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.
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.
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.
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!
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 ......
Nonsense. Toilet paper's useful.
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.
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
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.
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.
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]
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]
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
http://pythonisito.blogspot.com/
Here.
Donate free food here
"Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility."
Going on means going far, going far means returning. Tao te Ching
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.