Slashdot Mirror
EU Patents Won't Stay Dead
sconeu writes "Apparently the EC is ignoring the restart directive, and has placed software patents as an A-Item on the Council of Minister's agenda with an aim for approval on Monday." From the article: "The directive is pitched as offering greater protection for software developers. Opponents, including many in the European parliament, fear it will simply provide big players, including America's powerful and litigious software giants, with a very large stick to batter upstart developers and the Open Source movement." Update: 03/04 22:04 GMT by Z : And just as quick as you please Denmark stops things in their tracks. Denmark's objection means that there will have to be further debate before the patents get the stamp.
batter (verb):
1. To hit heavily and repeatedly with violent blows.
2. To subject to repeated beatings or physical abuse.
3. To damage, as by heavy wear.
You're not as clever as you think you are.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Because their governments refused to give the EU Parliament real power, instead sending commissioners to make up a cabal.
Apparently, the Danes have stepped up to kill this one! http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic. php?t=428
:wq
Why do Europeans allow a non-elected commission to determine economic policy?
The Euuropean union is a young and a very fastmoving project. I believe very few europeans know what the parlament actully do and what the commission do. I'm a swede and very seldom we get to vote, there is close to zero follow-up on the people we vote on in the media and frankly we don't know what they do. I don't think democracy is one of the strengths of the EU right now. Maybe in the future.
I don't get it.
When you look at www.ffii.org, you'll see all kinds of news like "[2005-03-04] FFII: Danish Parliament obliges Minister to renegotiate software patents in Council", "[2005-03-04] Polish Informatisation minister: we cannot fight alone", "[2005-03-03] FFII: JURI schedules software patents discussion on Monday", etc, etc.
http://www.ffii.org/
I expect it to be rejected actually.
Today, the danish comission of European affairs ORDERED their governement to not treat the new software patent directive as a "done deal".
The Dutch governement had earlier said it was hoping on a redraft opf the bill, but would not block the vote, something the German Governement had also done.
In the meantime the Dutch VVD also brought in a motion to try to get an amendment to bring "community patents into the bill, which then would have to be completely redrafted.
Source: www.webwereld.nl
I dont know about you folks, but I'm thinking: "It ain't over 'till the Fat Lady sings"
And I somewhat like the idea of a commons of patents.
Well, if it would be approved, it still would have to return to the EU parliament, due to their request to restart / renegotiate.
However, since they require a absolute majority to implement changes to it would be much harder to stop it.
Should it manage to get through, the best bet would be for the parliament to reject it in full, however, this would also require an absolute majority.
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
developments: Computerised inventions: the Commission refuses to budge
As heise reports, the Danish parliament has bindingly instructed their secretary of commerce to vote AGAINST software patents,
so the law can't be nodded through.
According to their parliaments some other ministers are instructed (more or less bindingly) to support another country's approach to restart the whole process:
Poland, Netherlands, Spain (had already voted against it in the last session), maybe Germany (but represented by some stubbor a..hat, so..)
Also it is likely that some countries that were neutral during the last voting (like Austria, Belgium, Italy) will support a complete restart.
If you look here: http://ffii.org/ there's some possibly better news.
If you look at the BSA web page, you will see that the members of this alliance are primarily US businesses: they list Microsoft, IBM, Intel etc etc as their members.
So in this case the original poster is correct: this law seems to have been "bought" by US businesses.
Coming from Sweden with a monarchy, I can just add that our monarchs are simply PR devices. They know that too, and don't try to be something else either. If they do (it has happened they've let some political opinion slip) they usually catch a lot of flak for it. They have nothing to say about how our contry is run as well (that's indeed left to our government), and when they open their mouths it's often in times of disasters like the recent Thailand tsunami, to "comfort" us.
The only problem I have with them is basically that they cost money. I'm sure we could switch to becoming a republic and save a bit of money that way, and not have monarchs represent our country on e.g. visiting Africa to show our stance about poor children, smashing a bottle to introduce a ship, eating some food at a Nobel dinner or whatever. Seems a bit like a waste to me.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
> Patriotism has no substance and is always pure rhetoric and therefore invalid, move beyond it.
I know the word has probably been sullied beyond repair, but true patriots simply have a love for the values of a community that's quite large, and not only doesn't preclude harsh criticism of the nation when it does wrong, it requires it. Possibly it's misguided, assuming a nation can ever really be a community, but in some instances, it's warranted.
I think the word you're looking for is jingoism
Copyright helps me, having to do a patent search for every 15 lines of code helps nobody!
What the hell are you talking about?
Copyright is for the protection of the expression, patent is for the idea behind the expression.
And those 15 line patents are exactly what I was talking about when I meant misuse of patents.
For instance, my advisor has a patent on 3D compression using what is called a Topological Surgery approach, which provided the foundation of the current MPEG-4 standard for 3D compression. It's a method for achieving a goal, and am fairly certain that he's one of the VERY few people who could have come up with something like that.
That's an idea behind achieving an expression, and he rightfully holds the patent to it.
The spirit of software patents? Some things were excluded from patent protection for a good reason, math, literature and computer software included!
BZZT! A lot of stuff that folks come up with involves a lot of time and effort. Remember that for patents you need to have a valid UTILITY value. They most certainly would let you patent a mathematical method IF you can provide a utility value. Same for the idea behind a software.
It is for the same reason that you cannot patent a literary work but copyright the same. Am sure if you came up with a literary idea that has utility value, you'd be granted a patent for it.
I think you're confusing patents and copyrights.
The members of the commission.
Since telling it nicely doesn't work, and telling it with lots of money is out of the question, we should find other ways to uhm...convince them. The first step is to peel them out of this anonymus term "European Commission", so they can't hide in it.
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
You're completely right. Here is a link in english: http://wiki.ffii.org/Dkparl050304En
Toff
Article 52 of the EPC excludes programs for computers from patentability and the patent establishment has had to fabricate some very dubious and contrived arguments to get the directive this far and justify over 30,000 illegal patents issued by the EPO.
No, if I am a lone independant programmer, that means I am incapable of withstanding patent attacks from larger companies.
Unlike in hardware, it's impossible for me to program without infringing on any number of (thank god US only) patents.
Hence the net effect of allowing software patents is to make independant programming illegal.
AC comments get piped to
Saying that the commission isn't directly elected is at best missing the point, there are several layers of popular vote all around it, some with the power to smash it to pieces. See below.
The commission might not be directly elected, but this is not very uncommon in democracies. It is rather the American model of popular vote for the head of state AND government which is different - note, I'm not implying it's necessarily worse in any way - just that it isn't the usual way of doing it, even in the West.
The commission
1. Can be sacked by the parliament. Happened once in the nineties - so it isn't just something on paper.
2. Was voted in by parliament - if they hadn't approved the commission in its entirety, the old one would have continued until a new solution would have been reached.
finally:
3. The old comission DID continue very recently because enough of the parliament got angry at the new justice commissioner - forcing the commission head to get a new, much more liberal one.
Governments in general aren't elected, parliaments are. And the EU parliament has power over the commission - the reason the commission can abuse its power in this case is that it is supported by the council of ministers, whose members are mostly MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT in their home countries (since they're members of their home governments).
you do realise that if it CAN be proved that US corporations are behind this manipulation of the European democratic process then they are in breach of US law... also "threatening" to withdraw "investement" in a country if you don't get your way should also come under bribery as money is effectively involved... the Danes were most unimpressed and Microsoft had to hurridly kick up a misdirection statement...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
I see many posts about Europeans not being interested in politics and the European parliament in Brussels being corrupt.
I 'd like to remind everyone out there of the many Europeans who are very active in protesting against patents like the people of NoSoftwarePatents and the Federation for a Free Information Infrastructure, encouraging people around Europe to get a hold of their MEPs and making them aware of the importance of the matter.
Hey a lot of us went to Brussels (with bananas!) to protest February 17, there where busses organised even from Paris.
We write, fax and mail our politicians, even send them fresh fruit to show how much we care about this!
Sean.OutaHere()
There's a [mailing list http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/in-parl/] here. The Indian ordinance needs to be ratified by Parliament yet.
Another interesting tidbit from the article:
Just FYI, the parliament did make significant amendments to the directive, effectively keeping the status quo and keeping software patents invalid, back in September 2003, but in the process made some parts of the directive contradict itself.
However, the working party that reworked the directive for the Council removed the bulk of the parliament's amendments, while promising that they had put in additional protections against software patents, when in fact the protections were meaningless.
It was this theoretically neutered directive that the Council agreed to in May 2004 by a slim majority. Now that members have realised what they've done (agree a directive that allows patents), some are now trying to prevent this directive from being rubber-stamped as an A-list item, as you mentioned, despite the pressure of the Commission to force through the may 2004 version. I believe this is the 'common position' stage, step 9.
If it goes onto its second reading, the EP can still amend or block the directive, but it's a lot harder to do so, given the absolute majority required.
Here's hoping sufficient people in the Council can block the directive as an A-list item, and either force a restart or at least knock it back to a B-list item again for further discussion.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
I sent email via faxyourmp to my EU members of parliament, one UK independence party (hates the EU entirely, along with anything foreign), and the Liberal Democrats
I havent heard anything back from UKIP, which surprises me -I thought they'd be "the EU is evil, here is why".
The lib dem MP gave some patronising guff about technical innovation and "balancing the needs of large enterprises and small businesses", nothing about consumers, OSS developers, etc.
But he did say they had voted to send it back, and were miffed at the response. They werent letting it lie, as it was a sign of a broader power struggle between governments (council of ministers) and the EU parliament itself.
If the parliament had made no amendments to the original directive on it's first reading, we would then be at step 5, and this A-list item would indeed be the final stage.
Heres a (very detailed) link to the differences between the the parliament's and council's versions.
This is a better diagram of our current status. So all is not yet lost, even if the council does pass the may 2004 agreed version (their amended version of the parliament amended version), as it will have to go a second reading in the parliament, because of their changes. However, it's much harder for the parliament to introduce new amendments at the 2nd reading, making it basically a vote to kill the directive entirely, or pass the council version. Plus of course, it puts us one step closer to software patentability. Here is a link detailing the process. Note the hefty requirements the parliament have to meet in order to modify or kill the bill at it's second reading - and even if *that* succeeds, the council still has to agree to those changes.
After the Council of the European Union has sent its common position to the European Parliament, a time period of 3 months starts to run. If the Parliament does nothing within this time frame, the common position enters into force as directive.
The Parliament can extend this time by one month if it decides so.
If the European Parliament does not agree, is has to adopt changes to the common position or reject the common position, the latter would end the codecision procedure at this point.
To change or reject the text in 2nd reading, the parliament needs an absolute majority of the 732 Members for a yes on an amendment - for each change.
Of course, if the council have a complete change of heart, and pass the parliament sept 2003 version, it goes into law - but we're ok, as that version blocks software patents. But that would require reopening discussion, which the Commission has so far put pressure on to block, both in the council, and as a total restart.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
5 of the flowchart
No, they appear to be on step 9 or 10.
(I believe that) the Parliament didn't make any modifications to the directive at the time of the first reading
The Parliment did amend the directive. In fact Parliment did an excellent job. We WANT that version passed. The Council simply threw out essentially all of the of Parliments amendments. In fact they proceeded to re-amend it to be even more extreme and further from the Parliments position. They then had the gall to call it a "common position", to claim it was some sort of compromise and concilliation with Parliment. This is where we are now, they are attempting to officially sign off on this "common position" and pass it back to parliment.
I hate missleading names. It really shouldn't be titled a "common position" at all. The Council is certainly supposed to draft it in an effort to resolve differences with Parliment, but as this case shows there is no reason to expect it actually *is* any sort of common position.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Let the game begin. Jose Manuel Barroso: sg-web-president@cec.eu.int Margot Wallstroem: margot.wallstrom@cec.eu.int Guenter Verheugen: guenter.verheugen@cec.eu.int Jacques Barrot: cab-archive-barrot@cec.eu.int Siim Kallas: CAB-KALLAS-WEB-FEEDBACK@cec.eu.int Franco Frattini: Cabinet-Frattini@cec.eu.int Viviane Reding: Viviane.reding@cec.eu.int Stavros Dimas: stavros.dimas@cec.eu.int Joaquín Almunia: CAB-ALMUNIA-INFO@cec.eu.int Danuta Huebner: Cabinet-Huebner@cec.eu.int Joe Borg: joe.borg@cec.eu.int Dalia Grybauskait: cab-grybauskaite-commissaire@cec.eu.int Janez Potocnik: Janez.Potocnik@cec.eu.int Jan Figel': CAB-FIGEL@cec.eu.int Markos Kyprianou: sanco-mailbox@cec.eu.int Olli Rehn: olli.rehn@cec.eu.int Louis MICHEL: Louis.Michel@cec.eu.int László Kovács: Laszlo.Kovacs@cec.eu.int Neelie Kroes: Neelie.Kroes@cec.eu.int Mariann Fischer Boel: Mariann.Fischer-Boel@cec.eu.int Benita Ferrero Waldner: benita.ferrero-waldner@cec.eu.int Charlie McCreevy: Charlie.Mc-Creevy@cec.eu.int Vladimír Spidla: vladimir.spidla@cec.eu.int Peter Mandelson: Peter.Mandelson@cec.eu.int Andris Piebalgs: cab-archive-piebalgs@cec.eu.int
Thomas Edison ... you can't point to a truly analagous inventor who worked in a climate with no patents and compare the effects.
How about every single person responsible for the creation and development of computer science?
How about Alan Turing, Alonzo Church, Grace Hopper, John McCarthy, Edsger W. Dijkstra, everyone at Bell Labs from Claude Shannon to Ken Richie, everyone at Xerox PARC during their important period, and (for at least most of his career) Donald Knuth?
Because computer programming was a field in which invention was not patentable anywhere in the world until 1981, and even after that point much or most of the important work was done in areas where patents were no goal or not sought. And I assure you, computer programming is not a field which began in 1981. In fact one could make an excellent argument practically all of the important work in computer science took place before 1981.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts