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.

43 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. US influence peddling goes world-wide by Harodotus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is it just me or does it sound like Microsoft and other litigious American software giants has bought the influence of this European commission? I can only hope that the many countries involved will stand up and fight to at least hold debate on a matter that might ruin most small and mid sized European software companies.

    --
    Its not users who are broken, it's systems not taking account their likely behaviour and fixing it technically.
    1. Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Blaming the US my ass, it is the corporations that are being blamed. They bought the politicians here in the US and now they are buying them everywhere.

      Patriotism has no substance and is always pure rhetoric and therefore invalid, move beyond it.

    2. Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We've been standing up and fighting for months, but the way the EU is set up it's very hard to do anything about it.

      In particular, the measure has been repeatedly voted against by the European Parliament, which is comprised of elected representatives from every region of every European country. It has been voted against by the Council of Ministers, which is comprised of important members of the Government of each member state. But with the bizzare way in which the EU works, the wishes of both the people and of the member governments can be overridden by unelected beaurocrats, some of whom were appointed years ago by politicians who are no longer in power.

    3. Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide by badfish99 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Actually, the first draft of the proposed patent lay was found to have been written by the Business Software Alliance (see here

      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.

    4. Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide by cortana · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While technically correct, it's misleading to say that the Council of Ministers have voted against it. It implies that they don't want the legislation pushed through, whereas in reality they do.

      Decisions made by the Council must be unanimous. The Software Patents directive has been placed on the agenda as an A-list item (one that is passed without discussion unless a council member vetos it). Previously it has been prevented from passing by Poland, twice, and Denmark, once (I think).

      It is the Council that will pass the Software Patents directive on Monday, unless another Council member vetos it: stage 5 of the flowchart at http://europa.eu.int/comm/codecision/stepbystep/di agram_en.htm.

      The flowchart says "approves all the EP's ammendments" but (I believe that) the Parliament didn't make any modifications to the directive at the time of the first reading, because it predates any of our lobbying to make them aware of how bad the directive will be for the European software industry.

    5. Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide by ChaosCube · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's what went through my head when I read the headline. If something like this just refuses to die, something else is behind it. You can really tell because this is happening so fast. If there was an issue that was not influenced by big money, and it was subject to debate between sides, we wouldn't hear it go back and forth so often. With this, the tide goes back and forth every other day. Politics don't move that fast unless there's a lot of money or power involved.

      --
      BDR Gear
      Outdoor gear, MREs, and more!
    6. Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      > 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

    7. Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well the main purpose of the US (government) has always been to help its corporations and to push them worldwide as far as possible, by force of arms if need be if that's what it takes to secure markets or raw materials.

      So the thread title isn't that far off. Even though the US people don't think of corporations first when they see "US", the rest of the world pretty much does (that or the wrong end of an M16).

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    8. Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its your representatives. If they are willing to get bought out by corporations that is your problem.

      Yeah, a shame that these so called "representatives" aren't even elected, so they don't even answer to the citizens of the countries they "represent". Don't you find it odd that the elected portion of the EU repeatedly turned down software patents while these "representatives" are going full steam ahead?

      the groupthink here won't allow me to expound on that, so I won't bother.

      To counter groupthink, you'd have to first think, but most of the people who blindly defend software patents fail to do that.

      What do you think will happen if this EU directive passes, and countries that previously did not accept software patents are forced to accept patents from those countries that do? You ARE aware that software patents are allowed in some countries, and that the EU is acting in its capacity to "smooth out" legal differences to facilitate trade right? Just wanted to make sure you're not spouting off bullshit about things you have no clue about. So what happens when your 5-year-old product meets the 2-year-old patent that suddenly materializes from another country where they didn't care about your software as prior art?

      Before you bitch and whine about groupthink, note that this post has nothing to do with goodness or badness of patents, or abuse of the patent system or anything, it simply points out that the change in patent law will allow companies in countries with patents to wake up one day and crush everyone else.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    9. Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide by advocate_one · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
    10. Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Funny
      The other option is to tell the US to fuck off. How about growing a set of balls and doing it?


      The whole planet has been doing so for a while. It may not have been aired on Fox News though, so it might be news to you.
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    11. Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide by roard · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Uh, did you read the part where I said that if your "representatives" don't answer to the citizens that you have bigger problems than software patents? I know the EU is a fucked up idea. I am glad that some of the people in the EU are starting to realize this. Don't blame it on the US.

      The EU is NOT a fucked up idea, the current organisation is. Of course, the US are not exactly pleased by the increasing power of the EU, but hey...

      By the way, software patents are GOOD. They DO protect the small developer. As a small developer who has a couple of software patents that I have successfully licensed, I can PERSONALLY vouch for them. Of course, the slashbots don't want to hear this. The current issue with patents isn't the fact that there are software patents, but maybe the fact that there are cases where they have been granted without a good reason. Saying that "patents are bad" is just silly.

      Bullshit. Even "normal" patents have bad side effects for the famous "little guy", and we're here talking about SOFTWARE patents, patents on ideas. That's the dumbest thing ever. I doubt that you're saying the truth with your "I can vouch for them" (ie, as an AC I think you're just pulling shit out of your ass), but even if that's the case, you should realize that your situation is the exception, not the norm, and by far. Software patents are used by big company to stiffle innovation. Ask bill gates, he wrote it black on white.

    12. Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide by arkhan_jg · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
    13. Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide by arkhan_jg · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
    14. Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide by Alsee · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
  2. Well by metlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is nothing wrong with patents per se, but rather the *reasons* why they are being called for.

    The European computer patent measure seems to be aimed at stifling competition rather than encourage innovation - that is why it's not a good idea.

    Unfortunate, the US patent system has the idea right but it's been misused into oblivion (with wonderful contributions from those granting patents, too) - but it was never created for the reasons that the European Computer Implemented Inventions Directive is being created for.

    Damn unfortunate.

    1. Re:Well by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want people to innovate, then pay them to do so.

      You don't need to give people the power to stop OTHER people from innovating in order to encourage THEM to innovate.

    2. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > If you are a lone programmer (or a small independent group) who comes up with
      > something that you need to make money out of, patents genuinely help you.

      Copyright helps me, having to do a patent search for every 15 lines of code helps nobody!

      > that does not mean the spirit of software patents is wrong.

      The spirit of software patents? Some things were excluded from patent protection for a good reason, math, literature and computer software included!

    3. Re:Well by badfish99 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So you're a lone programmer and you have one good idea. You patent it, and then write a program that uses it. Fine.

      But when you try to sell that program, along comes a big business that says "we want to buy your one idea for a small sum of money - oh, and by the way your program contravenes 73 of our patents on trivial obvious programming ideas. So either you take our offer, or else we sue you into oblivion".

    4. Re:Well by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If you are a lone programmer (or a small independent group) who comes up with something that you need to make money out of, patents genuinely help you.
      No, they may help you if you're the first person to think of the idea, and have enough capital to register the patent and load a magazine of patent lawsuits into a lawyer.

      If you're not the first person to think of the idea, then you're fucked. It doesn't matter that you thought of the idea yourself, that you got no help from anyone, that you didn't know the idea had been invented and that it had been patented, you're lawsuit bait, and you're going to have to either stop selling whatever it was you were selling, change it radically at much expense to you (which might not be enough), or pay someone else for the privilege of using the work you did.

      Patents suck. Patents exist only to create incentive to invent new things, but they come with a price in that they punish those who invent things that have already been invented - which means if something is an obvious solution to a problem, one group can hurt many innocent inventors. In software, there already are incentives to create new things, so there's no need for patents. None whatsoever. You ONLY get the bad side. We need software patents outlawed. We need those who approve of them out of power. Out of power in the US. Out of power in the EU. We need those who lobby for them excerting undue influence on politicians to get them passed jailed. And we need those who register software patents and try to enforce them pilloried and bankrupted as the fucked up opportunists they are.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Well by Doomdark · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Unfortunate, the US patent system has the idea right but it's been misused into oblivion

      This is the good old "guns don't kill people, people do". It's neither here nor there -- the system is being systemically abused, so much so that the original idea(l)s don't really matter a lot. I'm also not quite sure where you got the idea that EU system was designed to stifle innovation -- I seriously doubt that was the expressed intent. Rather, there was lots of talk about harmonization, and levelling the playin gfield. not that I care much about the official reasonings, but since you imply they differ between US and European systems (which I don't think is the case).

      What you are basically saying that EU patent system extension would be just ok, if the rhetorics being used were more noble. I think talk is cheap, and the end result would be the same no matter how eloquently the background ideals were expressed.

      Further, I think that there is plenty wrong with patents, as far as they extend to software and business methods. For one they are useless (copyrights are enough); and for another they are dangerous (abuse by companies specializing in enforcing patents instead of building anything based on designs being patented).

      I can accept time-limited patents for mechanical inventions, and (grudgingly) for chemical compounds (or, preferably, only for methods for creating specific compounds); but that's because they already exist, and there are some reasonably arguments for them. For software, I'd much rather not have any patentability whatsoever. And I'm confident that this would be to my best interest, even as the "small guy", coming up with innovative software algorithms and designs. I don't need abuse-ridden system to ostensibly "protect" me.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    6. Re:Well by mcc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Blame the patent office for granting those patents, but not the idea behind patents in general.

      If the idea behind patents is clumsy and vague enough that it can't be implemented without the patent office in question granting these disastrous "bad" patents, then wouldn't this essentially indicate some kind of flaw in the idea itself? Because frankly, every patent system in the world so far that allows software patents has granted these bad patents in great number.

      It's kind of like, oh I don't know, communism. If Leninism is a good idea so long as you can get an incorrupt and wholly selfless state, but you can't ever get an incorrupt and wholly selfless state, maybe Leninism itself is just not such a good idea.

      The patent concept is inherently inappropriate for computer programs. It cannot be implemented in a reasonable fashion, and attempts to implement it through bureaucracy are doomed to spectacular failure.

  3. I don't understand by Auckerman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why do Europeans allow a non-elected commission to determine economic policy? It makes no sense to me that a state would agree to hand out such important matters that, in my mind anyhow, require representation to do. Personally, I don't give crap about software patents, I'm more amazed the EU is run like this.

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
    1. Re:I don't understand by alext · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because their governments refused to give the EU Parliament real power, instead sending commissioners to make up a cabal.

    2. Re:I don't understand by Lussarn · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:I don't understand by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Informative

      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!
  4. Protects small developers? by Sta7ic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure, software patents protect small developers. That's why Carmack's Reverse is patented by 3DLabs (who John Carmack doesn't work for, and received royalties from Doom 3 sales), one-click ordering is patented by one of the online auction giants, and is why we're seeing elements of standard computing operations being patented on a weekly basis.

    How does the patenting of the components and standard processes of computing protect the small developers if the small developers are no longer allowed to freely develop?

  5. Re:If it is going back to parliment anyway... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I suspect it's a matter of who has greater willpower, very much like the periodic brawls in the US between the White House and Congress. The Parliament can (and should) reject it, and keep rejecting it every time the EC kicks it back to them, but will they have the political will to do so? Cf. "Social Security" and "judicial appointments."

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  6. Denmark and Poland Will Deal the Death Blow by TerminalSpin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apparently, the Danes have stepped up to kill this one! http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic. php?t=428

    --
    :wq
  7. EU Questions... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not up on my EU procedures. Assuming it is approved by the ministers, does it still need Parliamentary approval? If so, and assuming it receives such, is there some type of court to which an appeal can be brought? Does the EU have any type of Judicial redress?

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  8. Actually, they are as good as dead by CharonX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to this article in the German IT magazine Heise.de (use the fish), the danish parliament has giving their minister for economy, Bendt Bendtsen, binding orders to request a complete restart of the whole negotiations.
    The parliament of the Netherlands have giving their representative orders to support any demands for new negotiations.
    Finally, the German representative would face sever pressure (he'd probably have to resign) should he ignore the German parliants demands for new negotiations.
    As for many of the "new" EU members, they will probably not support a decision that might severly restrict their fledgeling IT economy - no matter how much Microsoft and the other "big players" try to lobby.
    So, all in all, its as good as dead - at least for now.

    --
    +++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
  9. The danes blocked it again... by SlashDread · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  10. reaction from the EU parlement to the latest by laurensv · · Score: 3, Informative
  11. Update: Denmark will stop it! by henni16 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  12. Some possible good news by Richard_J_N · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you look here: http://ffii.org/ there's some possibly better news.

  13. Political disinterest by sploxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IMHO, this is the effect the general political disinterest the population has here in the EU. It may be stronger than in the US, but it' still declining.

    And it is now SO LOW that corruption rises steeply. This is corruption, isn't it? Not calling it corruption would euphemise it.

    Maybe, people still care a bit about what the media say. The media don't say anything about 'smaller political issues', only the important ones.

    But the media also decide what "important issues" are. For example they redefine that corruption is about privately using frequent-flyer-miles (not ok, of course, but corruption?), about contacts of politicians into red-light districts (wtf?!)
    They let politicians talk about "high-tech", "information economy" etc.pp. But if important laws are proposed in this area, they do not notice or they do not want to notice.

    If the Minister for Economic Affairs overrides decisions of the cartel office for apparently no good reason (as it happened here in germany), it's pictured as "saving the economy". Arrrrrrgh!

    If they push this through, "we" should not stop trying to prevent software patents. We should lobby for the abolition of software patents then. But this will be hard.

    Sometimes, I have the vision for 2020-2030 of some grey-haired FLOSS developers drinking tea together and being nostalgic about the wild times where software development wasn't illegal and fundamental rights were still respected.

    But I can not, in any way, accept such a development.

  14. Somehow this reminds me of..... by RootsLINUX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The French revolution. Those in power repeatedly ignore the cries of the people and defile common sense with their governmental decisions. The rich live their lives in naive luxury while those outside their homes are starving. Finally the straw that breaks the camel's back will fall, and the people will rise to usurp their so-called "leaders". Chaos will soon follow, and the rage, blood, and death will spread across the countryside like wild-fire...

    Anything and everything just seems to be getting more and more messed up in the world of politics today. My only question is what will be the 21st century equivalent of the guillotine? Laser guns? Oh please, please let it be laser guns!!! =D

    --
    Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
  15. Here they are... by ooze · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Here they are... by dajak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Blame McCreevy, the leading commissioner for the DG that's doing all this.

      What is Ireland's stake in this? It used to be one of the poorest EU members, but the IT industry is booming over there. A particular type of IT, that is:

      "U.S. investment in Ireland stands at $55.4 billion--more than four times the amount invested in China, according to James Kenny, a Chicago builder who became U.S. ambassador to Ireland last year.

      American businesses have created more than 90,000 jobs in Ireland, but more telling, said Kenny, is the increasing value of those jobs. When Microsoft began manufacturing software in Ireland 20 years ago, the average salary at the plant was about $20,000; today that facility has grown into Microsoft's European Operations Center, with 1,100 employees and an average salary of about $65,000." (Chicago Tribune, numbers are stale)

      The position of Poland is even more remarkable when you realize that Poland itself is also a potential cheap "European Operations Center" for non-European companies like Micro$oft. I think Poland either doesn't understand yet how modern democracy works, or they are pissed with the US because they feel they didn't get paid well for the services rendered to the US in the 'coalition' that attacked Iraq.

  16. Re:To which extent? by Husgaard · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Currently the European Patent Office is - illegally - issuing software patents. These patents cannot be enforced in court until the directive is passed.

    But those over 30000 illegally issued software patents give us an idea of the future.

    They include basic user interface widgets like tabs (EP689133).

    FFII has a list of the last 100 software patents they found.

  17. Commission colluded with Microsoft, says MEP by yeremein · · Score: 4, Informative
    According to Austrian MEP Dr. Maria Berger, the European Commission acted in collusion with Microsoft in denying the restart request.
    Dr. Berger describes the letter of the president of the Commission (José Manuel Barroso) to the president of the EP (Josep Borrell), in which a restart of the process is declined, as "yet another provocation of the parliament". She concludes that Barroso "apparently loves to play high-stakes poker with the EP", and recalls that he already suffered his first defeat with that approach last year when he had to withdraw his list of proposed commissioners because the EP would otherwise have withheld its approval. The way she sees the present situation, Barroso may now face another defeat. Dr. Berger concludes saying that Bill Gates, who recently traveled Europe to pressure politicians toward a directive to his liking, "is at the moment making himself ever more enemies in the EP".

    Another interesting tidbit from the article:
    Microsoft's push for EU software patents drew major attention last month after a leading Danish financial newspaper quoted Microsoft Denmark's chief lobbyist who said that Bill Gates had threatened the Danish government with killing 800 jobs unless the EU were to legalize software patents. The Danish social democrats responded with a press release that "blackmail shall not dictate Danish policy". Microsoft subsequently denied that Gates made the respective statement but did admit that intellectual property rights and their connection with the location of jobs were discussed in the respective meeting.
  18. I did complain to mine by steve_l · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  19. What, if anything, has Microsoft invented? by freezin+fat+guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I find it interesting that there is an ongoing suggestion that only big money firms are innovators and that small companies and open source concerns are just copiers. Such willful ignorance is staggering.

    You have any doubt? Let us look at Microsoft then as they are the biggest and surely the "most innovative." Which world famous products of theirs have shown them to be the great innovators that all else copy?

    MS-DOS? A clone of existing operating systems. They took someone else's idea, made their own implementation, and profited.

    Their greatest triumph? Windows OS. So can we assume Microsoft created the first graphical operating system? The first window based operating system? The first point-and-click, mouse navigated operating system? No, no and no. In all three cases they took an existing idea from someone else, extended it and profited.

    Which is exactly what small companies and open source projects do. But we're getting ahead of ourselves...

    Tell me then, what is the second item Microsoft is famous for? MS Office. So then, did Microsoft invent the word processor? Spreadsheet? Email client? Database? Not one thing that Microsoft is famous for is a software idea of their own invention. In every case they have extended a previous software idea. And have gotten rich doing it.

    This is how software has ALWAYS been created... until now.

    Software patents are simply a tool for the mighty to beat the young in manners they themselves were NEVER subjected to. If the EU passes this proposal they should be consistent and pass a proposal to allow adults to choke and stifle children, to choke them until they die. Sure, we understand that we became adults because someone else was leanient toward us. Just as the process of creating software was leanient toward today's giants. Should that debt cause us to extend the same courtesy toward those that come after us?

    Pass software patents? Let us be consistent then: punish the weak, the poor, the young, the lessers - all they who fall outside the scope of the "master race." Good Nazi's vote in favour of patents.