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."
Time to send another round of complaint emails to EU... er... representatives.
Patent laws: made for the benefit of little inventors, opposed by little inventors, pushed by big corporations. Something is quite wrong.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
The European Parliament is not able to issue obligatory mandates to the EU Commission, although it's the far greater (as in numbers) cabinet, and directly elected by the EU's citizens (which the Comission is not). Just like you, I've got no clue why this is the case. Must have been some (at least partly) insane mind introducing these rules. That's one of the reasons why the EU is ill-reputed as the anti-democratic moloch it actually is.
:%s/Open Source/Free Software/g
YTARY!
Perhaps companies that try to patent blatantly unpatentable things should be punished somehow - like a fine or a period of time where they can't patent anything for a while.
This such a thing as barratry with lawyers after all.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Obviously I understand that the process won't be restarted. Left out of the story was any hint as to what "restarting the process" means in this instance.
Would the upcoming European constitution make any difference in this?
I would really like to know what's in that constitution, as I will have to vote in favour or against the constitution the 1st of June.
Whatever I do, my government (the Dutch) has already stated that whatever the outcome of the vote is allright: if the majority votes in favour then we win, but if the majority votes against, then we are stupid and they will protect us against ourselves by ignoring that.
They rather like to call it referendum (interglot says this is 'plebiscite' in english, which I doubt) and not a vote. Gauging?
Also, there are some political parties against this new constitution. Therefore the government has made available about a million euros from a mysterious 'emergency fund' to be used in case the information spread about the constitution will be misleading.
They specified this on the radio too, saying that they need this money in case the opponents of the European constitution spread false information. The interviewer asked what would happen if proponents of the constitution spread false information however this was not a possibility they expected to happen.
his site is very interesting. i am an american and a bit older...it wasn't that long ago that ireland was struggling economically...badly.
and i have wondered how the turnaround so fast ?
and now i know. nevermind i've never seena peep about it in any american writings...news or otherwise.
ireland is a tax shelter for many us corporations...including MS. i'd have had no idea this crap was going on if not for this website.
it makes the various american right wing comedians (say trey parker types) look awfully naive when they rail against democrats and for corporations.
The biggest problem i see with software patents is that companies patent the most trivial things.
Unfortunately many companies who would otherwise only patent solid ideas, get pushed into trying to patent everything.. why? because their competitors are doing it.
If company A has thousands of patents and company B has thousands of patents then you hit something like mutually-assured-destruction. Where it's generally impractical to sue each other since it's a virtual certainty that each is infringing on the others patents.
But this also happens in the hardware industry. The big few hard drive manufacturers have patented just about every conceivable way of making and running hard disks. They have cross-licensing agreements which make it very hard for any new players to break into the market.
I hope not to disappoint you but this is not accurate, and will expecially not be after the new constitution comes in place. I don't know any detail of it yet but I do know they want to shift power to Europe with that constitution.
a _patenten/patent_geschiedenis.html
An example that comes very close to these patents are the "patents on life", which were decided upon in a pretty dodgy way.
Acrtually the European Parliament managed to postpone the whole thing in 1995 by saying there should be a clause on ethics in it. The reaction by the European Commission was pretty heavy, and the lobby organizations in favour organized a pretend-grassroot campaign 'No Patents - No Cure', claiming handicapped people wanted the patents for the sake of medicines. So the same year the parliament accepted this proposal. After that vote it turned out that the 'No Patents - No Cure' campaign was not at all backed by patient organizations but by the farmaceutical industry. But then it was too late.
Upon pressure by the Dutch parliament the Dutch government reluctantly made a case against the EU at the European Court in Luxembourg (supported by some other countries, like France), claiming the new regulation was not decided upon in a fair way. I actually sat at the court session because I was than involved with several NGO's that did not like the idea of patents on life. But I digress.
More important is that in the end our government was forced to implement the European directory in national legislation.
Read more (sorry, Dutch) about this legislation at http://www.platformgentechnologie.nl/patents/them
Very similar to the hunting ban in the UK, the lords didn't want to ban it so the Government used an act ment for emergencies
The parliment act requires a bill to be passed by the Commons twice, in separate sessions more than a year apart. If you can wait a year it is not an emergency. The act is designed to stop the unelected Lords blocking the elected Commons and that is exactly what it was used for.
"Because they dislike the EU..."
false.
The history of the European Union was not an attempt to reach democracy. You can see this very clearly if you follow several decisions. You will see that the (11-person?) European Commission has the most power, and the parliament can hardly do anything, which is not the same as what you are saying: you say the EU has no decision power, but actually the EU DOES, but there is no proper democratic control.
You may remember too that the European Union initially was not started as a democratic thing, but as an alliance between France and Germany, it had to do with the iron and coal industry or what. It was then called the European Economic Communion and the word Economic describes exactly what it was about. Back then the main lobbyists were the larger transnationals. They still are the most dexterious in getting their plans through.
If you want to read more on the european "democracy", look for 'Trans European Network', 'patents on life' or 'Paul van Buitenen'.
That was a wee bit different. Buttiglione was "proposed" to the EU commission by the current italian government as compensation for his aid to straighten up a little domestic crisis.
Antefact: our bipolar system rotates around 2 "coalitions" that compete for an electoral bonus. The winning one gets over represented in parliament and the appointment to run the country for a legislature.
During the last non-legislative elections, the Right (Berlusconi's currently in-office "Casa delle Libertà") got a sound beating for a long list of reasons, but simply put: Berlusconi takes care of his judiciary & financial problems and gives a damn about anything else. The internal discipline is formidable, for, whenever there's a Bill or some other Act the Boss desires to pass, rank & file politicians and smaller parties get to execute orders like diligent servicemen.
Compensations vary but one party, the xenophobic Lega Nord, got most of the leftovers among the minor parties and was given way too much media coverage. Those that were left out became jealous of this and worried for their own base as it balked at the sheer ineptitude of the current administration.
The electoral beating gave them a chance to voice their dissent and it took a full year for them to get quiet, some Chair shuffling and a great deal of threats. In particular, one democristian party, led by a man called Follini, was becoming the proverbial thorn in the ass. Enter Buttiglione; he offered to split the party and minoritize Follini.
His service was immediately rewarded with a prestigious nomination to the EU Commission that could be smuggled as tangible recognition to the party's relevance in the coalition (hypocrites). Clearly, the EU parliament wasn't amused for this obvious exchange at it's own cost: Buttiglione took up Mario Monti's slot (yeah, the guy that stood up agains Microsoft...) and grilled the idiot at the first chance; Buttiglione's attitude was also surprising as he did everything possible to get kicked out. He obviously wanted to get kicked out and chose some petty argument to be dealt with championing his fundamentalist catholic agenda.
This long winded post hasn't even scratched the surface of the issue but hopefully it gived an idea of what happened.
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Whilst on the one hand your point would usually be a good one, we're talking about the European Commission here. Nobody is surprised to hear insults against the EC, because most of us have been thinking and saying it for years.
I'd find it very difficult to think of anybody, anybody whatsoever, who doesn't think this sort of thing about the European Commission on a regular basis. Businesspeople, shopkeepers, sailors, farmers, nurses, social services, primary or secondary industries, teachers... most people have an axe to grind. It's hard not to think rude things about a nonelected group of bureaucrats whose main role in life appears to be removing all the pleasures out of existence. They succumb to no known logic. They're not duly elected, their authority appears to come directly from the ass end of beyond, and so do their policies.
Sitting out the game is a pretty hopeless endeavour. Reforming the game, well, that'd be my number one option, too, but it would take a severe, totally obvious upset before we get sufficient momentum for that. It would be nice to think that software patents are a big enough issue for heads to roll, but I would be surprised if the system were reformed entirely on the basis of a scrap over patentability.
Plus in this case, playing by the house rules would imply being somebody very, very special. The European Commission is more or less an "old boys' club", or better said, a crusty politician's club. Short of being a career bureaucrat (who's done something embarrassing enough to be shunted up to Brussels), we have little hope of joining in.
To conclude: the chances of changing the mind of this Portugese dude are zero, short of his being struck by lightning or augmented by brain surgeons in the next few days. This is obvious, for the simple reason that ignoring a request this emphatic from the EU Parliament shouts "Kick me!" For all intents and purposes, the chap is merely an inexpensive automaton. The next step is to ensure that everybody else is aware of this, so that pressure mounts on the parliament and the member governments to stick their money where their collective mouths are. Visible public disgust is not only an easy but also a good emotion to inspire, particularly these days - EU referendum is coming up in many member states. Pro-European states don't need any more Edith Cressons til we're safely out of the voting forest.
Whoops! We're not facing a second reading by the parliament (11) just yet. From http://wiki.ffii.org/Com050228En:
o ntact_points.htm.
"In the mean time, highly placed government sources have also confirmed 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."
Like the article says, get in contact with whichever part of your government will be attending the Competition Council meeting: for UK readers, I believe that is these people: http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/footer/c
Competition Commission
Victoria House
Southampton Row
London
WC1B 4AD
Although I doubt it will be possible to change Labour's mind on the issue, council decisions must be unanimous; that's how Poland and Denmark(?) managed to block the decisions before.
This conflict also has the effect of demonstrating to Europeans (and the world) that Europe has created an antidemocratic superstructure that can foil the popular will, even though it's expressed through a representative republic - the EP. Which should be shocking news to many of the hundreds of millions of Europeans, and the many millions more knocking at the gates for membership. Before everyone is living under an entrenched system of autocracy accessible only to corporations and privileged oligarchs, like the traditional Europe that generated two world wars, and which we have in the US in all but name, it's time to get the outrage stoked, and this sham destroyed. Or we'll all be stuck with it for the rest of our lives.
--
make install -not war
"The US Congress is the best government money can buy." -- Mark Twain.
You can argue that corporate interests should be curtailed, but it's a hell of a lot worse when the government is granted power to curtail.
Get real. Whether this power is held by governmental hands, or allowed by government to reside in a few corporate "free market" hands, the effect is the same.
It ends up being a positive feedback loop, aka "positive network effect". Big corporations make political contributions (sorry, not the corporations. The usual method is for some of the corporate officers to make a PAC. Then, through some other arm of the corporation, donations are made to that arm of the corporation, which gives $ to the PAC, which can now give the corporate money (successfully laundered, of course) to the RNC or DNC, or Council of Ministers, as is in the EU.
We know what the worst-case scenario for a corrupt government. Eventually it's overthrown.
But how does one overthrow Microsoft? It can't be done. If the US tried to do this, Microsoft would of course have enough time to "move" their corporation to Bermuda, Sea-Link, Ireland, Bangalore, wherever suits them best. Microsoft USA just becomes an empty shell at that point.
When Open Source is outlawed, only criminals will use Open Source.
I read in an article in last week's Irish Times (paper version, don't know if it's in online version because it requires a subscription - and money) that Ireland has the most up-to-date Intellectual Property laws in Europe, if not the world (can't remember which, suspect it's the former).
Who decides what's "up-to-date"? Is "up-to-date" a good thing?
If you want to figure out the direction of Intellectual Property law in Europe, I reckon Ireland is a good place to start...