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.
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!
Doesn't he mean benefits to Bill!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
That's a 1-0 for FOSS. But let's keep in mind that the other side will not give up that easily.
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
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
So, will Bill Gates close all his European operations now, that Europe is clearly Communist?
You can't handle the truth.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, but us American's have, truth, justice, and the American way on our side, well, at least untill those are outsoursed to India.
Ubiquitously - A Ubiquity Developer Community
"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."
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
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.
That blank "" was actually ""
How is that different than inside the USA? Since Andrew Jackson it's been more or less ignored.
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
"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!
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."
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.
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!
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
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)
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.
A bill being obscured by special interest groups? No ......
Could you show me a couple of examples (feel free to cut and paste) where the USAPATRIOT act violates the constitution? {Waiting patiently}
Nonsense. Toilet paper's useful.
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 ...
Yeah but that constitution is more of a guideline than anything else though isn't it ?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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::
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
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.
If it mentioned mathematitions, you might have something.
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.
"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
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
... Which would make so much sense, since agriculture and fishing has so much to do with software...
You're confusing fantasy with reality.
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
Nope. Those have gone to South China.
India.
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.
You need to go back and study history, government and civics a bit. Seriously, I'm not being rude, just giving you some advice.
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.
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 SketchA `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]
So modding me down is your answer to my point, how again?
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]
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.
If CompTIA even has an opinion on software patents, then how come I can't find it on their website?
In contrast, searching for "linux" yields multiple hits, due to their CompTIA Linux+ Certification programme.
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?
Australia signed a free trade agreemnt with the USA but haven't implemented the legislation to allow software patents yet.
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.
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).
... 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.
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
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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?
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.
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...
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.
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!
indeed. america has proven once again that arrogance, ignorance and violence are THE means to make friends in this world. -NOT-
Privacy is terrorism.
higher up on the page.
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.
They're about the same, actually - the GDP of each is roughly eleven trillion dollars.
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
In theory sure, but in practice you can just interpret it how you like can't you.
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
...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.
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!!
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.
...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.
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
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
"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.
http://pythonisito.blogspot.com/
Here.
Donate free food here
Why don't you reply to this first
"Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility."
Going on means going far, going far means returning. Tao te Ching
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?
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?
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.
Well.. time will tell..
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?
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?
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.
Algorithms are abstract ideas, and thus are not part of what can be patented.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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!
sucks for us developers in the USA. The EU is going to become prime territory for kick ass software products.
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
FYI, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus too. Why don't you have a problem with that?
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
The EU Commission, on suggestion of a
i c. php?t=407
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/viewtop
I'm trying to find myself. If I should return before I come back, please ask me to wait.