right, Again by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      There are problems with a corporation not having any rights that a person has though. For example, if a corporation didn't have say, the fourth amendment, anything could be seized. Want an example of how this can be abused? Company A pays the DA to have all of Company B's computers seized. Or better yet, GroceryStore A has all of GroceryStore B's fruits and vegetables and meats and milks seized for a week and stored in a hot and humid warehouse. Congrads, A just put B out of business. Just think of what could happen to hotels without the 3rd (boarding of military personel without permission and compensation), anyone without the 5th (double jeproady) Keep someone in the courts forever at public expense, 6th (speedy trial), 8th (excessive punishments) Diner Fined 5 million for a minor health violation, This is just what I can think of off the top of my head in the first ten. Not to mention that Journalists that work for Newspapers rely on the 1st in order to stay in business. Without the 1st, the Journalists can be shut up becuase the companies they work for can be shut up.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  2. benefits of the bill?! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 4, Funny

    Doesn't he mean benefits to Bill!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:benefits of the bill?! by game+kid · · Score: 1

      He definitely saw a benefit there, but now he will just concentrate on his new line of Office products.

      His next Product: Microsoft(R) Strategy Re-Planner(TM).

      (It will come bundled with Microsoft Defeat Downplay(TM) and a new version of Microsoft Company Acquirer(R). Acquirer's been around, thus the registered mark.)

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  3. 1-0 by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's a 1-0 for FOSS. But let's keep in mind that the other side will not give up that easily.

    1. Re:1-0 by Anita+Coney · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They will only give up when software patents are legal. This is going to be a LONG fight.

      And I just don't get why Europe would EVER legalize software patents. Right now they are legal in Australia, India, the US, and Japan. So basically, right not, Europe is the only place in the industrialized world which can do something simple like include a help icon in its software.

      Without software patents, Europe will become a Mecca of software development!

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    2. Re:1-0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Indeed, they seem to be harassing the parliament in a such a way that the possibility of software patents being accepted goes thinner and thinner.
      Here is an interview with the head of EU parliament juridic commission: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F %2Fwww.lemonde.fr%2Fweb%2Frecherche_articleweb%2F1 %2C13-0%2C36-398497%2C0.html&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=e n&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

      There is something politicians do not like, and this is being trampled over. Apparently software patent apologists have overstated their point dangerously.

    3. Re:1-0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is *not* OSS vs Commercial soft, it's smaller software companies (and OSS) vs the big multinational corporations.

    4. Re:1-0 by Jack+Taylor · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but the really good news here is that they won't be able to pass a bill with the same wording through parliament for quite a few years now.

      --
      One good turn - gets all the covers.
    5. Re:1-0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is something politicians do not like, and this is being trampled over."

      Sadly, those same politicians have absolutely no qualms about trampling over the ordinary people (whom the politicians are supposed to serve rather than dictate, but they conveniently forget that the day after an election...)

    6. Re:1-0 by AceJohnny · · Score: 1

      What's the status on software patents in two other 'emerging' markets: India and China?
      If they don't have patents, they'll beat Europe to dust in being any sort of Mecca...

      --
      Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
    7. Re:1-0 by Fref · · Score: 1

      I'd need further investigation to be sure, but I think that the whole world doesn't amount to just US, Australia, India, US, Japan and Europe... ;)

      And, AFAIK, software patents are not relevant for a country like China...

    8. Re:1-0 by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      India recently enacted software patents. I bet China will, but whether it will enforce them in favor of outsiders, that's a different issue.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    9. Re:1-0 by back_pages · · Score: 5, Informative
      In an effort to advance the discussion and understanding of the American patent system, I would like to point out that software is actually not patentable in the US.

      Here are some relavant portions of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (the bible by which patents are examined in the US.)

      The USPTO's public MPEP
      From MPEP 2106, all emphasis added
      The claimed invention as a whole must accomplish a practical application. That is, it must produce a "useful, concrete and tangible result." State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373, 47 USPQ2d at 1601-02. The purpose of this requirement is to limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of "real world" value, as opposed to subject matter that represents nothing more than an idea or concept, or is simply a starting point for future investigation or research (Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 528-36, 148 USPQ 689, 693-96); In re Ziegler, 992, F.2d 1197, 1200-03, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603-06 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Accordingly, a complete disclosure should contain some indication of the practical application for the claimed invention, i.e., why the applicant believes the claimed invention is useful.

      ...

      A process that consists solely of the manipulation of an abstract idea is not concrete or tangible. See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See also Schrader, 22 F.3d at 295, 30 USPQ2d at 1459. Office personnel have the burden to establish a prima facie case that the claimed invention as a whole is directed to solely an abstract idea or to manipulation of abstract ideas or does not produce a useful result. Only when the claim is devoid of any limitation to a practical application in the technological arts should it be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Compare Musgrave, 431 F.2d at 893, 167 USPQ at 289; In re Foster, 438 F.2d 1011, 1013, 169 USPQ 99, 101 (CCPA 1971). Further, when such a rejection is made, Office personnel must expressly state how the language of the claims has been interpreted to support the rejection.

      ...

      There is always some form of physical transformation within a computer because a computer acts on signals and transforms them during its operation and changes the state of its components during the execution of a process. Even though such a physical transformation occurs within a computer, such activity is not determinative of whether the process is statutory because such transformation alone does not distinguish a statutory computer process from a nonstatutory computer process. What is determinative is not how the computer performs the process, but what the computer does to achieve a practical application. See Arrhythmia, 958 F.2d at 1057, 22 USPQ2d at 1036.

      ...

      For such subject matter to be statutory, the claimed process must be limited to a practical application of the abstract idea or mathematical algorithm in the technological arts. See Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1543, 31 USPQ2d at 1556-57 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192, 209 USPQ at 10). See also Alappat 33 F.3d at 1569, 31 USPQ2d at 1578-79 (Newman, J., concurring) ("unpatentability of the principle does not defeat patentability of its practical applications") (citing O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) at 114-19). A claim is limited to a practical application when the method, as claimed, produces a concrete, tangible and useful result; i.e., the method recites a step or act of producing something that is concrete, tangible and useful. See AT&T, 172 F.3d at 1358, 50 USPQ2d at 1452. Likewise, a machine claim is statutory when the machine, as claimed, produces a concrete, tangible and useful result (as in State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373, 47 USPQ2d at 1601) and/or when a specific machine is being claimed (as in Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1544, 31 USPQ2d at 1557 (in banc). For example, a computer process that simply calculates a mathematical

    10. Re:1-0 by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      That's too bad that no one told the jury who awarded MercExchange $29.5 million in damages from Ebay.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    11. Re:1-0 by sepluv · · Score: 1

      Very true.

      I didn't realised the Indian bill had got through. This is amazing as India was (before this bill was passed) a big hub of software (esp. free software) development and probably leading the way in software freedom and technology generally as a country. Also, I believe the president of India is friendly with RMS.

      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    12. Re:1-0 by k98sven · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They will only give up when software patents are legal. This is going to be a LONG fight.

      Perhaps a long fight, but not a constant one.

      Firstly.. the EU almost certainly going to have a directive on the patentability of software. Whether that directive allows or bans software patents isn't determined. But both sides want a directive, and that's what's going to happen.

      Once a directive is passed into law, the issue will be buried for several years. It's the rules of the game. Once an issue has been settled, the politicians won't bring it up again for a while, no matter how strong the lobby. It's how politics works. They don't have time to sit around pushing the same issues back and forward. There are other things to do.

      And I'm not sure it will go on forever anyway. I think that in the long run, the folly of software patents will prove itself.

    13. Re:1-0 by Vicegrip · · Score: 1

      "A claim is limited to a practical application when the method, as claimed, produces a concrete, tangible and useful result; i.e., the method recites a step or act of producing something that is concrete, tangible and useful."

      Out of curiosity what software out there, do you think, doesn't perform this function?

      --
      Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
    14. Re:1-0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS Windows...

    15. Re:1-0 by labratuk · · Score: 1

      I love the way they say "...the benefits of the bill had been obscured by special interest groups" as though the special interest groups are a bad thing.

      Should for instance a farming bill not be influenced by farmers? Farmers are a 'special interest group'.

      In fact, when I think of the phrase 'special interest group' I think of people who have a special interest in getting something through, - i.e. - they're going to be able to screw a lot of money out of people if they get their way, which is far more descriptive of the pro patent lawyer groups / large software companies.

      --
      Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
    16. Re:1-0 by sepluv · · Score: 1
      Firstly.. the EU almost certainly going to have a directive on the patentability of software.
      FTR, we already have a very clear anti-A&IP (algorithmic and information (inc. software) patents) directive in force. The reason the anti-A&IP people want another directive is that the pro-A&IP lobby are making excuses like "we're allowed to break that directive because it was a while back; people think differently now". Also, note that allowing A&IPs violates international treaties like TRIPS.
      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    17. Re:1-0 by torokun · · Score: 1

      Your argument is somewhat correct, but it hinges on what's a congrete and tangible result.

      Under State Street, a price is a concrete and tangible result. I happen to agree.

      It's really ironic to me that many slashdotters would be unable to see the tangible nature of many digital objects now. OS paradigms have begun to stabilize. We know what forms files, music, applications take in software. These are clearly tangible and manipulable objects to most users at this point.

      At some point you have to admit that manipulating song files on a computer really no different than manipulating physical disks, in the sense that both are _subjectively_ concrete tasks manipulating concrete objects. Such digital content should for all intents and purposes be treated as tangible and concrete, in my humble opinion.

    18. Re:1-0 by k98sven · · Score: 1

      FTR, we already have a very clear anti-A&IP (algorithmic and information (inc. software) patents) directive in force.

      Which directive is that? Or are you thinking about the European Patent Convention?

    19. Re:1-0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no convoluted rules for what can/or can't be patented in the USA. The only rule is "Anything can be patented except a living human being". That's from the US Patent office director in the early 90's. Yes you can even patent animals.

    20. Re:1-0 by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Its one thing to patent a way of processing music that produces a result that one could say was tangible. What about that help icon? Is a method for obtaining help tangible and concrete? Does it produce anything? If you say it produces information, does that then mean that the act of teaching is patentable?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  4. It is not over yet... by Synli · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the article: "The latest rejection means that now the bill on computer inventions must go back to the EU for re-consideration."

    --
    "Two things inspire me to awe -- the starry heavens above and the moral universe within." - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:It is not over yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if "the bill on computer inventions" didn't, then "the Bill on computer inventions" would...

  5. Double standard by CaptainAlbert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, when he writes to lawmakers asking them to consider his point of view, it's called "lobbying".

    How come when I do it, it's called "muddying debate"?

    Sheesh...

    --
    These sigs are more interesting tha
    1. Re:Double standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you're not getting quoted in media outlets.

      If it was me getting quoted, I would have called the pro-patent groups "An money grabbing attempt aimed at strangling try inovative software development by European companies, and I hear their moms are fat and do it for 5." No one asked me though.

    2. Re:Double standard by ewe2 · · Score: 1

      Lobbying takes a lot more dough than you or I have, bud.

      --
      insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
    3. Re:Double standard by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      You didn't include a large check(cheque?) with your correspondance.

  6. Microsoft by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, will Bill Gates close all his European operations now, that Europe is clearly Communist?

    1. Re:Microsoft by oreaq · · Score: 1, Funny

      So, will Bill Gates close all his European operations now, that Europe is clearly Communist?
      I live in europe, so i really hope he does.

    2. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then all europeans will play WoW on Macs!

    3. Re:Microsoft by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      70% Funny, 30% Overrated. At least I used the 'sarcasm' tags, imagine if I didn't, it would be 10%Funny 180% Troll!

    4. Re:Microsoft by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If Billy Boy really found such things offensive, he wouldn't be doing the Chinese wong as much as he has. It's all about mo' money for Billy Boy, and the "Communist" label only matters when he doesn't get his way.

      Communist Chinese = capitalist innovators
      Communist Europeans = regressive throwbacks

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    5. Re:Microsoft by SlashDread · · Score: 1

      Probably not. But one can hope.

  7. So why s this bill such a bad thing by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Certain types of software inventions can be patented in Europe, as long as the have a "technological effect". The rules differ between countries (which is presumably why this bill is seen as needed), but what would this legislation permit that isn't already allowable in most countries?

    So why is this such a bad thing?

    1. Re:So why s this bill such a bad thing by Jack+Taylor · · Score: 1

      Because it would mean the member states would all have no choice but to introduce software patents. Better only some countries than a whole continent.

      --
      One good turn - gets all the covers.
    2. Re:So why s this bill such a bad thing by William_Lee · · Score: 1

      It's a bad thing because it essentially allows the same type of ridiculous patenting of software code that is prevalent in the US right now.

      Copyrights are more than adequate to protect the rights of software producers. The idea of patenting code is patently ridiculous!

    3. Re:So why s this bill such a bad thing by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Surely the problem with US patents isn't that they're software based but because there's a lack of novelty. This is a problem in all areas of inniovation, not just software.

      Why was the RSA public key encryption patent such a terrible thing, whereas a patent for a hardware encrytion device is a good thing?

    4. Re:So why s this bill such a bad thing by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Informative

      The doctrine of 'technical effect' is a bizarre example of how a patent office, left to its own devices, will reinterpret the law in increasingly creative ways to expand its own powers.

      As the thread http://www.aful.org/wws/arc/patents/2000-06/msg000 65.html explains, first of all the EPO made a ruling that although programs for computers are explicitly excluded under the European Patent Convention, this did not apply when the computer program could be shown to have a 'technical effect'. This 'technical effect' is nowhere mentioned in the EPC's exclusion; it is an invention by the patent office to have some reason to grant patents on software.

      So for a few years you could get software patents in Europe if you could include some reasoning in your application to say that your program has a 'technical effect' when loaded onto a computer. Since the idea of technical effect is so vague, this allows through any software patent.

      Then a few years later the EPO decided that they might as well drop the pretence, and made another ruling which assumes that all computer programs have a 'technical effect'. So the explicit exclusion in the EPC is being ignored.

      Now, patents granted under this dubious reasoning are not very enforceable. National courts tend to interpret the law as it is written, and not the EPO's creative interpretation. However, if the directive is passed then the already-granted software patents in Europe (which are just as silly as those in the US, see the FFII horror gallery) will become legal.

      The European law on patentability of software does not need 'clarifying', it is already quite explicit. We need to make the patent office follow the law as it stands.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    5. Re:So why s this bill such a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "technical effect" and if the patent lobby can define it, we can discuss it, until then...

    6. Re:So why s this bill such a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It explicitly does NOT allow the same type of ridiculous patenting of software code that is prevalent in the US.

      It specifically mentions business method patents and software having no technical effect as being STILL excluded from patentability.

    7. Re:So why s this bill such a bad thing by morganew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Important distinction:

      You don't patent code, you patent the _method_ for doing something.

      This is a HUGE difference.

      If the patent were just on the code, you could change just a few variable names, and sell it as your own.

      By patenting the method, then you control the very idea.

      Theoretically, it could lead to openness (not Open like OSI) because you have to disclose the method in the patent application. But unfortunately, software method patents take 40 months to get processed, so by the time your method is actually granted a patent, the state of the art has far surpassed your idea.

      --
      A sig?!? I don't think so.....
    8. Re:So why s this bill such a bad thing by earthbound+kid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If the patent were just on the code, you could change just a few variable names, and sell it as your own.
      If The Beatles are allowed to keep DJ Dangermouse from releasing "The Gray Album," which sounds only vaguely like the "The White Album" but used sounds from it in its construction, I'm sure that copyright is sufficient to cover the simple renaming of variables. Software patents are basically unnecessary. Trade secret and copyright laws are more than enough to ensure due compensation is given to the creators of software. Adding patents into the mix just lets people monopolize very broad concepts, like Priceline's reverse bidding patent or Eloas' web browsing patent.
    9. Re:So why s this bill such a bad thing by morganew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, this is a great example of the difference!

      "The Gray Album" is a copyrighted work, but the _method_ of producing music was not prevented by that copyright.

      So while the copyright might protect your code from just changing the variables, it wouldn't protect it from being analyzed for how it does what it does, and them being copied in every aspect of functionality.

      Trade secrets can be used to do that, but then sharing the code gets to be problematic. You have to show to the court that you are vigorously protecting that secret.

      Patents _could_ offer an alternative whereby the method is made public, and you only retain the right to collect rents from people using your idea for a limited time. but it makes sharing with a broad audience very easy.

      This is part of why MOST standards bodies deal with patents and why standards participating companies love patents as well. they can sign the right to the patent over in such a way that it protects them and still allows them to collect money from competitors, but get the idea into the broadest circulation.

      --
      A sig?!? I don't think so.....
    10. Re:So why s this bill such a bad thing by bbc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "We need to make the patent office follow the law as it stands."

      I thought so too, but from what I understand, the EPO is outside the law. (There is even a story going around how the CEO of the EPO physically assaulted on of his co-workers, and nothing could be done against it--that's how much the EPO is outside the law.)

      So how could the EPO be made to follow the law?

    11. Re:So why s this bill such a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      they can sign the right to the patent over in such a way that it protects them and still allows them to collect money from competitors, but get the idea into the broadest circulation.

      ...and if you give me a gun, I can choose not to shoot you, it's a good form of protection and allows me to demand money.

      Certain companies want to use patents to legalize their anti-competitive business pratices, we've already seen examples of this in standards forums. If you were trying to make a point, you failed.

    12. Re:So why s this bill such a bad thing by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You mean aside from the fact that the European Patent Convention explicitly says that software is not an invention?

      Article 52 Patentable inventions
      (1)European patents shall be granted for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an inventive step.
      (2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
      (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.


      Link to the European Patent Convention.

      what would this legislation permit that isn't already allowable in most countries?

      While the European Patent Office has been handing out software patents, virtually no one ever attempts to enforce them because the courts generally throw them out. The only thing more worthless than an invalidly granted patent on a non-invention is blowing money to have an invalid patent on a non-invention officially invalidated by a court.

      Certain types of software inventions...

      Certain types of number inventions...
      Certain types of equation inventions...
      Certain types of sequence-of-thoughts inventions...

      If you assume some numbers are inventions then yeah, obviously numbers should be patentable.

      People who write software are software authors and they have copyright protection.
      You are making the mistake of calling software an invention. Software is a detailed sequence of thoughts. A calculation. A list of rules and logic.

      Patents are for new and non-obvious physical objects and physical processes. A written list of mental steps is not an invention. It does not matter is a person sits there thinking through those steps and speaking the result or if you give those written instructions to an ordinary old computer to go through those steps faster and get the exact same result. Neither case is is an invention.

      A person sitting there and thinking through those exact same steps can certainly caculate a useful result, but can thought have a "technical effect"?

      An equation may certainly calculate useful numbers, but can an equation be an invention?

      A computer cannot implement an invention. A computer can only calculate. You can certainly invent something and connect it to a computer, but you cannot "invent" the equations for converting one set of numbers (MP3 file) into another set of numbers. That is a logic operation. A sequence of logic is not a patentable invention. It would take a long time, but the MP3 patent can be run on a human brain using pure thought. The blatantly obvious step of using a computer simply to speed up that logic does not make it a patentable invention.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  8. Good. by Jack+Taylor · · Score: 2, Informative

    Very good. Now that it has definitely been rejected, it will be much harder for a software patent bill to be passed through the European Parliament again without the wording being changed significantly. This probably won't happen any time soon...

    --
    One good turn - gets all the covers.
  9. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Aardpig · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It is wonderful to see all the arrogant US folk wet their panties when they realize just how powerful the EU has become.

    Indeed. It seems that most folk haven't realized that the US empire has already peaked, and is now beginning its long decline. The EU is giving it stiff competition in the short term (witness the way the Euro is pounding the dollar), while in the long term China will eat it alive.

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  10. Oh, The Horror by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a pro-patent lobby group, said that the benefits of the bill had been obscured by special interest groups, which muddied debate about the rights and wrongs of software patents

    How dare they discuss the bad points about software patents. Isn't the pro-patent lobby group a special interest group? What makes them think they have a right to present their views, while groups which are against software patents do not?

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:Oh, The Horror by aastanna · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They're paid to convince people to adopt software patents, not to be logical. Don't imagine that what a lobby group says is actually someone's real point of view.

    2. Re:Oh, The Horror by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's really no different to one political party accusing its biggest opponent of "playing politics" when they do something it doesn't like. It's part of the game and is usually played by out-of-touch been-in-it-too-long hacks who do not realise how silly their remarks look to people on the outside.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Oh, The Horror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lobbyists are politicians by proxy.

    4. Re:Oh, The Horror by torokun · · Score: 1

      This applies to FFII's rhetoric just as well. It's not based on logic or empirical evidence as much as on the fundamental libertarian-hacker emotional dislike of authority.

    5. Re:Oh, The Horror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...real point of _interest_.
      Unless being a rich idealists, they wouldn't pay to lobby their idea through. Most software houses build up patent libraries to counter any patent attack of a competitor.
      """
      You sew me cos of patent X?
      Wait a sec, cos you are violating my patent Y :-p
      [case closed]
      """

      And why? To get those law students a job?
      I honestly believe they can do more productive things than that.

  11. Constitution by bayers · · Score: 0

    My right to patent my idea is granted to me by the Constitution.

    "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

    1. Re:Constitution by iapetus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Software patents as implemented in the US do not promote the progress of science and useful arts, and are therefore not covered by this.

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    2. Re:Constitution by johannesg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      My right to patent my idea is granted to me by the Constitution.

      Maybe, but not in Europe. Your laws end where your borders end. Outside the US, your constitution has about as much value as a sheet of toilet paper.

    3. Re:Constitution by mickyflynn · · Score: 1

      How is that different than inside the USA? Since Andrew Jackson it's been more or less ignored.

    4. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it read:

      "To use as a Legal Club to prevent Innovation and Interoperability from Others, by securing for almost unlimited Times to Corporate Entities the exclusive Right to an Idea they were first to File."

      It would be a more accurate portrayal of how software patents are used in the US.

    5. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA != EU !!! AFAIK, the US Constitution has no legal value in Europe !

    6. Re:Constitution by RWerp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As the Patriot act shows, inside the U.S. the U.S. constitution can be treated like a sheet of toilet paper, too.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    7. Re:Constitution by rindeee · · Score: 1

      Could you show me a couple of examples (feel free to cut and paste) where the USAPATRIOT act violates the constitution? {Waiting patiently}

    8. Re:Constitution by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Yeah but that constitution is more of a guideline than anything else though isn't it ?

    9. Re:Constitution by RWerp · · Score: 1

      That you can be detained for unspecified amount of time, without your family given any hint to what happened to you?

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    10. Re:Constitution by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      My right to patent my idea is granted to me by the Constitution.

      "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"


      Examine the statement again:

      "Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

      Just because they have the power does not mean they have to execute it, so it is Congress' right, not yours.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    11. Re:Constitution by rindeee · · Score: 1

      Could you "show me" this? In writing? As I said, copy and paste it if you like from the text of the USAPATRIOT act. Here's a source for the text to help you on your way. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:4:./tem p/~c107lbHa6c::

    12. Re:Constitution by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      If it mentioned mathematitions, you might have something.

    13. Re:Constitution by aero2600-5 · · Score: 1

      "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

      Patents are a good idea. Laws regulating how patents may be used and what types of ideas may be patented are an even better idea. Without the neccesary regulation, patents have the potential to destroy much more than they create. The intent of a patent system is to reward an inventor for their work. The keyword in there was 'inventor'. An invention has to be something new and unique that no one else has done before. You shouldn't be able to patent anything that people have already been doing for a while.

      Unfortunately, most software companies that are interested in patenting things are looking to patent something that someone else invented and that every average user is using so that they can charge for the use of their patent. As there are very rarely 'inventions' in the world of software, patents for things software already do is just a way for them to make money by charging people for their use.

      Aero

      --
      Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
    14. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress can suspend habius corpus legitimately (eg through a bill, like the PATRIOT act).

    15. Re:Constitution by rindeee · · Score: 1

      You need to go back and study history, government and civics a bit. Seriously, I'm not being rude, just giving you some advice.

    16. Re:Constitution by jglen490 · · Score: 1

      To this I can say "Nope". The U.S. Constitution is the basis of all law in the U.S., not simply a guideline. All U.S. law is measurable against the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Some laws are, in fact, declared un-constitutional from time to time.

    17. Re:Constitution by back_pages · · Score: 1
      Please see this post

      higher up on the page.

    18. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, you have. But only if you take *the whole cake*.

      Currently "patents" (by lack of a better word : "goverment endorced extortion papers" would be a better description for quite a few of them) should have a *limited* scope, and only so you can *retrieve monetary investments*.

      Many of the current "patents" have been given to "discoveries" that have *no development-cost* to them (they where just a bright idea, with no follow-up). But still they are used to back the demand for licence-fees.

      It strangles innovation, instead of helping it grow.

      At the rate of change of software (IT in general), no patent should last for more than about 3 years. If you could not get your *investment* back by than, you won't ever :-)

    19. Re:Constitution by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      In theory sure, but in practice you can just interpret it how you like can't you.

    20. Re:Constitution by rainman_bc · · Score: 4, Informative

      You know, you certainly need to learn to use google.

      From the ACLU

      Why the Patriot Act's expansion of records searches is unconstitutional
      Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:

      * Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
      * Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
      * Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
      * Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    21. Re:Constitution by l3v1 · · Score: 1

      "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

      Copyright already doeas and allows for this.

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    22. Re:Constitution by rick446 · · Score: 2, Informative
      My right to patent my idea is granted to me by the Constitution.
      No, it is not. Read the context:
      " The Congress (emphasis mine) shall have the power... 8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
      The people are not granted rights by this clause. Congress is.
      --
      http://pythonisito.blogspot.com/
    23. Re:Constitution by jonr · · Score: 1

      Why don't you reply to this first

    24. Re:Constitution by brlewis · · Score: 1

      Algorithms are abstract ideas, and thus are not part of what can be patented.

    25. Re:Constitution by jjo · · Score: 1

      By giving that advice, you are being rude. If the only thing you can say is that someone else is so ignorant that it's not worth entering into a substantive dialogue with them, the preferable course of action is to say nothing.

      Of course, what you should REALLY do is go back and study netiquette a bit. I'm not being rude, just giving you some advice. :-)

    26. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where have you been the last few years? US law supersedes the law of any other country.

    27. Re:Constitution by Alsee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My right to patent my idea is granted to me by the Constitution.
      "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"


      First of all you have absolutely no right to patent something that is not an invention. Writing down a mathematical function or a series of mental steps is not an invention. No one involved has any objection to patenting inventions. The objection is to the attempt to extened patents to non-inventions. It is an objection to software patents.

      Secondly you have no "right" to patent anything. It would help if you quoted the constitition correctly. What you quoted was a HALF SENTENCE. It has absolutely no subject. Read in isolation it is absolutely incoherent. The way that portion of the constitution is written can be a little tricky if you aren't familiar with it. Notice that the only period is way down at the end of clause eighteen, eleven clauses later. The first half of that sentence is waaaaay back at the begining of clause 1. Everything is broken up with semicolons, and it seems nobody today has any idea how to use semicolons correctly. To be honest I doubt I could use a semicolon properly. Anyway... the proper way to find a sentence in there is:

      The Congress shall have Power [...] to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries []

      Power number 1 through power number 7 are snipped out in that first '[...]', power number 8 is the listed Progress Clause, and powers 9 through 18 are snipped out in that second '[...]'. Congress has the power to do each of those things if it chooses to do so. You have no inherent right to a copyright or a patent. Congress has the power to create copyrights and patents if they want. Just as they have the power to collect taxes. However congress was perfectly free not to create copyright and patents, just as they were free not to impose taxes. Congress is perfectly free to pass a new law declining to grant copyrights anymore and perfectly free to pass a new law declining to grant patents anymore, just as congress is perfectly free to pass new laws eliminating various taxes. I seem to recall such laws being referred to as "tax releif", so I guess that would make the other laws "copyright relief" and "patent releif". Grin.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    28. Re:Constitution by binford2k · · Score: 1

      FYI, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus too. Why don't you have a problem with that?

  12. Not as great as it looks by vidarh · · Score: 5, Informative
    The BBC article is perhaps the worst piece of journalism I've ever seen come out of the BBC.

    The directive was NOT rejected by the EU Parliament, but by the Conference of Presidents - essentially the group leaders of all the various parliamentary parties. It's still a good step, but it's misleading to claim this was an action by the Parliament as a whole.

    This does NOT mean that the bill "is thrown out". It means that the EU Parliament is supporting it's own legal affairs committee's call for the EU Commission to restart the process and have directed the President of the EU Parliament to officially request a restart.

    The bill must not "go back to the EU" for reconsideration - the EU Commission must decide whether it wants to accept the restart vote by parliament, ignore it, or overrule it. The latter two would mean the Council would go ahead as before.

    1. Re:Not as great as it looks by dbitch · · Score: 1

      So, I've read the relevant wiki articles, I've been trying to follow this whole thing. I still don't understand the point of the Parliament, if the Comission wields the veto power. If the comission can completely ignore the recommendation of Parliment, then why bother even having the Parliment, or the council of presidents? It sounds like just an advisory comittie (dammit, I've never been able to spell that right). Can somebody explain it to me?

    2. Re:Not as great as it looks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " The BBC article is perhaps the worst piece of journalism I've ever seen come out of the BBC."

      Which still makes it twice as good as anything on FOX news

    3. Re:Not as great as it looks by Halo1 · · Score: 0

      Yep.

      --
      Donate free food here
    4. Re:Not as great as it looks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're still stinging that Fox News knocked your network out of the top spot aren't you Mr Turner?

    5. Re:Not as great as it looks by amorsen · · Score: 1

      It would be a bit obvious that the EU isn't a democracy if it didn't have something like a parliament, don't you think? Besides, the parliament has the power to dissolve the Commission. There's no chance of it being united enough to do that over a mere political matter, of course. But on occasion, the Commission might manage to offend Parliament enough over some personal thing that it could happen.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    6. Re:Not as great as it looks by Halo1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The European Parliament also has veto power to reject it (in either first, second or third reading). In fact, that's exactly what they'll do if the Commission and Council gang up against them according to at least one MEP.

      --
      Donate free food here
    7. Re:Not as great as it looks by iabervon · · Score: 1

      There are three bodies: the Parliament, the Council, and the Commission. The Parliament represents the people in general. The Council represents the nations; remember that the EU is a democratic group of democratic nations, so a certain amount of power is in the hands of the nations rather than the people (similarly, the US president is elected by the states as directed by their citizens). The Parliament and Council need to agree on directives in order for them to go into effect. The Commission is responsible for determining what things need to be decided in the first place and for figuring out what has happened when the Council and Parliament have done something.

      The current situation is a loophole where the Parliament passed a patent directive with a set of amendments which prohibits software patents, and the Council passed it without the amendments. It then goes to the Council to rubberstamp (because both groups passed something), then back to the other groups to make sure that the final thing is right. But the Parliament is upset, because the Concil version, while almost identical text, is exactly opposite in effect (they essentially scratched out the "not" the Parliament had decided to add to "software can be patented"). There is some concern that not enough members of Parliament will show up on the day they check things over to veto the Council text, and the Parliament is generically upset about the process being subverted.

    8. Re:Not as great as it looks by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      Do what I do. Use this script with vim and them paste into /.

      http://vim.sourceforge.net/scripts/script.php?sc ri pt_id=465

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    9. Re:Not as great as it looks by Alsee · · Score: 1

      comittie (dammit, I've never been able to spell that right). Can somebody explain it to me?

      Sure, I can explain that. Chuckle. Committee is like bookkeeper and addressee, the only words in the english language* with three doubled letters. That should make it really easy to remember from now on. :)

      * Excluding proper nouns like 'Mississippi' and forced constructions such as 'successlessness' which actually has 4 doubled letters.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    10. Re:Not as great as it looks by bbc · · Score: 1

      "But the Parliament is upset, because the Concil version, while almost identical text, is exactly opposite in effect (they essentially scratched out the "not" the Parliament had decided to add to "software can be patented")."

      The council is made up of ministers of the respective nations. How they vote may depend on the sort of mandate these ministers have. Although Dutch ministers do not have to ask Dutch parliament what to do, in this case they did. Dutch parliament said: "We want whatever the European Parliament is having", and then the minister went ahead and voted the exact opposite.

      There are some very shady things going on here. I can imagine the executive branch having a different opinion than the legislative branch, but lying to parliament?!!

  13. Lots of /.'ers are paying for the lobbyist by schon · · Score: 1

    CompTIA is the same people you have to pay to get your A+ certification - so many /.'ers are actually supporting the pro-patent lobby through their A+ certification.

    Just something to think about.

    1. Re:Lots of /.'ers are paying for the lobbyist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A+ can be discredited easily by cert holders, just something for THEM to think about!

    2. Re:Lots of /.'ers are paying for the lobbyist by Joules+Burn · · Score: 0

      A+ certification, har har.

  14. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by William_Lee · · Score: 0, Troll

    Would someone please mod this parent down as a troll?

    Go ahead and fiddle while Rome supposedly burns if it pleases you...

    What both parties above fail to realize is that economic trouble for the US benefits noone. I'm not going to go into the details for a troll, but picking up a rudimentary economics textbook might be helpful as a starting point.

    It's deja vu all over again circa 1980s Japan and the supposed setting of the sun on the US economic machine...

  15. Nope by Peaker · · Score: 1

    Actually that clause in the constitution of the United States allows the Congress to secure works for limited times, not the people.

    The congress can choose to do this via copyright/patent laws, or it can choose not to because the constitution does not demand it.

    1. Re:Nope by jglen490 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Congress has in fact chosen to exercise its constitutional right to effect patent laws in the U.S. These patent (and copyright) laws do, in fact, secure works for a limited time to those individuals who create and invent. What is debatable is the meaning of "limited time" and "individuals".

  16. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Urger · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, but us American's have, truth, justice, and the American way on our side, well, at least untill those are outsoursed to India.

  17. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Skye16 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Well, after reading that, I had to sit here a moment and look around vaguely. Then I took a walk down the hallway asking everyone what they thought about the EU. Estimated reaction: "E-what?" 40-some-odd-percent : "Meh *shrug*" (or other) 40-some-odd-percent : "" whatever-is-left-percent.

    After I explained how the Euro was beating the snot out of the dollar and fast becoming a world power, responses ranged from "So? I don't care." to "We can still wipe them from the face of the planet" (seemingly dependent on gender).

    However, nowhere did I see any wet panties - erotic or otherwise.

    I think I'll need to go against my gender response and go with the females on this "So? I don't care." And I don't. Most people don't. Even the ones who say "we can still kick their ass in a war" don't REALLY care. It's a pseudo-salve for their misplaced pride. But I highly doubt anyone is going to be extremely freaked out once the EU becomes really powerful. People just don't give a damn.

  18. What site am I on again? by CrashPoint · · Score: 5, Funny
    I swear, all these Slashdot articles on software patents in Europe are blending together to the point where I start to think I'm reading Fark. Might as well title all future articles like this:

    "European software patents, formerly dead, then not dead, dead again, buried, ressurected, now dead yet again. Pope sucks. Duke surrenders. Still no cure for kitttens."

    1. Re:What site am I on again? by Brian+Blessed · · Score: 1

      "European software patents, formerly dead, then not dead, dead again, buried, ressurected..."

      *We* know that the issue will keep rearing its ugly head, but it seems to me that pro-patent media outlets (I don't know why they are so biased) keep reporting a setback for the bill as a total rejection so that the organized opposition will disperse.

      - Brian.

    2. Re:What site am I on again? by hplasm · · Score: 0

      You missed "..and the government today passed legislation to outlaw/curtail/ban..." :(

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    3. Re:What site am I on again? by l3v1 · · Score: 1

      Well, because at your place these things go like: - Hey we pay you, let this law pass. - Okay, you got it.

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    4. Re:What site am I on again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.thisisyork.co.uk/york/archive/2000/10/3 0/york_news_local20ZM.html

  19. good move by coolcold · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think this is a good move for EU since it does not benefit them at all nor their citizen. US, on the other hand, do benefit even if they (US) passed the law since the M$ is in US itself thus also paying tax to the US.

    --
    I am harvesting funny/good quotes. Please help by putting them in your sigs :)
    1. Re:good move by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      US, on the other hand, do benefit even if they (US) passed the law since the M$ is in US itself thus also paying tax to the US.

      Microsoft, through creative bookkeeping, doesn't pay any corporate taxes.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  20. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What both parties above fail to realize is that economic trouble for the US benefits noone."

    Sure it does. At the current rate the US won't have the cash to continue the current administration's campaign of terror against the Muslim world.

    You have to agree that would be desirable.

  21. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Skye16 · · Score: 1

    That blank "" was actually ""

  22. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems that most folk haven't realized that the US empire has already peaked, and is now beginning its long decline.

    Agreed, history shows the ebb and flow of world domination, and it certainly seems that the US has lost whatever it had that made it a world-leader. However, I can't see how it could be the pansy-ass EU that will take the lead when you're so scaredy that you let a half-assed country like Iraq dictate foreign policy to you. The pounding the Euro is giving the dollar is probably a temporary anomoly in your region's centuries-old decline.

    Look to China and India in the short-term as well as the long-term.

    You arrongant non-US folks will certainly like being pushed around by Bejing a lot more than Washington.

  23. YES! by Steeltoe · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Faith in human kind is restored.

    Now, we should double our efforts to inform everybody Why software patents are a bad idea, and Who is really backing the proposals for it. Particularly, EU should be wary of software patents. With the minefield of US software patents, EU should really rethink being a follower anymore.

  24. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately a strong Euro v.s a weak Dollar isn't a good situation for the European economy either.

  25. the anger by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    Does it make anyone else violently angry that these guys would claim such things about the causes of not getting software patents?

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:the anger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this makes you *violently* angry then I suggest you seek some professional help!

    2. Re:the anger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I always get a kick out of how our efforts to create a sane society can lead to insanity. A morally bankrupt cretin can screw you to the wall, with the law on their side. If you find this outrageous, and use a little bad language, you end up on the wrong side of the law, and can find yourself fined and/or in prison.

      Outrage and indignation do not in and of themselves connote insanity, and acting on those impulses does not automatically constitute unethical behavior. How do you think revolutions are started?

      Jefferson's thoughts about Shay's Rebellion provide an interesting perspective.

  26. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


    "Yes, but us American's have, truth, justice, and the American way on our side"

    Erm...

    "truth" - there are WMD in Iraq, and that's the reason to go to war?

    No Truth, sorry.

    "justice" - Guantanamo Bay? (sp?)

    No Justice, sorry.

    "American Way" - well, fair enough, but since you are the only ones who WANT it; Meh!

  27. Pressure on EU to vote this Software Patent Law by Jimpqfly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to Michel Rocard (former France Prime Minister, now European Deputy), companies like US Majors (Microsoft & Co), Nokia or Alcatel exerted pressure on european commission to have a second look at the pattent issue. In this interview (French) Michel Rocard says that the expert group that was supposed to help the commission, was in fact formed by Microsoft and other IT companies.

    Rocard said : "We never could have talked a common language with the companies representatives we met - in particular those from Microsoft. Speaking about free ideas circulation, free access to knowledge, was like speaking chinese to them. In their way of thinking, everything that is not usable for immediate profit cease to be a growth vector. They don't seem to be able to understand that an invention which is a pure spirit creation can't be pattented. It's simply terrifying. Many of us, at the Parliament, agree to say that they never have know such a pressure and such a verbal violence during their parliamentary work. It is a huge case."

    18 may 2004, Commission presents a new text even more liberal than the first one, and try to impose it during Agriculture Minister Concil, which primary objective was FISHING. Thanks to Poland interventions, the vote is avoided.

    "Concerning France, no word from it. Jacques Chirac claimed himself against extensive software pattenting during his presidential campaing. But the current industry minister, Patrick Devedjian said nothing against the text."

    1. Re:Pressure on EU to vote this Software Patent Law by Khalid · · Score: 1

      This interview is very informative, it explains the whole process in a very clear and didactic way. MR talks also about "the incredible pressions" the EU parliamant have had to face from the European Commission and the lobbiest. An absolute "Must read" !

      I wanted to submit it to Slashdot, but feared it's rejection as it' in French. But hey Babelfish is yoy friend.

  28. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, well the US's economy is growing at 4% annually, while the EU is growing at 1% annually and some member nations are actually showing negative growth.

    Please explain that.

  29. Don't worry. by game+kid · · Score: 2, Funny

    He'll put a positive spin on it, trying to look as "Communist" as possible in a sad attempt to fool us:
    "One job pulled from Europe is a tragedy; a million jobs pulled is an Innovation(TM)."

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  30. A Question by gmknobl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm all for limiting how and what can be patented in software as, at least in the U.S., to many suits and abuses have come from people trying to collect money on just a few lines of code anyone can easily come up with when they think (read one-click purchasing).

    But if someone does come up with something truly unique that is expressed in software, how can this be legally protected so someone else doesn't steal your work after one or one-half year?

    Perhaps there should be no software patents at all, just some sort of legal copyright protection for 5 years or so. But how is that uniqueness defined anyway? At what point does a subsection of code become unique enough to be protected?

    As me ol' chums would say, this truly is a sticky wicket!

    1. Re:A Question by erik_norgaard · · Score: 4, Informative

      The idea of one-click-shopping is not protected in EU, but a particular implementation is protected by copyright.

      Further, since you are not required to distributed code in source, it can be quite hard to copy your implementation.

      Software is protected by copyright which expires 70 years after the death of the author - if copyright is owned by a company, then 70 years after publication (AFAIK).

      Patents allow protection of ideas. These expires after 20 years from the patent being issued.

    2. Re:A Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Fair question, but it seems to be a non-problem. There was plenty of inventive software development by commercial companies before software was patentable. Ideas are easy, going from there to commercial-grade software is the hard part.

      And these days, we have opensource software...where there is plenty of invention, and people share the ideas *and* the code. Even if we do away with patents and every commercial developer decides it's just not worth it anymore and quits, we'll still have a vibrant software industry.

    3. Re:A Question by Halo1 · · Score: 3, Informative
      But if someone does come up with something truly unique that is expressed in software, how can this be legally protected so someone else doesn't steal your work after one or one-half year?
      People cannot steal something which is not your property (intellectual or otherwise). The question is not what you or someone else as an individual wants or feels he/she deserves, but about what is best for the economy and innovation.

      Study after study shows that software innovation does not happen because people want to get a monopoly, but because they have since otherwise the competition will catch up to them. The industry needs cheap, fast and narrow protections (similar to copyright), because patents are inherently so broad they are clogging up the system with thickets. The big companies aren't all cross licensing their patents just for fun.

      Perhaps there should be no software patents at all, just some sort of legal copyright protection for 5 years or so. But how is that uniqueness defined anyway? At what point does a subsection of code become unique enough to be protected?
      There is already copyright which provides for a protection until 75 years after the author's death. However, it only covers direct copying (partial or entirely), or plagiarizing (this can include reverse engineering and writing your own version based on the gained knowledge, if you don't take proper precautions)

      Independent writing of a similar program (which simply does the same, but otherwise is in no way based on the original program) is not covered by copyright. That's a feature of copyright, not a bug. As such, copyright does give you a short time span on which you are alone on the market with that feature.

      It definitely won't be 5 years in general, but even 5 years is an eternity in terms of software development.

      --
      Donate free food here
    4. Re:A Question by seguso · · Score: 1

      But if someone does come up with something truly unique that is expressed in software, how can this be legally protected so someone else doesn't steal your work after one or one-half year?

      Why should you be protected after revealing your invention? You should have required your retribution before divulging it.

    5. Re:A Question by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      But if someone does come up with something truly unique that is expressed in software, how can this be legally protected so someone else doesn't steal your work after one or one-half year?


      Just because you invented it doesn't mean you're entitled to anything.

      The goal is to promote science and the useful arts.
      Instead of "protection" perhaps would should be looking at other methods of promotion, like funding research.

      -- Should you believe authority without question?

    6. Re:A Question by BenTels0 · · Score: 1
      But if someone does come up with something truly unique that is expressed in software, how can this be legally protected so someone else doesn't steal your work after one or one-half year?

      That's what copyright does. For your entire lifetime, plus 70 years.

    7. Re:A Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if someone does come up with something truly unique that is expressed in software, how can this be legally protected so someone else doesn't steal your work after one or one-half year?

      What makes software unique? To computers and mathematics, it is just a large number. In computational theory, software is just a collection of algorithms and data. Three things matter; What the algorithms do the data, the time/space complexity of the algorithm, and the relationship between the algorithm, the data, and halting.

      Perhaps there should be no software patents at all, just some sort of legal copyright protection for 5 years or so. But how is that uniqueness defined anyway? At what point does a subsection of code become unique enough to be protected?

      If all that matters in CS theory is time/space complexity and haltiness, then there is no true uniqueness about algorithms. They fall into classes, but no algorithm is unique. It shares its class with an infinite number of other algorithms. For any algorithm to solve a problem in a given time and halt accordingly, there exists an infinite number of other algorithms that will do the same thing. Some may be faster, slower, shorter, longer, or do more or fewer extraneous things.

      The greatest problem with software patents is that they fail to distinguish between algorithms and problem spaces. Problem spaces are by far the more important in this context. There are many algorithms to factor large integers, perhaps even a class of "fastest" algorithms, but only one problem space. Problems arise when patents are issued over the domain of problem spaces, and not to individual algorithms.

      For instance, Amazon's "one click shopping" patent applies in the problem space "selling goods to customers in a timely manner using the Internet." The algorithm reduces time complexity by caching customer information for subsequent orders, but it is still equivalent in computational terms to all the other functioning algorithms of other online retailers: "Products are paid for online, and arrive at customer's house." In this case, the "number of clicks for purchase" is extrania in the general solution to the problem space itself. What are being patented are aspects of real world interaction that doesn't matter in the computational sense. In essence, Amazon was not solving a computer science problem, they were solving a mere social convenience problem. As such, their patent was granted in the wrong problem domain. The true problem domain the patent should have been considered in was "Delivering goods to customers quickly based on prior encounters". The only software problem domain the patent applied to was "using cached credentials to expediate authentication and actions" which is cluttered with prior art. Amazon's patent was a mere extension of the prior art practice of recognizing previous, trusted customers and processing their purchases quickly.

      In the specific example above, it was shown how the patent office misplaced a software patent by considering it only on algorithmic terms instead of the proper class of problem domains that it belonged to. It is essentially impossible for the patent office to get software patents right, because software and algorithms deal only with pure mathematics. The mapping from real world objects to mathematics is often what is actually being patented, and is technically forbidden by the patent office. Unfortunately some odd court cases convinced them to continue their practice of assuming that anything converted to mathametics, plugged into a computer, and translated back into real life objects can be patented, along with the intervening computer algorithms. Nonsense. If someone has a new way of mapping real life objects to mathematics and back again, that in no way affects computer science in any way, except the semantec meaning attached to algorithms because of the mapping.

      I would argue that the mere mappings from physical objects to mathematics is also unpatentable because of the obvious generic

    8. Re:A Question by gmknobl · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your response. I find it very helpful in thinking about this problem.

  31. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by WoodieR · · Score: 1

    the EU will become economically powerful, but this will not necessarily translate into militarily powerful ... as well, do not forget the Americans have proven ( again and again ) to be quite resilient and inventive in their responses to such perceived threats ...

    --
    Question Authority before IT questions You ...
  32. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...when you're so scaredy that you let a half-assed country like Iraq dictate foreign policy to you


    Rather, not let a full-assed country like the U.S. dictate foreign policy to us?

  33. A new patent bill is needed by erik_norgaard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a clear requirement that the current patent laws in EU be cleared up! It is quite obscure and vague on some points and this has actually allowed for software patents to get through, just check the iiff.org website.

    The discussion is not whether new and uniform patent legislation accross EU is needed. It is about the content.

    The pros want EU to align with USA, in many other areas, aligning laws with important trade partners is beneficial for all parties. But with the development in USA in this case, the benefits of such alignment can be disputed.

    Unfortunately the continual rejections and attempts to force through a particular piece of paper has now become a dispute about democracy and who has the power - attention seems to be shifted away from the original content.

    I am looking forward for the process to restart so the discussion can get back on track.

  34. What? by Luscious868 · · Score: 2

    A bill being obscured by special interest groups? No ......

  35. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I do not have to agree. I would prefer if we brought justice to the savages. We don't really need their oil. Canada has more than they do anyway.

  36. TP by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nonsense. Toilet paper's useful.

  37. big deal by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

    It's funny to see how much people care about these things especially considering that, for all practical purposes, the outcome of this is almost totally irrelevant to most slashdotters ...

    1. Re:big deal by Jack+Taylor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, I *do* live in the E.U. and I also like open source, so it's actually quite relevant. I know that most slashdotters live in the good old U.S. of A., but Europeans are quite a large minority, I should think. I also know that it wouldn't affect many people *right now* if the bill were passed, but in a few years it might be altogether different if lots of trivial patents were accepted...

      --
      One good turn - gets all the covers.
    2. Re:big deal by mailtomomo · · Score: 0

      erm ... Linux ? ;)

  38. More meat for the grinder by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1
    Yet Another Worthless Cert.

    A+ means that you paid CompTIA your cash, not that you are able to be on a help desk or come to my office and swap out my old laptop for a new one without screwing the whole thing up...

    --
    Yeah, right.
  39. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Skye16 · · Score: 1

    Of course. That doesn't necessarily say the US is unimportant, or the EU is unimportant, but rather that, people have more pressing matters to be concerned with. And really, what in the hell is caring about the EU (or the US) really going to do for you, anyway? It's not as if you really have a worthwhile say in your government, anyway. You have 1/60,000,000 of a say. Maybe. That really doesn't equate to a whole lot of power.

  40. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gitmo is plenty just for non-state actors, who are not signatories of the Geneva convention, and thus not protected by it. Why should we treat terrorists better than we treat pimps?

  41. Corporate personhood the root of all evil by gonar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    that is, the root of all evil left over after organized religion has taken it's majority share.

    --
    The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
  42. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by salemlb · · Score: 0

    1930s The sun has set on the US. Germany has sent them into their long, slow decline.

    1940s The sun has set on the US. The USSR has sent them into their long, slow decline.

    1950s The sun has set on the US. The USSR has sent them into their long, slow decline, and the UN has rendered them irrelevant.

    1960s The sun has set on the US. Vietnam will ruin their country and the USSR has sent them into their long slow decline.

    1970s The sun has set on the US. The USSR really will send them into a long slow decline, any day now. We promise

    1980s The sun has set on the US. The Japanese economy will surpass them and send them into a long, slow decline. Japan is where the power will be.

    1990s The sun has set on the US. The USSR, whoops, just vanished... the Japaese, whoops, decade long recession... the New World Order has sent them into a long, slow decline.

    2000s The sun has set on the US. The EU has sent them into a long, slow decline, and China will make them irrelevant. And anything that's left over will be roasted by global warming, blown up by terrorist, and sent into the ideological stone age by rabid rightwingers.

    2010s The sun has set on the US. The _____ has sent them nto a long, slow decline...

    Competition is always welcome and only improves the global market for us all. But isn't getting a little old to pronounce the decline of the US everytime some new appears on the world stage? I mean, the US has been declared to be on life support for one reason or another sincefor 60 years, and last I checked, the US was still around and thriving. No large recessions (hear that Japan?), no high unemployment (that'd be you, EU), increasing popular participation in elections (EU fell behind the US in the last EU elections in voter turnout)... all in all, not to bad, even with the problems.

    The US has issues. The US has always had issues. The US always will have issues. But that is a very different thing from being in a long, slow decline.

  43. Re:Appropriate Quote by essreenim · · Score: 0
    Sister, you have a twin sissster.

    If you cannot be turned to the dark patents then perhaps she will.

  44. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by iBod · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Please don't feed this stupid troll.

    IMHO the last thing anyone needs right now is more antagonism and jingoism on both sides of the Atlantic.

  45. great news by seti · · Score: 0

    now hopefully the next time round they will get their head out of their arse and draught a bill that will be fair for generations to come..

    --
    Coca-Cola, sometimes War.
  46. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you mean in regards to this specific issue I would agree that I wish the US would discontinue software patents. There are most assuredly things I would do to improve the US. I do not think any American would call the US perfect. If you mean to make a general statement I would have to enlighten you with the fact that people here in the US do not spend a lot of time contemplating or otherwise thinking about the EU. It doesn't come up in conversations and rest assured it doesn't affect any decisions we make. You may call this arrogance but before you start accusing people of being arrogant please take note that your post was one of the most arrogant statements I have read to date. To think that the EU should be the center of my attention because of how great you think it is demonstrates extreme arrogance. I am proud to be an American! If that is arrogance then so be it. But if that is arrogance then it is equally arrogant to be a proud member of the EU. I wish you the best and may your economy be half of what ours is.

  47. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps you should get someone smart to tell you which one is bigger economically:

    a) EU
    b) US

  48. WRONGO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WRONG, there is NO definition of technical effect.

    If they say that "software cannot infringe on any patent", that would ensure that you could patent anything you wanted to, but it would never apply to software.

    THAT would ensure that only the technical effect is possible.

    1. Re:WRONGO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what you're talking about.

  49. not over until the fat commissioners sing by Phil+Hands · · Score: 5, Informative

    While JURI (a committee of Members of the European Parliament) and the Council of Ministers have both voted for a restart, the European Commission are still legally allowed to push this through to it's second reading if they manage to put it on an agenda as an A-item.

    A-items are a rubber stamping of translations, of previously agreed directives. So far, Poland have been blocking the A-item from getting onto any agendas, but they seem to have finally been nobbled.

    Just in time, Denmark have decided to dig their toes in, but if they fold there is still an oportunity to push the directive through.

    Of course, flouting the wills of MEPs in this way might be enough to galvanise them into kicking the whole thing out in the second reading, despite the fact that the voting system at that stage is rigged against such an eventuality.

    --

    Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
    1. Re:not over until the fat commissioners sing by Phil+Hands · · Score: 1

      Oops, that should have been "Conference of Presidents" rather than "Council of Ministers" in the first sentence.

      The Conference of Presidents is made up of the President of the Parliament and the chairmen of political groups, so is another group of senior MEPs.

      It's the Council of Ministers that's the arena in which the A-items keep not quite getting through, where the government ministers responsible for various departments (i.e. Agriculture & Fisheries) get together, and if there are A-items on their agenda, then they generally get approved without discussion, and so pass onto the second reading before the European Parliament.

      Sorry about the confusion -- Acronyms are swimming before my eyes ;-)

      --

      Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
  50. 1 year deadline? by Jack+Taylor · · Score: 1

    From the Techworld article:
    Polish MEP and former prime minister Jerzy Buzek called the group leaders' move to request a restart of the legal process a "very good decision". He called for a real debate to start about the patents directive but stressed that the EU should set a limit of one year for agreeing to legislation on patents because Europe needs the rules to help foster innovation.

    So maybe we can actually see some closure on this issue in 2006 :)

    --
    One good turn - gets all the covers.
  51. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm quaking at the power of the EU ... no really ... do you see it yet? No? damn

  52. GUANTANAMO BAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or abu ghraib.

    The constitution extends rights as INALIENABLE rights to all PEOPLE. Not just US citizens.

  53. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> the EU will become economically powerful

    FYI the EU is already much more economically powerful than the US.

  54. Re:huh? by Spad · · Score: 2

    The last article on the EU Software Patent debate was with regard to this vote. This article is with regard to the /outcome/ of this vote.

  55. Re:EU - too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you f00ls decided to bomb the crap out of each other.

    Uh, it wasn't a mutual decision you know. It isn't like Hitler rang Chamberlain in 1939 and asked him if he wouldn't mind a little war. De gaulle didn't pop 'round to Mussolini's place and plan a good bombing or three over soup and nuts with Stalin.

  56. Alas., no by sebFlyte · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately this is just poor reporting from the BBC -- they ar reporting in the Council of Presidents decision without naming it -- it is still down to the Council and commision (as per the council of presidents original post).

    --
    "Nothing can shake my belief that this world is the fruit of a dark god whose shadow I extend." - Emil Michel Cioran
  57. Re:Yes, but by Dasch · · Score: 1

    ... Which would make so much sense, since agriculture and fishing has so much to do with software...

  58. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by huge+colin · · Score: 1

    You're confusing fantasy with reality.

  59. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RTFC
    He says he is a US Citizen! Duh!

  60. A thought provoking return question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the possibility of such an outcome worth the hassle, expense and collateral damage?

    E.g. in order to kill all members of Al Qaueda, you could kill all people not pure caucasian on the planet earth.

    I mean, if you leave one, they may kill someone!!!

    Extreme, but it gets the idea.

  61. Re:EU - too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "America will never have this problem thanks to the constant influx of amigos from south of the border."

    Hang on, are these the same amigos that will be responsible for keeiping up your technological superiority? Good luck, hehe.

  62. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah sure. It is not a troll just a different opinion. You should obviously read about how to make a difference between something you DO NOT agree with and something that has been created for the purpose to stir controversy. I have to conclude that it was rather the former.

    First, GP is correct imo. There are signs, which would be too numerous to detail here, indicating that the USA is behaving as an empire, not as a nation. In a democratic way the USA wouldn't ignore international laws and customs just because noone is in the place to punish them for doing so. If you would examine your economics textbooks a bit more in-depth, you would realise that Japan beat the US economy on a lot of points, pushed the usa out of a lot of markets in the 80ies. It needs a bit longer explanation. After WW2 USA administration assumed that the soviets are 20 years behind technologically at the time. They were proven wrong by the A-bomb two years after, the hydrogen-bomb and sputnik and Gagarin. The administration had a panic reaction and realised that they need to improve the education in the states drastically, which happened in the 60ies (i'm thinking about bleeding edge science here, so universities and laboratories mainly). They pushed a TON of money into the education system and into so called "base or basic research". They came up with a lot of progress and inventions, and the electronical industry LIVES from those inventiones UP UNTIL TODAY. The USA, however stopped these researches because of the economic changes, think of oil crisis, etc. This gave place for Japan in the 80ies to grab markets, because although japan didnt run any base research, they improved the technology they bought from the USA, so that's why it had a big impact on US economy. I have to note that most of these info is from a course i'm attending now and the reasoning i presented is from my teacher specialized in this subject

    I'm not saying that something similar is going on with the EU atm, just that there are consequences if someone ruins the education system and that the USA seems to make bad decisions when messing with the economy.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  63. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Well, people will start to care when it affects their job prospects.


    "I'm going to get a job in manufacturing."

    Nope. Those have gone to South China.

    "OK, then I'll get a job that requires advanced education, like engineering."

    India.

    "Well, I'll get a job in an industry that has advantages from running in the world's largest first world economy."

    I'll see you in Brussels, then, because that'd be the EU.

    We're pretty much running along on the momentum of our past accomplishments here, although that momentum is considerable and should carry us for a decade or so before the decline becomes undeniable and the inevitable bickering about whose fault it is kicks in. The very idea of globalization is that countries do what they are undeniably best at. What is the US these days better at than any other country?

    That'd be spending money.

    So become an invetment banker, young man, and specialize in investing the accumulated wealth of two hundred years of domestic economic accomplishment overseas. Or if that career path is not open to you, there is always retail.

    There is no will to chart out a brighter course for the people who make their living by creating things or performing services. If you doubt this, look at education reform. Oh, I have no objection to "No Child Left Behind", other than its utter lack of boldness. I was born on the tail edge of the baby boom, so I know what serious, shitting-your-pants-because-of-sputnik education reform looks like, and that ain't it.

    Software patents are just another example of something that is good for capital but bad for people who create (although ostensibly it is for their benefit!). As innovation grinds to a halt because of legal uncertainty, companies can continue to exploit their past innovations without creating any new ones. For Joe Engineer, his job security is only good as his next innovation. His part ones are signed over to the company.
    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  64. Wrong. M$ pays little or no taxes by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    M$ pays little or no taxes in the U.S. so the old argument that "what's good for M$ is good for the U.S." doesn't float. Really, no taxes.

    In other words, no income for the government from them.

    So in other words if you count the lost productivity due to M$ viruses, worms, trojans, and general interoperability problems, it's a liability for the U.S. to have M$ in the country. Oh, yeah and arrays of cracked MS-Windows machines cranking out spam for damage of over $58 billion per year

    So no income from MS, great expense from MS, and it's largely MS pushing the sw patent issue. So who's going to gain from sw patents in Europe except the portfolio companies? They might gain, but they sure don't produce or develop software.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  65. It's a dead patent law by sepluv · · Score: 5, Funny
    The BBC article is a bit vague (although perfectly accurate). As Zonk says, this basically means that the Conference of Presidents has ratified the JURI decision to throw out the directive as explained better by the FFII.

    However there is a chance that the €C could, nonetheless, defy the Conference of Presidents, but it is very unlikely (and will cause even more backlash and probably eventually get the €C sacked).

    Also see details of the MEPs press conference and info. about the recent FFII demo by the €C HQ in Brussels which no doubt helped.

    I think this probably (you can't be sure of anything in Brussels) means the directive really is as dead as a dodo, so here's my dead patent-law sketch (apologies to Monty Python):

    The Cast:

    • Mr. Gates
    • A European Commissioner
    The Sketch

    A `customer' (with brown envelopes and chequebook aready) enters the €C in Brussels.

    Mr. Gates: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

    (The commisioner does not respond.)

    Mr. Gates: 'Ello, Miss?

    Commissioner: What do you mean "miss"?

    Mr. Gates: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

    Commissioner: We're closin' for lunch.

    Mr. Gates: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this patent law what I purchased not two years ago from this very office.

    Commissioner: Oh yes, the, uh, the computer-implemented inventions one...What's, uh...What's wrong with it?

    Mr. Gates: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

    Commissioner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

    Mr. Gates: Look, matey, I know a dead patent law when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

    Commissioner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable law, idn'it, ay? Beautiful sophistory and ambiguity!

    Mr. Gates: The anbiguity don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

    Commissioner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

    Mr. Gates: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!

    ...

    Mr. Gates: You let the European Parliament kill 'im, didn't you!

    Commissioner: I never!!

    Mr. Gates: Yes, you did!

    Commissioner: I never, never did anything...

    (Mr. Gates takes patent law out of briefcase and thumps it on the desk. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

    contd...(due to limit on post size)

    --
    Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
    [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
  66. Re:So EU governments still get to protect industri by gelfling · · Score: 1

    So modding me down is your answer to my point, how again?

  67. Dead Patent-Law Sketch contd... by sepluv · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Sketch (contd...)

    Mr. Gates: Now that's what I call a dead patent law. The JURI is no longer out on that patent law...its most definitely deceased.

    Commissioner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

    Mr. Gates: STUNNED?!?

    Commissioner: Yeah! 'E was stunned by all the public backlash! Patent laws stun easily, major.

    Mr. Gates: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That patent law is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not two years ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following prolonged internal diplomacy.

    Commissioner: Well...uhhh...we prefer to do things dead slow and sure like in the EU!

    Mr. Gates: Well...the dead bit is most certainly right. Look, why did it fall flat on his back the moment I got home last time? I never had these problems with Congress...

    Commissioner:Remarkable patent law, id'nit, squire? Lovely contradictions and those beautiful convoluted sentences!

    Mr. Gates: Look, I took the liberty of examining that patent law when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had got as far as it had in the first place was that no one had actually READ it.

    (pause)

    Commissioner: Well, o'course they don't! They're not payed enough for that...at least they are, but we pay 'em NOT to read 'em. That's the trick, you see. Trust me...that patent law will fly straight through as an A-item in the fisheries committee...just like...a parrot, sir...you know parrots love a bit of fish...the great thing is, sir, that the ministers and MEPs avoid it like the plague on account of it stinkin' to 'igh 'eaven...

    Mr. Gates: Never find how 'igh your damn committee stinks, this patent law wouldn't fly through your committee if you put four million volts through every minister present! 'E's bleedin' demised!

    Commissioner: No no! 'E's just a li'l slow!

    Mr. Gates: 'E's not slow! 'E's passed on! This patent law is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'E's pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked thebucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PATENT LAW!!

    (pause)

    Commissioner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek round the back) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back , and uh, we're right out of patent laws.

    Mr. Gates: I see. I see, I get the picture.

    Commissioner: I got a HIPC initiative. Uhhh...your good...ummm...friend, Mr. Brown had this idea you see but he hasn't got the means...

    (pause)

    Mr. Gates: (sweetly) Pray, will it take out my competitors?

    Commissioner: Nnnnot really.

    Mr. Gates: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

    Commissioner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)

    Mr. Gates: Well.

    (pause)

    Commissioner: (quietly) You know I thought that uhhh...spread in Teen Beat was rather good...uhhh...D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?

    Mr. Gates: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

    Copyright

    The original dead parrot sketch was written by Graham Chapman, et. al. for Monty Python's Flying Circus and is © 1989 Pantheon Books/Random House, Inc. My modification of it is co

    --
    Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
    [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    1. Re:Dead Patent-Law Sketch contd... by advocate_one · · Score: 2, Funny

      bally cheek... you posted that exact same skit not hust the other day... talk about blatant Karma whoring...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    2. Re:Dead Patent-Law Sketch contd... by sepluv · · Score: 1

      I don't care about the karma. I just couldn't resist tacking it on the end (as it is very on-topic) after the start of my post (which likely would have been modded up anyway).

      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    3. Re:Dead Patent-Law Sketch contd... by sepluv · · Score: 1

      Also, how can one karma whore these days as pretty much everyone on /. has excellent karma (and its pretty much impossible for it o go back down again) anyway (and there's no way to compare one's karma past excellent)?

      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    4. Re:Dead Patent-Law Sketch contd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd complain too, were it not for that "Teen Beat" quip at the end -- that was truly masterful, and he deserves the extra karma for it :)

    5. Re:Dead Patent-Law Sketch contd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that the Funny mod pumps karma anyway.

  68. Re:EU - too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, that was almost what they did. The people who were in charge during the second world war were more or less directly responsible for the war, because of their actions a couple of decades earlier.

  69. No publicity is bad publicity by Anders+Andersson · · Score: 1
    So, when he writes to lawmakers asking them to consider his point of view, it's called "lobbying".

    If CompTIA even has an opinion on software patents, then how come I can't find it on their website?

    Your search for patents returned 0 results.

    < Previous 20 Next 20 >
    < Previous 20 Next 20 >

    In contrast, searching for "linux" yields multiple hits, due to their CompTIA Linux+ Certification programme.

    How come when I do it, it's called "muddying debate"?

    Because you are painting your point of view all over your website, thereby allowing anybody to analyze it and potentially have you eat your own words at some time in the future, when you have changed your mind?

  70. Not in Australia Yet. by msevior · · Score: 1

    Australia signed a free trade agreemnt with the USA but haven't implemented the legislation to allow software patents yet.

  71. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Estimated reaction: "E-what?"

    "Ignorence is Strength" --Slogan from Orwell's "1984"

    See "1984" is a book about a futuristic society where ..., oh um nevermind.

  72. Programmers are affected by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And programmers tend to hang on slashdot and other techie sites, so it is quite relevant to us. If patents are allowed to run their course, then there will be almost no chance of a single coder being able to innovate and bring a new product to market without being sued to crap by a heartless monolith. That's why programmers should care, unless they only want to work for mega corporations...

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    1. Re:Programmers are affected by Donny+Smith · · Score: 0

      >If patents are allowed to run their course, then there will be almost no chance of a single coder being able to innovate and bring a new product to market without being sued to crap by a heartless monolith. That's why programmers should care, unless they only want to work for mega corporations...

      This is exactly what I'm talking about. It all sounds good, but GNU Linux has appeared and thrived (and is still thriving) without any problem (the SCO lawsuit is going nowhere, we can only laugh at it).

      What would have changed if /. never published a single patent-related article? Nothing would have changed.

      Lawsuits: as OEMs ship Linux, they're the first ones to be sued (if/when it happens), and they do have very deep pockets.
      And then there's BSD which is quite free and open source too.

      Innovation: I haven't noticed anything innovative has been stopped from happening on Linux.
      Where Linux does have problems is when people try to implement patented things in GPL code but I don't see any elements of innovation in situations like this.

      People worry about these trivial things above while much worse problems (global warming, high taxes, wasteful government spending, corruption, pollution, etc.) don't get the attention they deserve.

    2. Re:Programmers are affected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      So in other words, because nobody has tried hard enough to sue someone over Linux patents, there's no problem?

      We know that Linux infringes on at least Microsoft's FAT patent (and Microsoft would probably have eventually done something about it except that the embedded device cartel had enough money to drag Microsoft back to the patent office with evidence that the patent is bogus)

  73. The EU is a Corporate Plutocracy by FreeUser · · Score: 1

    The EU is a corporate plutacracy massquerading as a democracy (the US isn't very different in this regard, though here the causes are more political and less structural).

    I still don't understand the point of the Parliament, if the Comission wields the veto power. If the comission can completely ignore the recommendation of Parliment, then why bother even having the Parliment, or the council of presidents?

    To lull the people into believing they live in a democracy when in fact a corporate plutocracy, in the form of the European Union, is usurping the sovereignty of their national, democratically elected governments.

    Otherwise millions would be in the streets, demanding an end to plutocracy. The longer the corporations can keep the European public fooled, the more time they have to structure the defacto "business-as-usual" policy setting at the European Union level to be more like that in the US, in terms of corporations calling all the shots and the will of the consumer masses being irrelevant.

    If the fight against software patents in Europe does nothing else, it will make plain to the people what the corporate structure of the EU is all about ... with any luck, in time for Europeans to address than and form a democracy at the European level before uniting further. Not that that is any guarantee, after all, prior to the oil cartel's coup in 2000 the US was a democracy at the federal level, and was still taken over by corporate interests years, perhaps decades, earlier.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  74. Those lucky Danes by tclark · · Score: 1

    So MS threatened to close up shop in Denmark if the EU doesn't go for software patents. But here in the US, we hauled their butts into court and got an antitrust conviction, and they're still here. What the hell do we have to do to get them to leave?

  75. European Freedom by Space_Soldier · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is it me, or is Europe more free than USA? We all know that many Europeans migrated here during the colonies because of tyranny. But they came here to create their own oppression. We got religion everywhere, censored television/radio/newspapers. We also got oligarchs telling us what we can and can not do with the shitty patent system. We need to take the USA back from this people.

    1. Re:European Freedom by ultrabot · · Score: 1

      We all know that many Europeans migrated here during the colonies because of tyranny.

      Not tyranny, just oppression. The current situation in the US might give some clues as to *why* the ancestors of these people were oppressed in the first place ;-).

      We got religion everywhere, censored television/radio/newspapers.

      Yup, I wouldn't mind if religious bigots equivalent groups boarded a ship and left for another, newfound continent. Europe is has been said to be post-religious, while USA is lagging by, say, a hundred years or so.

      --
      Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
    2. Re:European Freedom by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I think in fact US emigration consisted of a couple of seperate groups; religious nutcases who we were glad to be shot of, people looking to make a quick shilling and sundry other people who's land had been appropriated for important ventures such as sheep farming or deer stalking.

      None of these people were especially missed and we don't want them back !

    3. Re:European Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It was not so much opression as poverty that drove millions of Europeans to migrate. I don't think the U.S.A. has been particularly more free than most European countries for a long time.

  76. Don't worry, it will come back. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Never underestimate the resolve of big money to keep subverting the legal process (in this case, they were not able to subvert the democratic process) to buttress their short-term interests.

    But, come to think of it, let the damn thing pass, individual countries who do not want it can very well refuse to honour and protect software patent law.

    There are precedents: even though abortion was illegal in Canada (until the law that forbade abortion was declared unconstitutional), Québec refused not only to uphold that law, but even funded abortions.

    So if a particular country wants to have a thriving software industry, it can simply tell patent holders to shove their patents where their constipatedness shines...

    1. Re:Don't worry, it will come back. by LourensV · · Score: 1

      ...and get in all sorts of financial and political trouble with the EU for not implementing a Directive. I'm not sure that this will really work in practice.

  77. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Truth, Justice, American Way.

    It's like Faster-Better-Cheaper: pick two.

  78. Guide to the Perplexed by shimmin · · Score: 5, Informative

    For the perlexed, here's how this works.

    Roughly speaking, the EU has a bicameral legislature, with the two houses being the Parliament and the Council. However, neither one of those bodies can introduce legislation; rather, legislation begins with a third body, the Commission.

    Now, European regulations ostensibly do not permit the patenting of a computer program, as such. However, the European Patent Office, has for a while now been interpreting those regulations differently than you or I would, and issuing software patents anyway. However, such patents have not held up in court.

    So the Commission drafts a new patent directive that would explicitly permit software patents that had some "technical effect," a term broad enough to encompass just about anything.

    The draft directive next goes to the Parliament, where it gets severely amended, such that it would exclude most software patents.

    The amended directive then goes to the Council, where it is re-amended to resemble the original version. And then something weird happens. While the pro-patent contingent got its act together long enough to amend the directive, it never got around to voting to send the amended version back to Parliament, and then, it was unclear whether they had a majority in Council anymore, and then, Council went on break.

    If the Council ever gets around to sending its version back to Parliament, Parliament will have to scrape together an absolute majority (rather than the qualified majority they needed to have to amend it in the first place) to either reject or further confuse the process. If they prove unable to do so within 3 (or 4, if they vote themselves a further delay) months (a distinct possibility), then the directive comes into force, and all the various national legislatures are supposed to harmonize their laws with the directive.

  79. But it was, learn your history by bluGill · · Score: 1

    Typical European revisionist history. You folks (a couple generations before, none of them are alive now) wanted world war I badly, badly enough that there was dancing in the streets when it finally started! When the US was pulled into that mess and helped solve it (though I'm not sure we picked the right sides), you forced the losers to pay unsustainable "repatriations" for what they did. When Germany couldn't do it they were forced into inflation. [1] That caused obvious problems, and in desperation the people turned to Hitler who despite his human rights failings got Germany out of their situation.

    You claim to have learned from history? Well so has the US: the happenings in the rest of the world will drag us in. So we are better off fighting small wars now before the situation is out of control, than wait for it to become obvious to everyone how bad things are.

    [1] Inflation high enough that you paid for your meal at a restaurant before you ate because the prices would go up before you finished!

    1. Re:But it was, learn your history by tommyth · · Score: 0

      You need to do some research on WHY there was such high inflation for Germany. The jist of it is that the gov't kept printing more and more money, making each individual mark worth less and less, in addition the Nat'l bank (at the BEGINNING of the war) no longer backing their marks with gold. And the value of the mark had dropped significantly at the beginning of the war as well, not just after the reparations.

  80. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    indeed. america has proven once again that arrogance, ignorance and violence are THE means to make friends in this world. -NOT-

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  81. Re:EU - too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you paint far to simple a picture of Europe post WWI. It's all a series of "What if's?" to talk about how WWII could have been avoided. "What if's?" are a recreational tool, but nothing else.

  82. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rather, not let a full-assed country like the U.S. dictate foreign policy to us?

    Oh I agree...but you Eurotrash are still afraid of your own shadows and that will be your downfall. You continue to try to use appeasement with real threats while you talk tough with the US. It's like giving your lunch money to the schoolyard bully while threatening to punch your little sister in the nose.

    Won't be long before you'll all be speaking Mandarin Chinese. Then you'll pine for the days when all you had to do was worry about the US's ham-handed attempts at foreign policy.

    The end of is near and you know it.

  83. Re:EU - too little, too late by thinlineofsanity · · Score: 1

    America will never have this problem thanks to the constant influx of amigos from south of the border.

    Obviously, the influx of workforces from North Africa, Eastern Europe and the Middle East is nothing compared to the invaluable workforces supplied by the Middle Americas.

    Whatever happened 60 years ago is of little relevance when discussing currentday economics. Most European countries appear to have realised the need for diversification and co-operation. The latest additions to the European Union bring its population to a relevant number in dealings with world powers. Of course, this'll still just be economic - it's silly to debate military power.

    I'm much more concerned with what'll happen in (and with) China if they continue to grow and expand the way they have in recent years. They're likely to go through the same phases the western world has gone through, at an accelerated rate. The system's unlikely to be able to cope with the number of unemployed created by automation of work processes in order to reduce cost. It might not be much of a factor at the moment, because the need for autmation depends on demand (ironicaly from "us" westerners), and the cost of labor. Both are at managable levels at the moment.

  84. Hugo Lueders, Get A Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Hugo Lueders and Corporate Indusrty gets its way they call it's called 'lobbying' when democracy comes through it's called ' muddied debate'.

    What's wrong Hugo not getting the special lobbying bonus for failing to get this rushed through on a sleeping Ag & fish meet? So far you've lost and the worlds a better place for it, muddied debate?? my arse.

  85. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Colm+Buckley · · Score: 1
    Perhaps you should get someone smart to tell you which one is bigger economically:

    a) EU
    b) US

    They're about the same, actually - the GDP of each is roughly eleven trillion dollars.

  86. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by salemlb · · Score: 0

    Perhaps you should get someone smart to tell you that the EU is in an economic recession and hog-tied by high unemployment. While you're at it, you might have that 'someone smart' explain that Europe also has a significantly larger population than the US, and that in a test of economic strength per population size, Japan wins hands down. And that does not even begin to consider things such as relative sizes of the service sector, the effect of inter-EU trade on the EU economy numbers, the European wage disparity issue, or any of the other literally hundreds of things that 'smart' people use when determing the strength of an economy. But if you insist on keeping the nice, simple "my cock is bigger, so i'm a better person" mentality, then yes, the US has been beaten into the ground by the vastly greater EU. 'Smart people' gave up that mentality in the third grade.

  87. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure why this was considered flamebait; it is almost certainly a true story. I fully expect to get the exact same reaction at my office. I think I will give it a try!

  88. As an European... by Nuffsaid · · Score: 1

    ...there goes my already-drafted patent request for "A software system that caters to some unspecified need"! How am I supposed to profit from my brilliant inventiveness, now? Move to US? India, maybe?

    --
    Nuffsaid
    ________

    Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
    1. Re:As an European... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to have a 'patent' on bread, to be a baker.

  89. COOL! by MaGogue · · Score: 1

    COOL! Now I can enable that Matsushita-patented help icon in my web app again!

    I do not have to worry about checking the patent laws before creating a new C++ class!

    I no longer have to watch out for MIB while fiddling with the improvements for my image sharpening code!

    I am no more nervous about how many patents will infringe upon me today just because I have a lot of code to write coz' I'm a little behind the schedule!

    I am PROUD to be an EU citizen for the first time in my life!!

  90. Write the BBC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the second article on Software Patents that the BBC has completely botched this week. Perhaps it would do us some good to start a massive letter writing campaign to them, pointintg out their incredibly substandard reporting on this important issue?

    Something akin to slashdotting the BBC's editors is what I'm thinking.

    Even better would be a website calling out these errors, along with the addresses on where to write about it, and a slashdot article. Now THAT would get their attention.

    So, does anybody who reads the BBC news regularly know what is the most effective address to write to, in order to get this point across?

  91. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US has killed more people in the past 60 years than any other nation in the world.

    As soon as you call competition a threat (US lead arms race?), different rules of game seem to apply.

    China WILL be the largest economy before long, global warming IS a fact, the US IS the biggest pollutor and refusing to ratify Kyoto, and we WILL run out of oil.

    Profits can only exist with exploitation. You should've learned in physics class that you can't make something out of nothing. Within an enclosed system, you can only gain economic potence by exploiting. If it's not exploiting other people, it is exploiting natural resources. Maximum exploitation means maximum profits.

    The US will have to deal with new growing economies, who will take a huge slice out of the very limited natural resources.

    Americans, making up only 4% of the world's population, currently consume 40% of the world's natural resources. There just isn't enough to go around. And what are the rules of capitalism? Making individuals consume more is good for the economy. How can that be sustainable over long term? Mankind is to live beyond a few hundred years.

    But the US has a head start. Even their pollution and global warming, leading to, among other things, rising sea levels, will threaten lives and economies in the low lands first.. others pay the price. US rejects kyoto, US rejects internaitonal court in The Hague, US develops nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, more potent than any other nation, US rejects many many other international laws and treaties. Because, the US knows that it must play by different rules, those denied for others, to maintain its position.

    As such, the US will remain powerful for a long time.. but this doesn't mean that the quality of life will remain high for the majority of its people. More jobs will go abroad.

    For progress, you need motivation. You can be motivated by many things, emotions, beliefs, religion, fear, morality, or money, greed, lust (capitalism). Decisions and motivation based on higher conciousness (morality, ethics) are the best, yet take alow of knowledge, insight, not something you are born with. Lust are primitive (but important, like reflexes) decision makers. This is maximally targeted by commerce, provoking people to base decisions more on emotions, instinct, fear, lust. As such, it stimulates lower conciousness, not higher.
    And this is being exported world wide and will be done more agressively for the US to maintain its position. Either fight wars with upcoming economies to destroy them before they become a threat, or are pressured into laws and rules, such as those of patents, for those who have a head start, to maintain them, using the clever rules of freedom and democracy to destroy the walls around difficultly penetratable societies. A country has to either be dictatorial, but america-friendly, like afghanistan in the past, or saudi govt., or be 'free' and adopt rules that allow US to invade their media and economies, directely or indirectely.
    China not being democratic, plays by some of its own rules, just like the US has been. And will become a big threat to the US, unless the US manages to destablize social cohesion by promoting 'freedom & democracy' (applied in the manner of "divide and conquer").

    Software patents make it possible for larger companies to more easily maintain their monopoly/headstart and control. The US is the biggest software producer in the world, as such, the US will benefit mostly from software patents, in an effort to paintain their headstart. Submitting to their patents, would undermine development in a much larger part of the world, affecting the quality of life for alot more people. And we all know how important small businesses are for innovation and development. Many smaller companies will not be viable under these patenting rules.

    And of course the misleading starts with the infamous words "but you too could patent your ideas and make millions". The american dream.. you too can win the l

  92. Software is information by Anders+Andersson · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Why was the RSA public key encryption patent such a terrible thing, whereas a patent for a hardware encrytion device is a good thing?

    Because a software implementation of the RSA public key encryption algorithm amounts to mere information that can be published in a printed book, perhaps with a CD-ROM included. A hardware encryption device cannot; it has to be sold to end-users unit by unit.

    This may not sound like such a big deal, but consider the implications for the publishing business. When someone gets a patent on that hardware device, sale of any infringing products will have to cease (or royalties be paid). When the algorithm described and implemented in your book is patented by somebody other than you, are you going to withdraw it from publication? Will people still be able to borrow copies sold to libraries, or are those to be withdrawn from the shelves too?

    Note you did nothing illegal, akin to copyright infringement, by publishing unpatended code in the first place. Therefore those copies already in circulation aren't pirate copies. You just have to stop "using" the invention for commercial purposes (such as selling copies of the code) once someone is granted a patent and tells you to stop. This can never happen with copyright, which is always granted to the author without the need to apply for it, and without the comparably broad scope that patents enjoy.

    What good is freedom of speech, if somebody else can buy an exclusive right from the government to say something vaguely similar to what I said, and thereby stop me from saying it? If you think political statements can't be made in a programming language, think again.

  93. I'd like to see some examples.... by zogger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...of corporations made up of all these people with families etc who lost all their jobs when just a few executives decided to close up the factory and move production to another nation actually voted or approved for that to happen. I'd really like to see some named examples of that occurring, all those little league dads and etc down working on the production floor or out on the docks approving having their jobs evaporate on them so "the corporation" could "increase profits".

    That's one of the things wrong with corporations right off the bat, you have to identify all the people involved, just not some of the people. Leave out any humans in the mix, and you are working with skewed data. Money all by itself does nothing, "capital" does not work for you, it just sits there, it takes actual humans doing actual work to make anything of any so called "investment". These corporations get chartered inside a nation, yet no loyalty to that nation or it's people working for them, their original workers, is required to keep their charter in that nation. Foreign chartered corporations are allowed to come in and decide how to use or abuse citizens inside that nation. Uhh, why is that? That's just pure nuts really.

    You could then get right into the political process and the whole mess of purchasing government,who can cut the largest check all at once to bribe their way in to get laws skewed to their favor. Or the phenomena that industrial cartels or "trade groups" are lawful everywhere, but "right to work" states with their "fire at will" laws make unionization efforts a moot point when it comes to practicality from the workers POV. They can move the jobs, but it's very hard for most workers to be able to adapt to that as fast or as easily by being able to move themselves and their familes of little leaguers someplace where their cost of living can drop to the level where the sudden "no check at all" can pay for normal things like housing, food, transportation, med care, etc. Show me anyplace in the US where even a single person can live on 5$ a day total pay without living in a cardboard box in an alley someplace, yet that's what the corporations can do in actual fact, force you to compete for your job at that level.

    There's something to be said on both sides of the issue, I will grant that readily, but all in all the political and legal system is obviously heavily skewed towards the 1% of the population who own the most "stuff" now, buried inside a bewildering array of daisy chained and interconnected corporations, each layer designed to protect against accountability, identification of ownership, and to shield from any rational responsibility and totally ignored as to any "of benefit to society" as a whole. The other 99% of the population are left to pound sand. That isn't just empty rhetoric, it's modern reality. Here, I can give an easy to see exact example. EVERY study, poll, survey, etc taken in the last several years (that I have seen anyway) indicates quite clearly, with zero ambiguity, the huge overwhelming majority of the US people want to end illegal immigration, to close the borders down better and stop the invasion, because they can see it is more harmful than not. Yet, it still continues with useless babble at the government level. Wonder why that is? Could it be the top corporate 1% and their local wannabes in the corporate world profit from that,they pay off and control government to let the real laws slide in favor of picking and choosing what they want "enforced", as opposed to everyone else, who suffer in many numerous ways? Could it be just the bribed off and controlled aspect of corporations running the government that have allowed that to occur? That should be obvious to see anyway.

    Anyhow, here's the challenge, like to see some examples where all the workers inside this corporation with kids in little league "voted" or "approved" to eliminate their jobs and send their jobs someplace else and put themselves into unemployment.

    1. Re:I'd like to see some examples.... by morganew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You raise some interesting, if not directly related, points.

      You are dead right in that corporations rarely exist as part of the nation-state idea anymore, but they still provide jobs for someone, somewhere. When a corporation who provides jobs moves factories to another country, it creates jobs in that other country. Those people are now the families of the corporation.

      As to culpability and liability, that again raises interesting questions. If you polled the workers at GM if they thought a large monitary judgement against GM was 'unfair' - dollars to dounuts they would say "yes!" Do you think the people employed by Enron or Worldcom went to work every day saying "gee, I hope someone brings my economic life to a screeching halt by closing down that sham of a company I work for"?

      People are looking to protect their own economic self interest, so pointing to unhappy workers at one plant means you need to look at the happy workers somewhere else.

      What I personally have a problem with is companies slavish devotion to quarterly profit statments. But there again, I can show a clear reason why they do. Companies are owned by shareholders, and that's what shareholders want- quarterly returns. I think corporate boards often make shortsighted decisions to satisfy that need at the cost of long term sustainability.

      And in the end, that hurts the 'people' who work for them, no matter what country they are in.

      --
      A sig?!? I don't think so.....
  94. Speech of Michel Rocard at the meeting w/ McCreevy by BlueYoshi · · Score: 1

    You can find this link:http://www.ffii.fr/discours_michel_rocard_reu nion_commission_parlementaire_juri_avec_commissair e_mccreevy_article107.html(in french too) it's very interessing I don't know were I can find an english translation (I didn't search a lot cause french is my mother language :) )

    --
    "Use cases are fairy tales..." I. S. 2005
  95. Re:Corporate personhood the root of all evil by giampy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well both organizations deal with power, since money is today the most effective representation of power, while religion and access-to-gods has been "the" power for a long time.

    One thing that people/organizations in power do, is try to get even some more power, which helps in getting even more power later on, which at the end destablizes the social system in one way or another.

    In fact, concentration of power into too few hands is the single most important reason why manysocial systems collaped in the past. Examples are everywhere. From the roman empire to the middle aged church-state, form the indian 4000 old castes-based system, (in which not surprisingly the priests become the dominant caste), to even the soviet so called "social" system ...

    We as humans need to learn from hour history and enforce very strict rules that limit power accumulation, in all its incarnations.

    --
    We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
  96. English translation by Halo1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here.

    --
    Donate free food here
  97. Re:Corporate personhood the root of all evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How this is not a troll is beyond me save for the inherent bias on Slashdot against crazy right-wing neocon fundy theocrats.

  98. Out of the mouths of idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fail it!

  99. From the "Devil's Dictionary" by lfd · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility."

    --
    Going on means going far, going far means returning. Tao te Ching
  100. Re:So EU governments still get to protect industri by displaced80 · · Score: 1

    So the US steel industry is entirely at the whim of market forces is it?

    Apparently not:
    http://www.freetrade.org/issues/steel.html

    Or what about $600million subsidy to the Lumber industry which the US Federal Government reported to the WTO?

    Or agriculture subsidies?

    Now, whether or not subsidies are good or bad is another issue. However, there's very little point in either the US or the EU bitching about the other's subsidies -- they're each as "guilty" as the other.

    --
    What's the frequency, Kenneth?
  101. Open Source Patents? by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 0, Troll

    I have a question. Why doesn't the open source community start patenting the things THEY do which are original and not just state-of-the-art? If you patent it and make the patent 'open' - on the level of the GPL 'open' - wouldn't you (I don't write code, I'm just a n00b) suddenly gain in improvements rather regularly which noone could sell and therefore cause as much havoc with software developers and sellers as their patents would cause for you? It seems that this would create space for Open Source to exist as a strong community of its own, with more 'uniqueness' than Microsoft could provide...

    I only say this because, well, I know that the Linux coders I have met are just flat-out better coders and more numerous in the research and development fields of programming than Windows coders... If these Linux coders were to patent everything they did that was 'new' and 'original' they would end up patenting more processes and tools simply through outnumbering their opposition.

    1. Re:Open Source Patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "I have a question. Why doesn't the open source community start patenting the things THEY do which are original and not just state-of-the-art?"

      So, do you have the bucks for filing each and every patent? Do you have the money for defending all the patent cases which will challenge all the Open Source patents?

      Also, most good Linux coders I know would rather spend their time coding, rather than doing the paperwork and worrying about court cases.

      Things are a lot more free, and technology flourishes faster, when you simply rely on Copyright Protection rather than Patent Protection.

      And I do believe most people in the Open Source Community would rather benefit from faster innovation than slower innovation.

      At worst, what you propose is a final fallback position. We really don't want to go there, as having to do a patent search before we implement the next greatest technology will stifle us in getting the code out.

  102. ..and what groups are they referring to, actually? by Alef · · Score: 1

    Another interesting thing is that the pro-patent lobby group often claim that software patents would be good for SMEs and will not harm OSS. Since it obviously isn't bad for large corporations either, then what special interest groups are there left really?

  103. there is a difference lately by zogger · · Score: 1

    1980 or so previously, worlds largest creditor nation, and manufacturing and agricultural production nation. Balance of international payments always in our favor. Most tangible real estate held internally as to valid "ownership" rights. All your examples remain valid.

    Since 1980 or so, worlds largest debtor nation, manufacturing in serious decline, and just recently past the half way point where we now import more ag products than we produce, and increasily the "mortgage" is held by foreigners if you follow the food chains far enough up into the banking and lending world.

    Whoops.

    The examples are starting to change radically.

    This is a new thing, so it's a tad premature to think the old model of US economic superiority is going to last and follow your historical graphing points.

    My best guess is, as soon as various other nations and coalitions of nations no longer actually *need* to use US currency and can gracefully slide away, they will do so. When our last remaining export products are almost exclusively of primary military useages, or intangibles like so called software patent "products" or entertainment IP... well...that gets to be sorta weird too.

    The only reason these outside nations and investors are "investing" back into the US at the rate they are now, which is humongous, is they can dump our own currency they have accumulated by the boatload back to where it came from, and do it now so this will be in effect a trade-in for them, magic beans versus the cow, they are getting the actual cow "real stuff", land, buildings, etc, or our own or our childrens future labor for these rapidly dropping in worth pieces of paper and digitised entries magic beans.

    It is aparently happening now from all I have read and seen. Our currency and economy based on the old model of the US being the worlds number one tangible goods maker and exporter is no longer as valid as it used to be, not by a long shot. We are also rapidly approaching the point that we won't even be the worlds largest consumers either. and we are eating our seed corn when it gets down to actual ownership of things inside our own borders.

    What might this mean? Eventually, comsing soon to a reality near you, little or nothing of any actual international importance to sell, no money of any actual international value to anyone else to buy their stuff.

    That's the indicators right now. Not all the way,of course now, but that is definetly the trend and that could be graphed as well.

    What that might mean for the US economy as a whole and for the people here (outside the trasnational jet setter circles) for the future is an imagination exercise. My bet is it will suck. I'd call our economy right now as being in a supernova stage right before it turns into a red dwarf. We'll see I guess, but I think we've been "sold down the river" bigtime.

  104. In Europe Only Old People Use Patents by lunadog · · Score: 1

    Well.. time will tell..

  105. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by meadowsp · · Score: 1

    Funny, I thought it was arabic that we'd all be speaking at the last count. Who exactly is the bogeyman we've all got to be scared of again?

  106. what are you talking about? by js3 · · Score: 1

    is my idea not my property? Banning software patents cuts both ways. It erases any built up patents large companies have amassed but it also strips any independent or small developer from the protection he needs when he implements his idea or algorithm.

    --
    did you forget to take your meds?
    1. Re:what are you talking about? by Halo1 · · Score: 2, Informative
      is my idea not my property?
      Nope, it isn't per definition. A nice introduction is this presentation.
      Banning software patents cuts both ways. It erases any built up patents large companies have amassed but it also strips any independent or small developer from the protection he needs when he implements his idea or algorithm.
      This assumes that you have the funds to obtain a patent, and more importantly to enforce it in court. Are you aware that patent court cases in the US on average cost between 0.5 and 4 million dollars? (see slide 9) The major European SME associations, CEAPME and UEAPME are against software patents.

      The small company protecting its assets with a patent from a large company generally simply doesn't work in practice. Suppose you do have the funds for a court case, even then the other side (e.g. IBM) will probably have ten times as many patents your programs infringe on, so they'll countersue you if you don't want to settle.

      Have a look at how they treated Sun this way in the eighties...

      --
      Donate free food here
    2. Re:what are you talking about? by js3 · · Score: 1

      A small company can seek and win damages in the hundreds of millions if their invention is stolen. Your way leaves them with no legal recourse if that happens. It's like you are saying, rape victims don't want to testify so lets not make rape illegal. Victims who want to testify still have the legal option available to them, just like small companies that have the money should have the option.

      --
      did you forget to take your meds?
    3. Re:what are you talking about? by Halo1 · · Score: 1
      A small company can seek and win damages in the hundreds of millions if their invention is stolen.
      You can also win the lottery. It generally doesn't work like that in reality. The reality is that a small company generally has no patents, does not steal anything from anyone, produces software, starts to sell it and then IBM or someone else comes knocking on the door asking for the equivalent of protection money.
      Your way leaves them with no legal recourse if that happens. It's like you are saying, rape victims don't want to testify so lets not make rape illegal. Victims who want to testify still have the legal option available to them, just like small companies that have the money should have the option.
      I think you should somehow compare it with Nazis, that would be much more convincing. Anyway, software patents are not a voluntary issue as you seem to believe. If they exist, you have to play the patent game to trade (cross licensing), and large companies (and patent parasites like Forgent) do start threatening small companies with lawsuits if they don't pay up.
      --
      Donate free food here
    4. Re:what are you talking about? by Alsee · · Score: 0, Troll

      A small company can seek and win damages in the hundreds of millions if their invention is stolen.

      Of course. And no one is opposed to that.

      The flaw in your logic is to assume that software is an invention in the first place. Programmers are software authors and they have copyrght protection. Surveys of programmers reveal absolutely overwhelming opposition to the notion that software is a patentable invention. Software is a list of logic steps, nothing but a sequence of thoughts. It may take a long time, but software can be run by a brain in pure thought. I'm a programmer, running software mentally is a routine part of writing and debugging software.

      Software patent == Logic patent == absurd.

      You can invent and patent a new and non-obvious physical object or a new and non-obvious physical process, but you cannot invent or patent an equation. You cannot invent or patent a series of mental steps.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:what are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll??? I hope somebody smacks this clown down in meta-mod.

  107. This article is all wrong! by arturs · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "The latest rejection means that now the bill on computer inventions must go back to the EU for re-consideration."

    This is false!

    Read http://wiki.ffii.org/Restart050217En: for correct info: "The new Commission is not obliged to follow the Parliament's request and they might still try to "keep all options open" and ask the Council to adopt the zombie agreement of last May as an A-item without a new vote." and so on.

    We are very, very far away from victory.

  108. Re:Those lucky Danes [OT] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those Danes are interesting people. For example, they've got Christiania, a quite unique Freetown in the western world. Hopefully it will survive the latest threat of eradicating them.

    The last few years, the danish government has shown some racist tendencies, which I consider really bad. Apart from that, they are admired a lot by their neighbours (I live in Sweden).

  109. Statistical Mechanics, Emergence, and Corporations by LihTox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In statistical mechanics it is well known that, in the agglomeration of many distinct particles, most of the degrees of freedom of those particles are averaged away, leaving only a few key variables (like temperature, pressure, and so forth.)

    IMO the same thing holds true for corporations. They are made up of thousands of people, most of them entirely decent people. However, in the agglomerate there is usually only one thing that holds them together, one thing they have in common: the desire to have the corporation survive. None of them would rank survival of the company as the most important part of their lives, but all of the first-rank desires of these people are different, and so wash out under averaging.

    This is even more clearly the case when we consider the stockholders of public companies. Most often people who invest in companies are not interested in the behavior of those companies; they think of their investment as being no different than a CD or a savings bond, and so are only concerned with the rate of return. There are some mutual funds out there which only invest in "socially responsible" companies, but they're not too widespread and are generally painted with a broad brush (no tobacco and alcohol companies, for instance). Companies are not generally rewarded by their stockholders for anything other than surviving and being profitable. In addition, if I recall correctly, federal law requires that corporations make being profitable their primary objection, to protect investors. (I'm not sure about the details of this last point.)

    Another scientific field of study known as complex systems says that complex behavior can arise from simple components, and that the interaction of components can cause behavior that is entirely different than one would predict from the components separately. (Consider that you are made up of cells, and yet do not behave like a cell.) In the case of corporations, we have a large group of people, mostly rational, caring people, with a common goal of corporate survival and profit. I believe that the interactions of these people create something much different than the people themselves: organizations whose sole drive is survival. If I may be metaphorical, they are like predators always hungry, always looking for their next meal, and their sustenance is capital. They are amoral creatures, but very intelligent.

    This behavior is not necessarily caused by the extreme greed of any one person or group of people in the company. I suspect that it is a natural condition that will occur in any large-enough corporation, and it can be prevented only with the intervention of strong-willed leaders who force the company to follow other moral precepts.

    This is my theory, anyway.

  110. Indeed. :D by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

    I find the comment: "a pro-patent lobby group, said that the benefits of the bill had been obscured by special interest groups"
    very amusing. a special interest group, beaten by another special interest group.

    Let's not forget what a "lobby group" is. It's group that were created for the single purpose of making sure the bill was passed, their tools are often obscuring the facts, "enlighting" party members, Microsoft style tactics, selective statistical data(numbers can't lie) etc.
    Normally if enough money are thown at these groups, they often succeed, but of course they a bit part of them winning are their ability to fly below the radar of the public.

  111. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    So. The US Government tortures pimps then?

    Sorry, you are just plain wrong. The fact is the US has detained and TORTURED individuals, who have then been released as recognised as not been terrorists after all.

    The man who was asked to write the documents to justify this torture is now the most senior figure in the US Justice administration.

    As to why you should treat terrorists (at least) the same as pimps, is that the US holds itself up as the champion of human rights. The defender of democracy. The good guy. Hypocrites!

  112. UK citizens: today UKPTO workshop reg deadline by Holger+Blasum · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Patent Office has today announced a series of workshops to examine the possibility of a more concrete definition of "technical contribution" in the Software Patent directive (NB: Registration deadline 18 February) More see FFII UK.

  113. All too true by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

    Remember FOSS needs to keep on being lucky as the lobbists will never stop putting pressure on.

    The patent lobby only needs to get lucky once.

    After that, we Europeans will be stuck with patents forever, just like Americans are
    .

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  114. Re:Wrong. M$ pays little or no taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If what you claim is true, what are you waiting for to nuke Redmond?

    After all, it might be justified as a deficit-cutting action.

    At least as seen from Europe...

  115. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once Turkey joins EU, it will be up.. Together with China, one of the fastest growing economies, 8% and higher in the recent past.

  116. all well and good for EU but... by SQLz · · Score: 1

    sucks for us developers in the USA. The EU is going to become prime territory for kick ass software products.

  117. Call me ignorant.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but wtf is A+ certification?

  118. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Lysol · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yo, you are SO ON IT!

    Empire is the key here. And like every empire, ours will pull back. As I've mentioned before, the current path of the US empire is not sustainable. We generate the majority of the world's green house gasses, consume the majority of it's oil, wage war with the most powerful military, and try to dictate one set of values while engaging with another. At some point, we're just gonna get tired of it. And honsetly, I think we're getting close to that.

    Hey, I love the US. But I'm also a globalist because it's unstoppable and frankly, I'm not afraid of the world economy or infusion of cultures. You can even look back, from an anthropological point of view, and see societies and groups around the world, that either isolated themselves directly or indirectly, pretty much always died off if they couldn't assimilate.

    The EU is on the right path, but only because of their proximity to each other and thousands of years of war. In the end, they've finally figured it out - they're sick of killing each other and realize that working together is a better way. Our empire at some point will realize this too. And not just from an economical standpoint, but a social one as well.

    It's an unstoppable law of nature that those that can't adapt get plowed under. We'll see what happens to our rigid robber barons of the present...

  119. Canadian abortions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today in Canada abortions are $0 and can be preformed at any time during the pregnancy.

  120. Re:Corporate personhood the root of all evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Save your bigotry, don't trod on anyone's right to freedom of religion.

  121. CompTIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a fucking horrible organisation that is. Well done.

  122. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but the US in fact is a agrar export nation. Japan is still not recovered. The US are a big single market, that is all. And the EU? The EU is a collection of single states. And what about software development in the EU. Current advantage EU - about 1,5 year beyond in Free Software application (e.g. Apache Webserver in Germany about 92%) - innovative SME driven market - good networks - less legal transaction costs weakness sw EU - little backing of sw industry from the governments - marketing - little agenda setting - language barrier

  123. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by BenTels0 · · Score: 1

    Actually, no. They were both around eleven trillion before the EU expanded to 25 nations. Now the EU is a good deal larger.

    That is for those who want to measure against GDP, rather than one of the other indices.

  124. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by BenTels0 · · Score: 1
    who are not signatories of the Geneva convention

    Ehrm... But the US has signed the Convention. The Convention mandates action by those that have signed -- you cannot very well mandate being-treated-upon by signatories.

    For that matter, the US has also signed the European Convention on Human Rights. And the Universal Declaration.

  125. Re:I Love How Many US Folk Still Don't Get The EU. by Alsee · · Score: 1

    I think it was only The American Way that was outsourced to India. Those other two things were outsourced the M105 Galaxy and should arrive in about 38 million years.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  126. Alternative by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

    Where are the ideas about possibly allowing software patents in a limited form? I think it would be reasonable if things like compression algorithms (LZW, MP3) were allowed for like 5-8 years. This way, companies can still research new ways of doing things while not getting undercut 3 months after they release new software. The smaller time would be more appropriate, since computing seems to evolve a lot faster than other industries.

    --
    When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    1. Re:Alternative by SlashSpam · · Score: 1

      First off, sorry for answering to this piece of flame-bait, but I rather to try answer it decently, before the flames are all you see.

      Where are the ideas about possibly allowing software patents in a limited form? I think it would be reasonable if things like compression algorithms (LZW, MP3) were allowed for like 5-8 years.
      1. 5-8 years is very very long time. Imagine if all the people that use Free software and/or Open Source software had to wait 5-8 years to listen to mp3-music, for instance! Not because they would have to pay for a mp3-player, but because it might be illegal to have one in the first place!
      2. Look at copyright, it has been limited for a given number of years, but big companies like Disney keeps pushing the limit. Every time the copyright on Micky Mouse(tm) was about to expire, the limit on copyright has been extended. I don't believe that it is reasonable to expect it would be different for software patents.
      3. I don't think innovation in the software business depends on patents, on the contrary, with the number of patents, its a minefield to develop software, so it hinders new innovators. Even with limited patents, it would still be hard for new innovators.
      4. I don't believe that its very likely a limit on software patents would have any significant effect. In the EU, 40 000 patents were issued - even though software patents were illegal!
      Go against patents! /Spam .
    2. Re:Alternative by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

      Wasn't intended as flamebait. The reason I even considered saying that is because the most problematic patents (LZW and MP3, again) didn't come into wide use right away (okay maybe .zip was used a lot, but not for GIFs back in '83). I don't think 5 years is a "very very long" time. If LZW was restricted to 5 years, it would've been in the public domain by the time the WWW was invented.

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    3. Re:Alternative by SlashSpam · · Score: 1

      I didn't think you intended it as flamebait. I guess I should have made that clear, but it sure could have baited some flames.

      /Spam .

  127. The plan behind Poland's actions by bollow+(a)+NoLockIn · · Score: 1
    A-items are a rubber stamping of translations, of previously agreed directives. So far, Poland have been blocking the A-item from getting onto any agendas, but they seem to have finally been nobbled.

    Based on actually meeting the people who were involved, and having been personally in the room while the relevant commission of Sejm (Polish Parliament) discussed the matter, I can assure you that all this talk about them having "finally been nobbled" is total nonsense. Here is the real story: When back in December that infamous directive proposal showed up as an "A-Item" on the agenda for the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, MEP Jerzy Buzek (a former Prime Minister of Poland) started working on a plan for a counterattack. This plan was based on the idea of a restart request from JURI, which in the meantime has happened. However, for procedural reasons, a delay was needed because JURI cannot make the restart request after a Council decision has been announced to the EU Parliament. For this reason, a plan was conceived to get as much delay as was needed, in a way which other countries cannot reasonably object to. What Poland did (Minister Marcinski carried this out in response to Mr Buzek's request) was that they asked to be given a chance to submit a text, to be added to the "paper trail" of the directive proposal on its way through EU insitutions, which explains from Poland's perspective what is wrong with this directive proposal. This text about Poland's concerns has in the meantime been submitted (I think it's pretty good), but producing it took long enough to get the necessary delay. That is the grain of truth behind the reports that you've been reading about Poland not planning to ask for another delay. Delays are always limited in duration, in this case the delay was until a certain paper document would be submitted which in the meantime has happened.

    Based on the atmosphere which I witnessed both in Sejm and in the responsible ministry this week, I am sure that Poland will have the necessary creativity to find a way to ask for another delay, if that turns out to be necessary.

    In the meantime, there is no doubt that Poland will support good moves from other countries.

    --
    Under construction: swpat politics overview article
    1. Re:The plan behind Poland's actions by Phil+Hands · · Score: 1

      Glad to hear it :-)

      It had occured to me that the alternative explanation was that Poland & Holland were now acting as a (probably informal) tag team, allowing them to spin out their reasons for delays to the maximum duration (hence the "seem" in what I wrote).

      Thanks for confirming that though

      --

      Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
  128. apart from the minor fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...concrete tasks manipulating concrete objects..."

    With the small difference that disks ARE physical objects, while transfering or manupalting data on itself isn't. One could claim (as you seem to do) that this involves some physical 'objects' too (like bits that change), but that would be nonsensical. By the same token, you could patent music too then, because the soundwaves are the physical effect that they produce.

  129. The fight isn't over yet... by Neo_1_1 · · Score: 1

    The EU Commission, on suggestion of a
    Microsoft puppet, has decided to decline the European Parliament's
    request for restarting the process on the software patent directive.

    http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopi c. php?t=407

    --
    I'm trying to find myself. If I should return before I come back, please ask me to wait.