Slashdot Mirror
EU Commission Declines Patent Debate Restart
maxkueng writes "I just recieved an email from NoSoftwarePatents.com. They say: 'The EU Commission, under the leadership of someone who previously failed as Portuguese prime minister and as per the suggestion of a Microsoft puppet, has decided to decline the European Parliament's request for restarting the process on the software patent directive.' More can be read on Florian Mueller's Forum post."
Because they don't think the parliament will fire them over just this, and that is the only option of sanction the European Parliament has.
The reported reason was that if they do restart, they must produce a new text on which several other Directorate Generals (DG), such as Information Society and Competition, must agree as well. These other DG's would reportedly never support an extreme text such as the one currently on the table in the Council, or even the original Commission proposal from 2002. They would insist on a more balanced approach, which is apparently not desired by DG MARKT - Directorate General for the Internal Market.
In the mean time, highly placed government sources have also confirmed to the FFII that the directive will once more appear as an A-item on 7 March, this time on the agenda of the responsible Competition Council formation. All hope for a democratic and balanced resolution now rests on the shoulders of the ministers and officials who will attend that Council meeting. Turning the directive back into a B-item, i.e. a discussion point, seems to be the only proper way out now.
http://wiki.ffii.org/Com050228En
Any celebrations about the directive being thrown out were premature - the BBC site for one got carried away:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4274811.stm
The European Parliament has thrown out a bill that would have allowed software to be patented.
We wish! The headline was more accurate than the sub-text:
EU software patent law faces axe
Faces, but the axe isn't falling yet.
You are right , No software patents doesn' want software patents and you don't understand either.
It's confusing so I will screw some of this up.
A law was propsed. It got shot down in parliment, The EC picked it up, and tried to ram it through anyway, it got shot down and sent back to the begining of the process to be rewritten. the EC ignored that and is trying to shove it through again.
Somebody wants this law so badly they will bend and break any EU rule they can to get this software patent legistaltion through.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Meanwhile, one of the Directive's key supporters, the German Federal Ministry of Justice, has reportedly received approximately 500 bananas, shipped in more than 150 parcels, from constituents appalled by what they consider "banana republic style" disrespect for the national and European parliaments.
I think there is a misunderstanding over what exactly the European Parliament is. The group has no real political power.
Now this isn't exactly a problem of democracy. It's just that the favored scale of democracy in Europe is national, not European. Europe is not a federation like the US, where States really have not much power compared to the federal power, for "macro" policy matters (including intellectual property).
Thus the important decisions are always taken by mutual agreement of the governments of the countries themselves. It used to be that unanimous agreement was required, but now with the extension to more countries I think the requirement has been relaxed to a "qualified majority" for some issues.
Getting a vote at the European Parliament brings in little more than publicity.
The right place to petition against software patent would not be the European Parliament, whose advice gets routinely ignored anyway, but the *individual governments of each country*.
They keep the real power, and even though they usually say "it's been decided by the Commission in Brussels" to avoid getting the heat when the shit hits the fan a few years later in each country, the truth is that *they* have been deciding it in Brussels.
The respective place of national and European government is something that Europeans have really struggled with since the earliest days of reconstruction following WW2. Even in some States, some contend that the federal govt is taking away too much... picture what would happen if each State in the US spoke a different language and had had a distinctive political history dating back to the Middle Ages...
First of all, software patents are not currently prohibited in the EU. The EU does not yet have a position on them, and the EU patent office grants them; they are valid in some countries and not in others, and they are effectively valid in some where they are not strictly valid, due to allowing patents on which don't specify what they apply to to apply to software, despite it not being allowed to specifically apply them to software. Obviously, the current situation is a complete mess, and the EU Commission has called for a directive to resolve it, since that's the Commission's job.
The process started with a directive that would permit software patents. After much discussion and popular outcry from individuals and small and medium-sized businesses, the Parliament amended the directive to prohibit software patents, and passed the resulting version.
The Council (which is composed of people appointed by the democratically-elected governments of the member countries, rather than directly elected individuals), on the other hand, set aside the amendments and passed the original version of the directive, and then claimed that they had reached agreement with the Parliament.
The Commission is supposed to determine what, exactly, the Council and the Parliament have done. They keep trying to sign off on the process without a vote, on the theory that the Council and Parliament agree (on the Council version). Various Commission members have kept this from happening. Meanwhile, various committees of the Parliament have been calling for the entire thing to start over, and the Commission has been ignoring them. Furthermore, the support in the Council for the version is eroding as national parliaments send instructions to their government's representatives not to support it.
So the current status is: the legality of SW patents in Europe is current ambiguous and nobody wants to leave it this way; the resolution currently on the table permits SW patents; the Council is refusing requests from the Parliament to restart the process from scratch, which would permit an anti-SW-patent result.
For a simple flow chart demonstrating the wonder of modern, simple, transparent government, attend http://europa.eu.int/comm/codecision/stepbystep/di agram_en.htm.
AFAIK, Poland has stopped the law getting as far as 5 twice, and Denmark(?) once. Then the Parliament's legal affairs comitte (JURI) decided almost unanimously that the legislation should be scrapped. But the commission doesn't actually have to listen to the democratic parts of the EU, so now we are at 9-10.
If we are very lucky, MEPs will be angered by the comission's undemocratic actions and reject the common position at 11. Unfortunatly this requires a 70% absolute majority, meaning that 70% of all MEPs (not just those who turn up) have to vote against the legislation. If this happens then we will be proceed to 15, and the European software industry will be saved.
Write to your MEP today! Even if they are neutral on the SWPat issues, they are likely to be angry at how the commission is trying to ignore the entire parliamentry institution.
No, no and no.
The European Council consists of members of the governments of the member states. They are the ones that have to accept this directive proposal for it to become law. There are obviously countries that want the proposal to go through very badly, and some (maybe enough) that don't. The prospect of opposition is why they are afraid to reopen discussion on the proposal inside the Council.
The Parliament asked for the restart. The Commission chose not to listen to the parliament, but instead listen to the countries on the Council who want the proposal to go through.
The Commission is an independent body, but the members are chosen by the council and approved by the Parliament. Both the Council and the Parliament would have the power to fire the Commission(which will NOT happen, believe me), but the Parliament has no power whatsoever over the Council.
So yes, the GP post was correct -- at this stage the *only* people to complain to are the ministers in your government. They're the ones who will make the vote when the item comes up in a Council meeting.
While Minister for Finance in Ireland he was forced to row back on a number of announcments made in his budgets due to opposition from the general public. He also gave 50m to an equestrian center without going through the correct procedures; for no apparent reason other than he likes horses.
Eventually his tactics were hurting the government party so badly that he was shafted and sent to Europe for retirement.
Whether he can maintain his current position on patents I do not know, but as an Irish person it isn't surprising to see Charlie's tactics remain the same.