Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Commission Declines Patent Debate Restart

Posted by timothy on from the force-breeds-resistance dept.

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."

87 of 367 comments (clear)

  1. You really have to admire their loyalty. by elhondo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Once they're bought, they stay bought.

    1. Re:You really have to admire their loyalty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is Europe not the US. European political figures don't fall victim to the same shortcomings that American ones do. They can't be bought. They are superior in every way, go take your worthless sentiments to some other message board.

  2. A slap in the face... by c0l0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a sad day for those who believe democratic ideals were still governing politicians actions in the EU. A really sad day.

    --
    :%s/Open Source/Free Software/g

    YTARY!
    1. Re:A slap in the face... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've often heard people question whether USA really is a democracy or it really is a plutocracy. Now we can start asking the same question about the EU. ... and I think the Commission have already answered.

    2. Re:A slap in the face... by FyRE666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that anyone who still believed the EU was some sort of democrasy after all the evidence to the contrary over the past 10 years or more is an idiot.

      You'll not find a higher concentration of villains, hypocrites and scoundrels than in the "power centre" of the EU. The main lure for the type of people who work there is purely financial. It's a trough of our money that these pigs stuff their wrinkled faces into whenever they can be bothered to go to work (seldom in most cases). The level of corruption is well documented, but (unsurprisingly) not so well investigated. These people are by and large, self serving, unelected scum who would be utterly unemployable anywhere else.

      I find it disgusting that those gin soaked, lying, useless pigs are being paid by corporations to make decisions that affect the futures of billions of people... Including me... One bomb in Brussels would end far more problems than the current campaigns in Iraq (and wherever the US decides to go off killing people next).

      --
      Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
    3. Re:A slap in the face... by ThisIsFred · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You'll not find a higher concentration of villains, hypocrites and scoundrels than in the "power centre" of the EU.
      Why did I think of Alec Guiness when I read this? It is worth noting, though, that this should be a lesson to those who propose the solution to everything is a government fix. There is something very, very wrong with consolidating that much power in the hands of the few. 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. As you can clearly see, the two may end up on the same side.

      One bomb in Brussels would end far more problems than the current campaigns in Iraq
      I seriously doubt it. The positions will be filled in short order, and the chicanery will continue unabated. I propose that the people strip their governments of the power to regulate patents. There is a strong argument in favor: In effect, patent restricitions are government regulation, and if the EU member nations are looking to create economic growth, the last thing they need is more regulation. Or perhaps they're only looking for economic growth in their own wallets.
      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    4. Re:A slap in the face... by cofaboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your thinking Alec Guiness due to John Le Carre an the smiley spy series. Our "representatives" are as twisted as the people in the books.

      I have to agree one bomb is not enough, but there is more than one bomb.

      I really do fear that your last sentance says it all, the size of hier wallets is the only thing that is important.

      --
      In the end, It's all bovine dung you know
    5. Re:A slap in the face... by onash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whoah! That is a very naive opinion on the EU.

      I am very grateful to the EU as it is tying together all the countries in the continent that has suffered the most from wars in the last century. By making all the countries depend on each other in trade, none of them will ever think of going to war against each other again.

      Now with the addition of eastern Europe, the EU can help the poorer countries of Europe create better living situation for their citizens.. that alone will make things so much easier for Europe's future.

      Your "logic" sounds like the FUD that anti-everything use on any government or international organization they don't like these days. It is just not right.. Criticism is good, but bullshit just makes things worse.

    6. Re:A slap in the face... by daem0n1x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have no doubt about this for a long time. EU is a plutocracy. The powers are so concentrated in the Commission that they can do anything they please. The Parliament is constantly disregarded. Keep in mind that the Parliament is elected by the Europeans, while the Commission is nominated by the govermnents, so the former really represents the European people, while the latter doesn't. But, strangely, the decision power is on the side of the Commission, and they have a long record of utterly ignoring the Parliament's decisions. Can this be called a democracy? I call it a plutocracy.
      In the last European elections I was close to not voting, for the first time in my life. What good is voting for a Parliament that is constantly ignored?

  3. Why can they do this? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can any informed Europeans tell us why the Comission can just ignore what they've been told to do?

    It just seems really odd that when the elected groups say "game over" the other group can just say "too bad, we're doing it".

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Why can they do this? by Carewolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Why can they do this? by c0l0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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!
    3. Re:Why can they do this? by terrymr · · Score: 2, Informative

      The parliament does have the power to fire the commission ... whether they will over this is unknown.

    4. Re:Why can they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would the upcoming European constitution make any difference in this?

    5. Re:Why can they do this? by ZakMcCracken · · Score: 5, Informative

      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...

    6. Re:Why can they do this? by WiFiBro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Why can they do this? by RWerp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why the euroskeptics dislike the EU? Because it has too little democracy, they say. Why does it have too little democracy? Because the eurosceptics prefer to give national governments the right to decide matters over people's - and parliament's - heads. Why the euroskeptics don't wish to give those powers to the Europarliament? Because they dislike the EU...

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    8. Re:Why can they do this? by rs79 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Can any informed Europeans tell us why the Comission can just ignore what they've been told to do?"

      Follow the money.

      "Can any informed Europeans tell us why ICANN is so bad"

      Follow the money.

      "Can any informed Europeans tell us why the US invaded Iraq"

      Follow the money.

      *this is a recording*

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    9. Re:Why can they do this? by DF5JT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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*."

      The governments of the respective countries were the entities to ask for a new start of the process. The commission is an independent body elected by the council.

      Its power to deny requests for fundamental democratic procedures is what's scaring me.

      I can't see anyone in his electorate envisioning this guy just dismissing a democratic process when the request is supported by many of the 25 countries.

      Who is this guy?

    10. Re:Why can they do this? by WiFiBro · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "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'.

    11. Re:Why can they do this? by swillden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      on a very practical level, an individual state is very much like a country.

      On paper, anyway. And in practice in some respects, but states' rights have been eroded rather badly over the last century or so. The combination of the massive stretching of the commerce clause and the constitutional amendments making senators publicly elected and giving the federal government the right to levy direct income taxes have weakened the states dramatically.

      People differ on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's definitely not what was intended, except perhaps by some of the most extreme Federalists.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:Why can they do this? by curious.corn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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
    13. Re:Why can they do this? by SenorCitizen · · Score: 4, Informative
      The governments of the respective countries were the entities to ask for a new start of the process. The commission is an independent body elected by the council.

      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.

  4. I think we know what the EC thinks of him. by bigtallmofo · · Score: 5, Funny

    From TFA:

    Florian Mueller, the manager of the pan-European NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign, condemned the Commission's decision in the strongest terms: "A wannabe Napoleon who heads the Commission and a Microsoft puppet that runs the DG (directorate general) in charge have decided to negate democracy. Now we call on the EU Council to demonstrate a more democratic attitude and to reopen negotiations of its Common Position at the forthcoming meeting of the Competitiveness Council on Monday (7 March)."

    It would appear the European Commission has moderated him -1 Flamebait and will be ignoring him.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:I think we know what the EC thinks of him. by rking · · Score: 3, Informative

      More of a flame than flamebait, but certainly not showing themselves as the voice of reason.

      FFIIs statement was much better. While still being highly critical of the decisions it avoids personal abuse.

    2. Re:I think we know what the EC thinks of him. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Funny
      Who you callin' "wannabe".

      I am Napoleon! Just ask Josephine, my sock-puppet!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:I think we know what the EC thinks of him. by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oy! Oo'er you calling a sock puppet?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:I think we know what the EC thinks of him. by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is our spokesman? Get him the fsck out of there!

      Free Software will never be ready for prime time until we learn to muzzle our wackos.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    5. Re:I think we know what the EC thinks of him. by Halo1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's everything but a free software spokesperson.

      --
      Donate free food here
  5. Huh? by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    Failed to decide to decline to request to restart the process on the directive?!?

    Normally I cringe at stupid comments like "Microsoft puppet" but in this case, it was the only clue I had to unravel the rest of that tangle and conclude that this is a win for the pro-patent side.

    --
    What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  6. Been thinking about this lately... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Perhaps our rejection of software patents over, say hardware patents, lies in how easy it is to write software and how hard it is to make hardware.

    I agree that a lot of software patents are a joke (the isNot example comes to mind)--but so are a lot of non-software patents. I think we just have a preference here because software patents "hit closer to home."

    If it were as easy to get "duh-obvious" patents in the hardware realm, the hardware world would similarly be handicapped. In my opinion, we simply need more, better-educated people working at the USPTO, as well as stricter, more consistent rules for granting patents.

    A great new idea that no one has thought of before can theoretically exist in any field, even software.

    I can see how free software is threatened (I am myself an advocate), but I fail to see how any other hobby activity is also not similarly threatened, except for, say, building remote control cars isn't as easy to "publish" than software.

    I guess my point is that the real problem is crappy patents, and they exist in every field, and they cause similar problems. Maybe there is a place for software patents that do truly contain unique and innovative ideas--or at least such a software patent would have more merit to me than a frivolous hardware patent.

    --
    Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    1. Re:Been thinking about this lately... by nattt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You miss the point that hardware is a thing, whereas software is, in source form, a free expression of ideas, as any novel in literature is. Software embodies algorithms and algorithms are rightly not-patentable as they would limit under law the range of legal human thought.

      Software is more than adequately protected by copyright. The only good solution for software patents is no software patents. I can sort of see the point of patents on hardware, but again, they need to be quality patents or the problem is worse than the solution.

      --
      -- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
    2. Re:Been thinking about this lately... by Otter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Perhaps our rejection of software patents over, say hardware patents, lies in how easy it is to write software and how hard it is to make hardware.

      I'm not sure who "our" refers to, but historically there has been a policy that patents should be awarded for inventions, not ideas, not even really clever ideas. Software patents (and business patents) represent a backing away from that policy.

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  7. Democracy? by GeffDE · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't believe that the European Commission negated any sort of democracy. Before I get mugged by a bunch of open-sourcers, I must say that I completely agree with the harsh language and condemnatory tone of the article, as well as with the idea of open source. However, a democracy cannot be negated; the fact is, a democracy is a form of government where the people as a whole have the final say. That is obviously not the case, as the European Commission as a whole (and the Microsoft puppet and failed Prime Minister of Portugal specifically) was able to have the "final" say. I find it really petty when people try to get a reaction out of people by using incorrect words that have a strong connotation (like freedom, liberty, democracy) instead of using the correct terminology.

    --
    It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
    1. Re:Democracy? by codehelp · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't believe that the European Commission negated any sort of democracy.

      The Commission is intent on ignoring the democratic will of the parliament.

      However, a democracy cannot be negated; the fact is, a democracy is a form of government where the people as a whole have the final say.

      In this case, the elected representatives of the people are being ignored and unelected ministers will have the final say - that's negating the democratic process.

      The European Commission is not directly elected - it is not accountable to the people, that's the job of our MEP - member of the European Parliament. The MEP's have spoken and have requested the restart - the Commission is dictating their will against the express desires of the elected parliament.

    2. Re:Democracy? by BlueWonder · · Score: 2, Informative
      There are certainly things the president can do without asking Congress about it first.

      I didn't ask about "things", I asked about enacting laws. Note that while a EU directive is not a law, the EU member countries are required to transform it into a national law, so it has the same power as a law.

      To answer my own question: Some web searching has revealed that the US president cannot enact laws without involving Congress.

    3. Re:Democracy? by KontinMonet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not only have they ignored the EP, they have ignored the EP's Conference of Presidents; the European Council; other Commissioners; the express will of at least 6 national parliaments; constant representation by, for example, the body representing SMEs (11 million businesses employing 70 million people) and any number of MEPs; the legal committee (JURI); the normal processes and procedures concerning directives; and precedent.

      It is simply the willfulness of one man (the Irish rep McCreevy peeping out of Sir Billy's pocket) and the Commission president negating any form of democratic will.

      --
      Did he inhale?
  8. OK by marcello_dl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  9. In the name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    In the name of the Portuguese people: sorry.

    But we had to get him out of here!

  10. What in the world!!! by revery · · Score: 4, Funny

    per the suggestion of a Microsoft puppet

    You will never replace Jim Henson, Mr. Gates... do you hear me?!?!?!! WELL, DO YOU!!?!?

    Man, first I quit taking methamphetamines, and now this... If it wasn't for my talking sofa and the giant fat men, I don't think I'd make it through some days...

    --

    I have no idea what inspired this comment.

    1. Re:What in the world!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't look now...the swedish delegate just said "sooftware pateents are juuust a teeny veet eeevil bork bork bork!!!"

    2. Re:What in the world!!! by mikael · · Score: 2, Funny

      per the suggestion of a Microsoft puppet

      You haven't seen sock puppet Bill.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  11. "someone who failed as Portuguese prime minister" by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, well, you try it. It's not all hanging about on the Algarve and drinking 25 year old Port, you know?

    John.

  12. antidisestablishmentarianism by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is confusing. "NoSoftwarePatents.com" wants "no software patents". The EU has stopped legislation that would have created SW patents several times. Every time the laws get stopped, the process gets restarted, and SW patents become possible again. This time, the EU has stopped the restart - which would seem to stop the patents. So why is NSP.com against it? What am I missing? Would *this* time through the process somehow explicitly produce a "no patents" law, which would stop it "once and for all"?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:antidisestablishmentarianism by Carewolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because with the lack of a restart we not only retain status quo which has software patents in obscure terms, but also means the commision can keep trying to press the legislation through as a secret A-item.

    2. Re:antidisestablishmentarianism by peragrin · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    3. Re:antidisestablishmentarianism by One+Louder · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This time they're ignoring the "reset" button and barrelling ahead with the previous proposal. The process has not actually stopped this time, just suspended a little bit.

      As an American I'm torn - if the EU does not have software patents, they'll easily pull ahead of the United States in the software arena while we litigate ourselves into irrelevancy. However, I'd much rather see the playing field made level by eliminating our own software and business method patents then burden the Europeans with the same yoke.

    4. Re:antidisestablishmentarianism by Edgewize · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Restart" in this case does not mean that the process is currently stopped. The process is currently being rammed through by the EC, even though it appears to be against just about everyone's wishes. NoSoftwarePatents.com and others are trying to buy more time before the EC succeeeds in bypassing the will of the people.

    5. Re:antidisestablishmentarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They stopped the restart, so the previous draft laughably called a "compromise" from the council will now be put forward for a second reading (unless the council decides not to - which it might, in an effort to spin it as "see, we're not an antidemocratic corporatist whoretank").

      The "compromise" from the council (under the Irish presidency - remember that Microsoft, Intel and IBM basically 0wn Ireland) erased all the european parliament's amendments that would have at least granted patent exemption for interoperability (so that, say, Samba or OpenOffice could continue to exist...).

      At a second reading, the european parliament needs an absolute majority rather than a majority of people in parliament on the day to make any changes. This is harder to get, for obvious reasons, and once the date for the parliamentary debate is known, various ministers will be invited to various functions by corporate types...

      No, I have no idea why it's set up that way, unless it's to give some illusion of democracy when the EU is really designed solely for bilderberger-set corporations or something.

      Either way, I won't be obeying any patent law any time soon if they pass this directive (which will then allow the same national governments who appoint people to the council to implement the law and blame it on "those damn bureaucrats in brussels" - a favorite trick in britain in particular, if you want a law that your citizenry would reject coming from you, get Europe to do it...).

    6. Re:antidisestablishmentarianism by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm American, and I'm hoping that the EU can keep itself free from the patent monopoly biz. Because that will keep another productive source of software for me to use (and not patent :), and because their increased efficiency will create competition, the only factor that has ever gotten American business to improve. We've been goading Europe further into freedom for centuries by providing competion. The whole idea was an *investment* in an unstoppable process. Now we've got to reap the returns, as America sinks into the fatuous complacency we've developed after years at the top. Or we can move to France :).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:antidisestablishmentarianism by jd · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the tradition of long words, the EU Commission is attempting to turn the vetos of software patents into so much floccinoccinilihilipilification.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re:antidisestablishmentarianism by iabervon · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    9. Re:antidisestablishmentarianism by spun · · Score: 2, Informative

      You do mean floccinoccinihilipilification, the act of estimating something as worthless, right? (there are only two 'ili' in there, not three.)

      Okay, I admit that I had to look that up on google. :-)

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:antidisestablishmentarianism by cortana · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:antidisestablishmentarianism by cortana · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Whoops! We're not facing a second reading by the parliament (11) just yet. From http://wiki.ffii.org/Com050228En:

      "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/co ntact_points.htm.

      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.

    12. Re:antidisestablishmentarianism by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

    13. Re:antidisestablishmentarianism by Tough+Love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Somebody wants this law so badly they will bend and break any EU rule they can to get this software patent legistaltion through.

      None other than Bill Gates. There is a reason he showed up in Brussels the day before the JURI commission was to decide whether the process should be restarted or not. There is a reason that Charlie McCreevy, former head of the Commission and now self-appointed leader of the committee that decides whether to take such steps as ignore the unanimous direction of the European Parliament to restart the process, dances on the end of Bill's string. What is this reason? As former minister of finance of Ireland, and Microsoft being the largest taxpayer in Ireland, Bill Gates paid McCreevy's paycheck. Bill Gates probably still pays McCreevy's paycheck. There is a reason for everything.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    14. Re:antidisestablishmentarianism by Husgaard · · Score: 2, Informative
      First of all, software patents are not currently prohibited in the EU.
      Software patents are illegal according to the national laws of all the EU member countries.
      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.
      Like another reply stated, there is no EU patent office. The European Patent Office (EPO) is not (oficially) in any way related to the EU. Their taks is to administer the European Patent Convention (EPC). Both EU member countries and non-EU member countries have signed the EPC.

      The big problem is that EPO - illegally - has issued a huge number of software patents. Most estimate about 30-40,000 software patents.

      These patents are illegal. To this date not a single case of software patent infringement has been won in any court within the EU. People who start infringement cases risk having their software patents invalidated by the court, as they are illegal according to the law.

      The EU directive is meant to force the EU member countries to change their laws to legalize software patents, and the political pressure from the owners of the illegal software patents is huge.

      The process started with a directive that would permit software patents.
      Actually the process started a lot earlier. The EPO - who is outside political and judicial control - started issuing software patents even though they are not allowed to do so according to EPC article 52. Then EPO called for a diplomatic conference to have the EPC changed to legalize their conduct, but their request was denied. Later they called for another diplomatic conference with the same purpose, and once again their request was denied.

      It was not until after the second diplomatic conference that the EU commission proposed the directive.

      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.
      No. That is what the pro software patent lobby and the European Commission would like us to believe, but it is simply not true.

      Fact is that the law is perfectly clear: Software patents are illegal in all EU member countries, and most (all?) european countries that are not EU members.

  13. More pressure needed on ministers and officials by codehelp · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  14. Seriously by October_30th · · Score: 5, Insightful
    A wannabe Napoleon who heads the Commission and a Microsoft puppet that runs the DG (directorate general) in charge have decided to negate democracy.

    With unhinged comments like that he's never going end up anywhere else than in the populist fringe.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:Seriously by eddiegee · · Score: 3, Insightful
      With unhinged comments like that he's never going end up anywhere else than in the populist fringe.

      Congratulations! Your phrase "populist fringe" has won the Best New Oxymoron award! It will now join the ranks of such timeless classics as "military intelligence", "compassionate conservative" and "Microsoft Works"

  15. No Banana Union ?! by D4C5CE · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  16. Re:a Microsoft puppet!? by Stanistani · · Score: 4, Funny

    >as per the suggestion of a M... ...uppet
    Fozzie Bear is a Lobbyist!
    Bork Bork Bork

    --
    You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
  17. Due Dilligence... by Chordonblue · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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..."
  18. Sigh by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd like to say "keep fighting it", but lets face it, if 1 or 2 countries keep fighting it they'll just make some new law which lets them ignore 1-2 people being against it so they can just force it through.

    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 to force it through and get their way. Surely the EU have a clause which can do the same in some form..

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:Sigh by mcpheat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  19. ...and, in related news: by Radres · · Score: 2, Funny

    MS denies Windows needs restart.

  20. Mark Twain on politicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "A honest politician is one who, once being bought, stays bought." -- Mark Twain.

    1. Re:Mark Twain on politicians by sepluv · · Score: 3, Informative
      I really should point out that the €C are not politicians in the normal sense; they're really civil servants who are supposed to do what the governments and parliament tell them...and are trying to pass a law despite the people, governments, parliament and companies of Europe being against it...Bush...{cough}...Gates...{cough}.

      Let us hope they get sacked (again).

      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    2. Re:Mark Twain on politicians by quarkscat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "The US Congress is the best government money can buy." -- Mark Twain.

    3. Re:Mark Twain on politicians by piotr+alfredovich · · Score: 2, Funny
      they're really civil servants
      For some reason my brain parsed that as evil servants...
  21. Deeper problem by grahamsz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  22. In the Land of Adults... by reallocate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...under the leadership of someone who previously failed as Portuguese prime minister and as per the suggestion of a Microsoft puppet...

    Now, that's the kind of insight that gives so many of those people the great reputation they have in the Land of Adults.

    Regardess of the merits, or lack thereof, on either side of this issue, that virulent phrase manages to combine the two central themes defining how many free software advocates relate to the rest of the world:

    1) Anyone who disagrees with me is incompetent.
    2) Anyone who disagrees with me is also taking Microsoft money.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:In the Land of Adults... by dAzED1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not after you.

      where's the option for if the other side really IS incometent, and really IS taking money from MS?

      In the Land of Realistic Adults, we realize that there are more than 2 sides to a coin...but that sometimes 1 side is better. A side that has Britney Spears naked, for instance, is much better than one with Al Gore naked.

    2. Re:In the Land of Adults... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  23. How can you say such things! by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

    Suggesting that anything to do with Microsoft has strings attached!

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  24. Bill Gates on why SoftPat is good (for him) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "
    If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. ... The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors.
    "
    Bill Gates 1991
    This was quoted by Fred Warshofsky in "The Patent Wars" of 1994. The text is from an internal memo written by Bill Gates to his staff. Part of has appeared in another Gates memos.
    http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/quotes/index.en.html #bgates91

  25. on the other hand by szo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because something sounds like a flamebait, it doesn't mean its not true.

    Szo

    --
    Red Leader Standing By!
  26. Gates in Commission for Criminals by adlaalook · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why, only a few months ago, Mobistar was fined, by the EU, because they sold "a package" (Nokia + Mobistar), but MS Gates can walk free, while new pc's are delivered with XP, without even asking you, when you buy, but you pay MS anyway. As long as people as Gates, can impose terms, and walk away, everytime again, nothing will ever change! We (europ) should send BarbaRosso to jail, he's no democrat, he's the same kind as Gates, they rule, but not for the intrest of the people!

  27. Re:"someone who failed as Portuguese prime ministe by fsmunoz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Right on target.

    It's actually another thing also, closely related to that, and I speak as a portuguese: the attraction of Brussels is that it gives the - generally mediocre - local politicians a sense of "grandeur". It's *the EU*, they can privy with really important people, they will be talked in their place of birth as "having a high place in Brussels...". It's the petty burgoise thinking applied to politics, some weird sense of self importance that comes from talking trough an interpreter and having "sattelite time" to communicate with the locals, obviously barbarians, away from the place that really matters, where they, previously unknown, talk to people with strange names that do matter.

    Just talking about this makes me both ashamed and angry as hell. It's a blow in me national pride each time I see them all happy and subservient, like a pincher that is glad he can stick around a doberman and call him "is great pal".

  28. Re:"someone who failed as Portuguese prime ministe by elgaard · · Score: 2, Funny

    >The answer is simple: The unbridled hunger for the corrupting influence that is Brussels.

    I would have said the belgian beer, but you could be right too.

  29. Then parliament should sack the commission by cabalamat2 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    Since the unelected European Commission insists on treating democracy with open comtempt, the European Parliament should sack them.

    1. Re:Then parliament should sack the commission by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately, the Commission is not an unelected body. They were elected by the Parliment. However, once elected they are free to give the finger to the parliment as much as they like, and the only thing the Parliment can do is sack them, which is NEVER going to happen.

      It sort of reminds me of that Discworld novel, where the only decocracy on the Disc was where people elected a new tyrant every year. Each year all of the candidates would promise to do things differently and not terrorise the populace, and every year once elected, they would proceed to be another terrible dictator. This continued year after year, with the whole system being proclaimed a resounding success.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  30. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    In Snivel Boy against Harsh Reality, the Supreme Court ruled that AC's who whine about Slashdot moderation should probably check to see if their milk has expired and clean the dirty condoms out of their mothers' sock drawers, and quit bitching.

  31. Somewhat different... by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

    US model:
    1. Pay fat campaign contributions
    2. Blow vast amounts of money on convincing the sheep (voters).

    EU model:
    1. Let voters choose their national government
    2. Lobby the EU beurocrats
    3. Watch the EU do whatever the hell they want, regardless of national opinion.

    So while EU might have a democratic deficit too, I don't think it is the same as the US. More like a modern aristocracy (Government by a ruling class) than a plutocracy...

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  32. Charlie McCreevy by maidhc · · Score: 5, Informative
    Charlie McCreevy has a habit of being somewhat headstrong and ignoring practically everyone until he realises his position untenable and is forced to back down sharpish.

    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.

  33. Denmark goes against software patents by erik_norgaard · · Score: 2, Informative

    The socialist party withdrew definitively their support for the current directive last week.

    The directive no longer have a majority support in the parliarment, and so the government has no mandate to vote in favour of the directive.

    This means that even if the directive appears as an A-item, it must be blocked.

    In danish (sorry - I have no english equivalent):
    http://www.computerworld.dk/default. asp?Mode=2&Art icleID=27184