Slashdot Mirror
EU Software Patent Directive Adopted
sebFlyte writes "FTA: "An EU Council spokeswoman said on Monday morning that the Computer Implemented Inventions Directive had been adopted." Apparently it's due to 'institutional reasons' that they're ignoring the outcry from developers and several nation states ..."
THESE FUCKERS!
You've GOT to be kidding me. .
So if the reason for letting the directive pass now was simply "administrative" and not related to its actual content and meaning, this leaves space for it to be rejected later.
Being personally deeply affected by this directive - I own a software company that does a huge amount of R&D - I really hope the MEPs will do the right thing.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Before the doom sayers start with the end of the world predictions, note the last bit of the artical:
"The directive will now be passed to European Parliament, which can reject or amend the proposal, for a second reading."
It is sad that it happened in the face of huge opposition... but my SIG says it all, no matter WHAT country they are from....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
In an amazing display of democracy, the parliament will still vote on the issue, according to the article.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
What the hell on a stick with a bag of chips and a large soda consisting of coke, mountain dew, and a splash of root beer?
These people will cry the day they get a cease and desist from Microsoft because their child programmed a bubble sort in LOGO class, in first grade.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
we'll have to write good, patent infringing software. software that is so good it causes the downfall of a company and benefits the world while doing it. all of this, while trying to remain anonymous. i take this time to wish everyone good luck.
When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?
Note that this means it goes back to parliament for a second reading (where an _absolute_ majority of 376 votes in the Parliament or something like that is needed to do *anything* about it (i.e. abstentions, absences, etc. count as votes _for_ the directive) - seems to be corruption is build into system, but there you go).
Time for a straightforward declaration of our own, I think:
"We, the undersigned, will not honour or respect european patent law any more. There are millions of us. You'll have to kill us all before you ever get your patent monopolies, you corrupt corporatist fuckers. Good day."
You're from Spain then, eh?
Interesting point though: would the proposed European Constitution make things better or worse in this respect? Who will gain more power, the European Parliament or the European Council / Commission?
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
This is now in the hands of our beloved European Parliament. I understand that most of the MEPs have long since been lobbied to the brink of resignation on this issue, but let's make them work for their croissants and travel expenses. The linkk below is to a list of UK MEP's email addresses: http://vox.org.uk/MEPMail.htm Sean
RTFA. The European Parliament still has to vote on it, and have rejected it before.
This is unfortunate indeed. The EU decision to adopt software patents is akin to opening a large banana only to find that half of the fruit in the middle falls to a horrible death on the ground. It's really not fair at all; I only had one banana with me (organic), and I lost some 70% of it to the wet ground.
Maybe the parties involved in this will someday lose a mango.
Best information source for the EU patent-problem.
Here's the press release
"You are 0wnX0red!!"
I think I speak for all of Slashdot when I say: Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble!
I find laziness to be an excellent motivator.
Now's the time to flood the (soon-to-be) newly formed software division of the EU patent office with patent applications.
Get them in now! If we can flood them with a few million patent applications per day, they'll be likely to just start approving everything. Imagine your new income after you have a patent on such non-obvious things as simple boolean logic.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm moving to Canada!
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
Yes and to reject the directive 2/3 of the members of parlament have to vote against it. If I look at how the people who claim to represent my country's interests turn into cowards when it comes to taking the stand I'm not to enthusiastic about the 2nd reading.
If you live in a country like France where you'll have to vote the constitution, make sure you vote NO to punish the council and the commission for their behaviour.
I personally don't want to live in a dictatorship where the will of the parliament is disregarded by people who have been elected by no-one.
Today's commission is like russia's communist party. Make sure they go back to home with a lesson they will never forget.
This means it's back to stones and rocks as far as near-future tech is concerned? Or are we going to get a C&D for constructing a calculus with pebbles?
Whenever interplanetary human space travel is possible, I'll be the first to start a rebel colony somewhere on Mars that opposes copyright law, patents and major corporations.
De Krécké as och nët besser wéi de Metzleschjong!
Say no to software patents.
And as someone else already said: the Council has adopted its "common position" (although it was far from common in this case). It still has to get into the European Parliament, through its second reading (where it can be amended or even rejected, after which the whole game is immediately over).
Anyway, as far as I am concerned, the big news is not what they adopted (a directive text which codifies the European Patent Office's US practice), but how they adopted it. Three countries with the support of several others asked to reopen discussions, and the Luxembourg presidency simply denied that even though they have to let the Council as a whole decide about that according to their own rules of procedure (point 3.8).
Donate free food here
They have been. But the institution they're a part of runs makes laws/rules for hundreds of millions of people.
People go to some institutions voluntarily, and some involuntarily.
It's the dup that never dies, and legitimately belongs on slashdot. Seriously, I'm an american, and even I have a hard time believing it is making it through with the press it has gotten. I live the justification of it "to be consistent with other policies". WTF?
Kno Kmore Knoppix. Mplayer is done, Europe is finnished for inovation.
I guess we have to look to the Chinese now for inovatave software, along with everything else.
I know it isnt over, but it's like the long walk to the gas chamber. you can guess the outcome.
Sad Day
* Carthago Delenda Est *
It's not at all obvious. The Parliament is supposed to gain more power on paper, but there are several complicating factors, like the new President, Foreign Ministry, and streamlined Council. The BBC have attempted to summarise it..
/usr/games/fortune > ~/.signature
The only institution that can stop this madness now is the EU parliament and it has shown several times now, that it is willing to do just that.
They even asked the EU-Commission to restart the whole process, but the Commission flat out denied this request. I can't imagine that members of parliament like to be treated like that.
So please, write your local member of the EU parliament and tell him that you ask him to do everything within his power to stop this madness.
It needs a 70% majority of all parliament members (no just those present) to reject the proposal, however, which will be tough to achieve. I also understand that they can only accept or reject, not ammend.
This is a very sad day for democracy and innovation in Europe.
Apparantly God hates Europe! :)
Okay I'm kidding... I don't believe in god. I hate to say it, but this is just what happens in a world where money is the primary motivator for things. It's important -- I work for money too -- but I also love my job and wouldn't leave it unless there was a profoundly good reason to do so...(such as an offer of much more money!) Nothing I say here will likely change anything, but when your motivator is money, think about what you're doing to the world and take interest in it -- the older I get, the more I realize the world is mine too and that I'm not just some kid who was born into this ride -- I want to drive too!
Yes, you're right, there's another possibility to reject it. But the matter is that this has been passed against some countries' opinion, the Europarliament and (that's the most important aspect) the stablished procedures and protocols about directives.
You know, the supporters of this directive (the hugest companies) have been able to break the rules of the government council for serving their interests... Sad day for the democracy and Europe.
This has been the one thing that MS before going after IBM, HP, SGI, etc. over Linux. In fact, the only company with a get out of jail free card is Sun (and probably SCO).
Next couple of months are going to prove to be interesting.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In other words, the EU Council has just stated that form is more important than meaning, and that it is more important that the bureaucrats are able to create legislation quickly and effortlessly than the legislation being fair and correct.
This is the crappiest thing I've heard in a long while! What's next, stopping citizens from seeing official documents because it creates unnecessary expenses and only whiners ask to see them anyway? Or removing the right to vote for all citizens of the EU, because recurring elections could hamper the ability of EU politicians to make long-term plans?
--Bud
It's an important suggestion. If every European member of /. was to write to their MEP it would cover a lot of ground in educating them about the issue and pushing them to turn up and vote against it.
Silly rabbit
Have you signed the letter? I have. It took me five seconds. But there were only 30000 signatures when it was delivered. Slashdot alone has hundreds of thousands of members, for crying out loud! All of us waste time posting idiotic flames in every signle story about software patents, but how many of us have devoted five miserable seconds of our pathetic lifes to actually do something about it? 1%? 0.5%? 0.1%?
What have you done for the democracy, liberty and human rights? Yes, I mean you! If all you do is write on Slashdot then you have done nothing. that's what! People, when will we finally wake up? When will we understand that we, the people, have the responsibility for that failure? When will we understand that we are the ones who have the real power? When will we finally do something instead of bitching all day? When will we finally open our eyes? When?
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
They execute about the same number of ppl as does Texas (per capita). They spy on their citizens. They allow any company that is in good graces with the government to get by with murder. And in fact, they allow their politicians to get by with murder.
Not much difference
From TFA: Last week it was reported that Denmark would attempt to have the directive listed as a B-item, rather than an A-item, allowing the text to be renegotiated.
And so they did. Try, that is. But was told that it was impossible for an A-item to become a B-item. They believed it, and didn't object further. This is bogus, because there's nothing that prevents A-items to be ruled as B-items. I smell a rat!
Underholdning.info
Intresting. What make you think they let us vote about this? We didn't got to vote when they introduced the euro. Nor about anything else. I bet they'll force this one down our throats as well.
I've been fundamentally opposed to the EEC/EU for as long as I've been an adult voter. I first voted "No" to a proposal to expand EEC powers in 1986, and I've consistently followed this path, ever since.
In recent years, however, I had been considering a number of arguments in favour of the EU, and I was actually leaning towards voting in favour of the new constitutional treaty, at the upcoming referendum (in my native Denmark).
Not any longer.
If I had any doubts about voting "No" at the upcoming referendum, this situation has removed them. The process has revealed a complete disinterest in democracy at the highest levels of the EU - and a servility towards "business interests" (for which read: certain major corporations and their vested interests in maintaining their monopolistic powers) that borders on the shameful.
The autumn, I will go to the polls and vote "No". I urge any Europeans with similar concerns to adopt the same position.
- Peter Ravn Rasmussen
Instead of coming up with asinine excuses, they tell us the truth, we're doing it DESPITE the protest against it!
Or as they put it, "We are adopting the position for institutional reasons so as not to create a precedent which might have a consequence of creating future delays in other processes."
In other words, they want to do what they want to do, and they don't want protests or disagreements getting in their way, now or ever.
I guess Europe just fell to corporate interests.
I think it's shocking that we're giving all tech freedom to China. It'll be the only country on they planet where it'll be legal to double click and include a help icon with your software.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Libre Culture Manifesto
A constellation of interests is now seeking to increase its ownership and control of creativity. We are told that these interests require new laws and rights that will allow them to control concepts and ideas and protect them from exploitation. They say that this will enrich our lives, create new products and safeguard the possibility of future prosperity. But this is a disaster for creativity, whose health depends on an ongoing, free and open conversation between ideas from the past and the present.
-- In response, we wish to defend the idea of a creative field of concepts and ideas that are free from ownership.
1. Profit has a new object of affection. Indeed, profiteers now shamelessly proclaim to be the true friend of creativity and the creative. Everywhere, they declare, "We support and protect concepts and ideas. Creativity is our business and it is safe in our hands. We are the true friends of creativity!"
2. Not content with declarations of friendship, profiteers are eager to put into practice their fondness for creativity as well. Action speaks louder than words in capitalist culture. To display their affection, profiteers use legal mechanisms, namely intellectual property law, to watch over concepts and ideas and to protect them from those who seek to misuse them. While we are dead to the world at night, they are busily stockpiling intellectual property at an astonishing rate. More and more, the creative sphere is being brought under their exclusive control.
3. The fact that the profiteers are now so protective of creativity, jealously seeking to control concepts and ideas, ought to rouse suspicion. While they may claim to be the true friends of creativity, we know that friendship is not the same as dependency. It is very different to say, "I am your true friend because I need you", than to say, "I need you because I am your true friend". But how are we to settle this issue? How do we distinguish the true friend from the false? In any relationship between friends we should ask, "Are both partners mutually benefiting?"
4. The profiteers' insatiable thirst for profit clearly benefits from their new friendship with creativity and the creative. Unlike physical objects, concepts and ideas can be shared, copied and reused without diminishment. No matter how many people use and interpret a particular concept, nobody else's use of that concept is surrendered or reduced. But through the use of intellectual property law - in the form of patents, trademarks and particularly copyright - concepts and ideas can be transformed into commodities that are privately regulated and owned. An artificial scarcity of concepts and ideas can then be established. Much money is to be made when creative flows of knowledge and ideas become scarce products or commodities that can be traded in the market place. And, increasingly, intellectual property law is providing profiteers with vast accumulations of wealth.
5. Informational, affective and knowledge-based labour has now become a central driver of profit. Indeed, immaterial labour is increasingly replacing industrial manufacture as the main producer of wealth in the age of technological capitalism. With these developments in the productive processes, a new embodiment of profit emerges. Alongside the landlords that controlled agriculture and the capitalist factory owners that controlled manufacture, vectors-- the owners of the distribution, access and exploitation of creative works through valorisation-- have emerged. It is these same vectorialists, of course, that are now so vocal in their claim to be the true friends of creativity and the creative.
6. For many of us, the thought of intellectual property law still evokes romantic apparitions of a solitary artist or writer seeking to safeguard her or his creative work. It is therefore unsurprising that we tend to view intellectual property law as something that defends the rights and interests of the creative. Perhaps, in some removed and distant time, t
That's what I'm seeing:
"Does Linux add up to lower TCO? Ask the experts. Although Linux is nominally free, the overall costs fat outweigh the initial savings. (Micro$oft. Get the facts.)" They only have to add "You see - we are working on it."
Although it's strange - even large software companies in Europe are small compared to US giants, so latter will get most patents. Who might want it? American companies cannot fund EU political parties, true?
Once they get the law in, they win.
All they have to do is win once. And it's pretty much over for a long long time.
On the other hand, the anti-patent side has to win every time to keep it out.
When the Pro-Patent side are paid for by almost bottomless pockets, and the anti-patent by ethics and common sense, in todays world, it's just a matter of time.
So tough to achieve it has already been unanimously rejected by the EU parliament once already.
So much for my request for the doom sayers to keep calm.
Hei elei kuck elei?? :-)
One would have thought that those crazy Luxembourgians would have enough (laundered) money to withstand bribing by Microsoft, Philips and Nokia, but nooooo....!
It has nothing to do with the adoption of the simplified and unified document called the EU constitution. The software patents is another matter. One is good, the other bad. Guess which is what.
...And if I'm correct, it was the EP that wanted to restart the whole process. So in short this is just a quick way to get the current patent directive rejected completely and get to the restart?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Brazil will likely never adopt them, with its large movement to Open Source.
In related news, Holland has had the highest emigration since 1952 in 2004. (50.000) people.
I was one of them.
There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
Repeatedly ask the same question till you get the "correct" answer
:(
:(
and if you get bored doing that demonstrate that you didn't give a damn anyway.
I don't fathom how I can possibly write any software that doesn't infringe "something", all the more amusing if I sat in a room for some time and worked out an "obvious" way to solve some problem.
I think it's fair to say that China is going to kick us all inside out with technological advancement now. Well, serves us right in some way I guess
MS isn't going to go after IBM etc. They're all useing each other's patents and they all know it... this is designed to keep the new little people down. Some developer writes a new kernel patch and the big guys will get together and decide who's turn it is to sue the little kernel hacker directly. If I patent some little code snippet/idea and MS decides to use it, do you think I'm going to be able to have my day in court with MS?
Flipped around, if I impliment some obvious idea that happens to be patented, do you think I'm going to be able to defend myself against the like of MS?
At some point only our current "hero" IBM will be the only ones able to introduce kernel patches because they can afford the lawsuits and they will effectively own Linux.
This is the end....
Et get einfach Zait dem Juncker eng Kugel an den Kapp ze scheissen, ass schon op d'Mannst 10 Joer iwwerfaelleg....
We are doomed! Money will prevail... and it's slave will succomb...
The directive will now be passed to European Parliament, which can reject or amend the proposal, for a second reading.
It seems to me, judging from the above quote from TFA, that Democracy still has a chance to deal with this matter. Furthermore it seems to me that rejecting the European constitution out of hand simply because of software patents is a bit short sighted. The way the matter of Software patents has been handled in the EU may leave something to be desired but it is still no worse than the horsetrading and sculduggery that goes on in the national parilaments of various EU member states every day. I'm not the biggest fan of the EU but it is still better than the old fragmented Europe of feuding nation states.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Is there anything that we can do to stop European software patents now? As a UK software developer, I'm quite ashamed that I haven't done my bit to prevent this.
What do you consider to be the most effective course of action?
I was reading an interesting article in a recent issue of eWeek that pointed out the fact that if Open Source development is slowed in Europe, it's entirely plausible that developing nations could surpass the technological innovation in Europe simply because with open standards its possible to move a lot faster. We shouldn't have to push the FUD angle, but it's an interesting point the eWeek article makes.
It depends on which country you are from. E.g. Spain has already voted, other countries will vote, yet others have ratified it without a referendum.
: 29-1306 16-16&type=Overview
Here is a full list:
http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm
Anyway, if I were to vote I would not base my vote on this episode. I would try to read the Constitution and uderstand whether is a good or a bad one. This is a typical example why a referendum on the European Constitution is a bad idea. But that's another story...
Some countries definitely will get to vote. I will as I live in the UK, for example. I'm fairly confident of the outcome too - we said no to the euro, we'll say no to the constitution.
Thank's IBM for Your lobbing for European Patents.
I guess it shows who is a real friend of OS.
Anybody can point out some document saying what was the vote of each particular country - for all 25 of them? Everybody just mentions Denmark, Poland sometimes Portugal or Spain.
I listened to audio links on ffii.org ... I appreciate the effort, but the information quality is low. 1st 5 minutes is just "test ... another test ... one more test ..." and the rest gives again no insight on what actually happened.
The audio files from meeting in May 2004 were much more helpfull, thought I could not find out the position of all states in there either. Should not be there some written conclusion/minutes published after each European Comission/Council meeting?
Yes. I'm bitching. What else can I do? I can't afford to go there on my own, and the information provided is so so much stripped of facts that the only thing is left is the boolean value. Event that is not clear sometimes. Just try to find out the document ID of the damned directive.
What can be done now?
If this is going to be forced upon us, can we do anything to take some of the bite out of it?
For example, we know that it is prohibitively expensive for the man in the street to register patents for the kind of trivia that Megacorp Inc. are inclined to do. So does anyone know if there is any kind of facility for proactively declaring prior art?
In other words, if I produce something and release it as GPL - is there somewhere where I could also declare that anything patentable within it should be considered to be in the public domain?
:wq
Either way, you'll get no license fees or protection.
And you might spend significant money on legal fees and patent maintenance fees before you find out.
Your original ideas all contain significant amounts of my patent rights. Yes, you can patent them, but I'll block you from manufacturing them unless you pay me 20% of the wholesale price at time of manufacture.
If you were any shorter sighted, you'd be crosseyed.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Hi, I need a lot of people that help me googlebomb the european council - set a link to ue.eu.int: Banana Republic Europe to get it into google. ;-)
Thanks.
Debian GNU/Linux - apt-get into it.
The EU Constitution will improve democracy, increase transparency, further secure our rights and priveliges as EU citizens, and for some reason you wish to reject it, because of software patents? Care to explain?
I've been fundamentally opposed to the EEC/EU for as long as I've been an adult voter. I first voted "No" to a proposal to expand EEC powers in 1986, and I've consistently followed this path, ever since.
In recent years, however, I had been considering a number of arguments in favour of the EU, and I was actually leaning towards voting in favour of the new constitutional treaty, at the upcoming referendum (in my native Denmark).
The decision today was taken by the EU council, so a council in which every single of the 25 national governments has a minister as representative. So, in essence, the patent directive was accepted today by your and my government. The real EU body for me is the European parliament, and the limitations of the parliament's power are in my opinion exactly due to the thinking that not too much power should be taken away from the national states. Face it, decisions which affect the common market (like patents) will be taken on a European level, whether by representatives of the national governments (the council) or by real European institutions (the parliament). In this case, the governments decided in favor of patents. If you have the chance of voting whether to give the parliament more power in an upcoming referendum, at least this case is not a good reason against it.
Maybe you dont understand the process, but you dont get a patent (As I have done) unless your idea is original - that's the basic requirement. So if your attitude, knowledge and/or intelligence level are representative of teh anti-patent lobby, I can understand why you are all being ignored by the commission - you don't count. Your opinions are worthless, and your motives are just as greedy as thoes of us who want to support a patent system that protects real inventors (not hackers and plagerists).
Thats all very well, but you can't patent an idea in europe or the US, software or otherwise. Your argument goes too far, but a good patent system is good for small inventors and small software developers. The real problem is that when we invent and patent our inventions, we pay a lot of money for an examiner to examine and approve or reject teh invention. This is not being done properly - there is not enough effort put into the examination. Thats where the problem lies, not in the patent system per se.
Hear, hear. Finally some perspective.
We may not like the way the EU is shaping up right now, but it's far better than what we had only 50 years ago (and for the previous 1000 years).
Besides, be that SW patents or any other issue that comes up... we stand a better chance of influencing the decision within the current structures of the EU, than scrap it all and try each in our own little corner.
Then we're left with the task of reshaping the structures themselves into something even more transparent and democratic, but that's a different issue.
You are finite. Zathras is finite. This... is wrong tool.
Did the OTHER PEOPLE patent their ideas - are these patents still in force (i.e. less thatn 20 years old)? if so, then let these OTHER PEOPLE enforce their IP rights.
Ideas are not created in a vacuum, get over it. No matter how original you think your idea is, let me save you the suspense: it isnt. It is just the combining of other peoples ideas.
The fact that you believe you should be entitled to recieve payment on this speaks volumes.
However, there are many patents out there that were granted for ideas that were not original and were not non-obvious to the person skilled in the art.
This effectively means that I can file a patent on the mathematical process of adding two numbers, because I was the first to apply for it, and if the examiner doesn't know about adding numbers, she will happily grant me a patent on it. Unfortunaltey, it is YOU who will have to spend a lot of money defending against this patent in court, as YOU will need to prove this patent should not have been granted in the first place.
"Sorry, you can't have that thought. We, Megacorp inc had it first."
He has written a stupid thing. He should go to the state prsion for a few days for that...
Here you go:
Et muss een séch schummen Lëtz ze sin!
You/We should be embarrassed to be Luxembourgers
De Krécké as och nët besser wéi de Metzleschjong!
Krecké (current Minister of Economy, of the socialist worker's party, who is supposed to be on "our" side) is not better than the butcher's son (Henri Grethen, a butcher's son, who was the previous Minister of Economy, and who caught lot of flak over the softpat issue, before losing the national election last June big time!)
Jojo léiwe Lëtzebuerger ... wierklëch kee schéinen Daag fir ons haut :(
Yes, yes, dear Luxembourger... not a great day for us today :(
Hei elei kuck elei?? :-)
Here, look here?? :-) [also the name of a Sunday afternoon TV program in Luxembourgish language]
Et get einfach Zait dem Juncker eng Kugel an den Kapp ze scheissen, ass schon op d'Mannst 10 Joer iwwerfaelleg....
It's about time to shoot a bullet into Juncker's (dictator of Luxembourg, Christian-Social People's Party) head, this has been overdue for at least 10 years! (Hey, in Luxembourg we can at least say sth like this. In the US, similar comments about Bush would get you an all expenses-paid holiday in Guantamo bay...)
If they did not have software patents, they would provide a model for other countries (eg. China, India) or large-ish trading partners (eg. ASEAN) to considered the case of not having software patents and try to form a large pact of non-software patents group.
Hopefully, they will reject it in the 2nd hearing.
Actually, it was MS that pushed these, NOT IBM. That is not the same thing as saying that IBM did want and start the process of obtaining Patents. But it was still MS that put the full court press on these folks to vote this in. and it remains to be seen, who will do the press on the MEP.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Don't worry about prison, there is even an LLL Linux server there to prevent boredom ;-)
http://mjr.iki.fi/texts/patentfund - Nuff said.
The question remains how the general public would have decided, if this issue would have gotten engough media coverage.
A couple of motorcyclists special interest groups can't hardly count as representative of public opinion. In fact I would bet that the average european would be in favor of caps on motorcycles. (btw. 100PS = 100HP) Bikers are not exactly popular.
You suspect protection of BMW? Are you kidding? Don't you think that BMW can't easily build >100HP bikes? This makes me especially suspicious. If a corporation goes out of its way and voluntarily abstains from skimming a lucrative market segment, the suspicion arises that maybe, just maybe, this actually may have been an ethical and good choice.
The number of possible ways to effectively accomplish something in software is limited.
A patent grants EXCLUSIVE rights to one of those ways.
Therefore, you have just created a land war. Only the rich and monied win a land war. Soon, you'll have nowhere to live. Good luck with that.
Put simply, there is no "stealing of ideas". That's ludicrous. I take your car? You have no car. I take your method of bush trimming? Both of our bushes get trimmed. That's life.
That's also the worst case. On the other hand, what if I develop a similar way of trimming bushes? Now who's stealing. I just wanted to trim my bushes, now you can take money from me! Who's the thief?
At some point the businesses of the world are being given the power to own the EXCLUSIVE right to sell something. I think we all know why that's bad. No competition == screwing people.
It's bad when the government mandates it (national telecomm companies). It's bad when monopoly enforces it (Standard Oil, Microsoft). It's bad when the people suffer it.
If I develop MY IDEA independently of you, I'll be damned if your patent should matter to me. Unfortunately, this is now my problem.
Worse, now the only people with significant patent portfolios won't be people. Instead they'll be the most morally reprehesible construct mankind has ever unleashed--corporations. Worst of all, they're pretty much designed to aggregate financial and legislative power.
Someday, this may cause a revolution...I hope.
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
I believe Spain was to vote on the EU constitution. If that vote is still pending, perhaps this could be used to foster a NO vote.
If that happened, I think the EU would finally pay attention.
Another possible argument could be is that their governing bodies are following the U.S. model: those with the cash are the only ones having an effective voice.
So, after hearing incessant whining from the Europeans about how horrible the US is (and all the more so from those with little practical experience there), do us Americans get to make fun of the Europeans for not being "free countries"?
Perhaps we should "export democracy" to the european commission;-PPP
Can they be sued for this?
But thats not really true is it?
You can get the patent fairly easily, becuase the patents office don't do much if any real checking first.
Its only after you get your patent then market your thing that then real test begins.
Big corps like Microsoft have so many patents they can always find something somewhere, some abstract interpretation of the small print in one of their earlier patents that you've breached somehow. They have full-time employees just doing exactly this.
The worst part is they don't sue you straight away. They wait until your business is REALLY doing well then they can sue you for millions of lost revenue.
Unfortunaltey the whole patent system is so corrupted towards big business it needs a total overhaul to work properly. That will never happen because the big corps already own the governments. The blatantly undemocratic EU ruling only proves that fact even more.
Mier gouf versechert hier waer geint SWPAT.
MFG
FDK
Since the U.S. have basically the same shitty Patent System this would apply to the U.S. as well.
Linux is not Windows
No one is defending stealing. The problem is (or this is the belief of many here) that it is not possible to write software without violating patents unvoluntarily: if you write a large enough software package, you just end up implementing patented algorithms without realising it. This leads to a situation where only big corporations can develop software (since they have a stack patents that they can bargain with when someone claims they're violating a patent). A "GNU license" is not going to help you there.
Stopping the new Constitution will not get rid of the EU, or make it more democratic. Voting "no" will keep it the way it is now.
So you would be doing the "people who have a complete disinterest in democracy" a big favour by voting "No".
The new European Constitution greatly enhances the powers of the European Parliament, and so tricks like what the Council did today would become a lot harder.
There are 2 ways out of this undemocratic EU. One is to get rid of it. This is clearly not an option -- almost all economic growth in Europe in the last 20 years is due to the single market. Removing it would be an economic disaster.
Option 2 is to overhaul the EU to make it a lot more democratic. While I agree that it doesn't go far enough, the new Constitution is a huge step in the right direction.
So, please vote "Yes" on the new Constitution. It's our only way out!
Since the council has no legislative arm, this directive, even if passed, must be enacted into law by the individual parliaments.
What if no (or at least a majority) ignore the directive and do NOT pass a law to implement this directive? The parliamentary imperative being that the council are unelected where the parliament is and could well get voted out before any legislation gets passed, so why bother?
No it's not.
Insist that before you create any code, you get access to all software patents and any patent pending code and enough spare time to read them all.
THEN you can start coding.
Meanwhile, more patents come in. Insist that enough time is set aside to do this.
If we all (or enough to make a large section) do this, even in companies that are pro-patent, that will slow down production to a halt, until such time as you get a clear mandate from the CEO that you can ignore software patents.
If we get the top dozen pro-swpat companies with specific agreement to ignore patents, then the swpat program becomes moot.
Eventually, it will die.
That's what I will do, anyways.
(working for the Met. Office in the UK).
I'd like to know how a law could be enforced if it's adoption has clearly been done illegally. A law illegally adopted is illegal for me, so unenforceable, altough IANAL.
I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
A chance, yes, albeit a slim one, because a 2/3 majority is required for any changes to be introduced in 2nd reading.
And that's a 2/3 majority of Members, not just those present. So it can actually pass with 0 votes in favour, all that is required is that at least 1/3 of MEPs don't show up or abstain.
The only real possibility is that even supporters of software patents will oppose this Directive, simply to punish the undemocratic conduct of Council & Commission wrt this issue.
I know it isnt over, but it's like the long walk to the gas chamber. you can guess the outcome.
Ever heard of Godwins Law?
FFII link:
http://swpat.ffii.org/players/ibm/index.en.html
You drive a car? not many built by individuals, corporations do that. Ever fly anywhere with your family on holidays? in a home-made plane I bet? No, but the're build by corporations too, and what about TV, thaty movie you went to, the shopping mall or supermarket you use - coproprations. Your pension is probbably managed by and invested in corporations. And the Drugs your sick granny, mother child uses, corporations too.
Rather than being evil, Corporations provide a strong legal framework and represent one of the highest achievements of modern sophisticated society. They enable us to co-operate to achieve more that any individual can, and to do it in an orderlay and fair and respectful way.
Or perhaps you prefer some of the alternatives: Tribalism?
Feudalism?
Communism?
Vote a punitive NO, emigrate or learn a new job (as you may have guessed I'm busy doing). Those are your only options, non-exclusive.
Where are you going to immigrate to? It looks like the whole western world is falling beneath the monopoly behometh of (software) patents. We can expect Trading Technologies to shake down all trading firms, large and small, as well as all western exchanges, and Microsoft will leverage patents to eradicate GNU/Linux as anything other than an underground resistence of shrinking mindshare, and probably stifle most other innovations as well. The Free Software world will likely be looking to China for sanctuary in the near future, which is a situation so loaded with irony it defies imagining, proving once again that fact is orders of magnitude stranger than fiction.
We have about three years before this directive becomes law in Europe. Microsoft may or may not wait those three years before attacking software freedom in America, but we can all be assured that in five years time it will be virtually impossible for us as software programmers to practice our art and our profession in the west, without a patron from one of the major software houses (Microsoft, Apple, IBM).
This isn't the end of the world, but it is the end of a dynamic, innovative industry. This is hardly unprecidented. Poor governance and patents have destroyed and stifled many innovative industries, from the AT&T monopoly that destroyed hundreds of competing phone companies and froze the technology solid for sixty-plus years, to aviation, to chemistry, to biogenetics and medicine, and so on and so forth. Now its our turn, and we didn't stand up soon enough or speak loudly enough. Well, some of us did, but we were too few and too late.
So I ask again, where can we go? What countries are left that have not fallen beneath the Microsoft/IBM/Sun regime of software patents, and how long can we reasonably expect them to hold out against Americas wonton aggression in forcing our corporate interests down the world's collective throat?
Has China truly become our last, best hope for freedom?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Only almost? It's convinced me :P
The US's huge corporations will benefit massively from this, but that doesn't mean much will trickle down to ordinary citizens.
Europe has been a nice counter to the laws here up to now. For example, if someone threatens open source, we tell the politicians "If you don't let us work on it freely, then all the jobs working on it will move to Europe." Politicians like their bribes but they hate to hear about losing jobs. If the EU ends up with essentially identical IP laws, that won't work anymore.
I mean ... it's not constructive (neither european commission is), but we could still call in some terrorists...
Yes it is.
http://webshop.ffii.org/
And fair enough too, Genius should be rewarded. I spend sleepless nights just trying to approach some of these unprecedented, tangential and visionary works - an inspiration to any developer seriously committed to nourishing the culture of software development.
Sadly, while my patent on "A Method for Entering a Room Before Someone Else" was granted, I simply can't afford to defend it; my own Mother claims prior art.
And to my fellow entrepreneurs: I ask you hereby consider this comment evidence of prior art for the invention of Sarcasm.
Schaiss politiker....
Ech haat Belsch missen blaiwen...
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
... .... .....in Japan.
See you all there!
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
You are wrong,
Where do you think the laundred money come from
And it is never offical money that is used in buying politicians.
So Luxembourg is just the country to do this despicable action
There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
The EU as is is totally undemcratic, therefore you oppose a proposal to change it? I know this is the logic a lot of people use, but I don't understand it.
What I want to know is whether or not the constitution gives more power to the parliament. The parliament is apparently the body we (grassroots, minor busninesses, economicians) can influence. The closed and undemocratic bodies of the Commision and Council are in the hands of ip lawyers and multinationals.
If the parliament is strengthed, I'll vore for the constitution. If it is weakened, I'll vote against.
We'll probably need new license for that. Like the GPPL (General Public Patent License). I wonder if they have something like that already
Maybe Alan Cox was right when he voted for the UK Independence party to keep Britain out of EU Software Patents.
Nah. Same bunch of extreme Tories who'll rant about Europe whilst probably wanting to kiss America's backside as Tories are wont to do.
Besides, they're too racist for even Robert Kilroy-Silk, so that's saying something.
That having been said, the European Commission do a good job of letting governments do what they really want to do, whilst screeching "Look at the horrible undemocratic EU."
I wouldn't mind researching Peter Mandelson's position on this (as EU Trade Commissioner), actually. Nice way for Tony to get his best chum into power after being kicked out twice, but in a manner less susceptible to the scrutiny (and direct voting power) of the general public.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY BRANDED A SHAM
Mark Taylor, Executive Director of the Open Source Consortium has branded the concept of European democracy a sham. This follows the adoption of the controversial proposals on software patents (the computer-implemented inventions directive) by the European Council.
He said,"..the fact that an unelected body can ride rough shod over the near unanimous wishes of an elected parliament demonstrates that any pretensions the EU has to being democratic are just that - pretensions. To many this smacks of institutionalised deference to vested interest and intrigue, some of which originate outside the EU.
"Without this law Europe has a chance to lead the World but now risks sinking into mediocrity behind areas of the world free of this kind of castration.
"This law, if it is passed, will crush the economic prospects of entrepreneurial software organization seeking to challenge multinational
proprietary interests. As such the government of Europe has shown that it is incapable of standing up to global commercial interests and incapable of handling its own consultative process.
"I would call on all stakeholders in Open Source and other affected software industries to demand and require their MEPs to re-instate democracy."
Ends
Rather than being evil, Corporations provide a strong legal framework and represent one of the highest achievements of modern sophisticated society.
That's an excellent argument. Unfortunately, it sounds very much like the star-eyed idealism that makes communism sound good: "If we all work together, one for another, we can achieve great things." Looks good on paper, but it falls apart under the shear force am individual greed and selfishness.
Corporations as a charter granted by the people to perform specific tasks are good. Corporations with equal rights as individuals are bad. Like Frankenstein's monster, corporations have turned on those they were built to serve. How have they turned on us? Corporations make up the largest single block of money funding lobbyists and politicians. It is well-documented that the politician who spends the most money is most likely to get elected.
So, figure it out. Corporations and individuals representing corporations contribute the most money to political campaigns. And they don't do it simply because they want a particular candidate to win: they do it so that their particular candidate will win, and owe them a favor.
See this for more information. There's a lot more out there, too. Corporations in their current form are not the pinnacle of civilisation; they are a threat to democracy and liberty. Until we have divested them of their current legal status as protected individuals, and returned them to their former status as chartered entities, corporations, by their actions, tend to be evil.
(No, not all corporations are evil. But many tend to evil, such as those self-same airplane manufacturers, Starbucks, the pharmacuetical companies, the oil companies, and Wal*Mart.)
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Dude, that's the Jaws theme.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Perhaps a holiday in Guantanamo is just what we need to escape the torture this issue is causing.
I used to be a strident supporter of further European integration (a very rare animal in the UK). Disbelieving the claims of euro-sceptics as xenophobic rhetoric. However pulling crap like this makes a mockery of democracy.
yeah... "institutional reasons". these people belong in an institution...
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
I wonder whether a suitable monkey-wrench could be obtained by a change to the GPL. Something (in legalese) like:
If you sue anyone for patent infringement, you lose your right to use patented techniques under the GPL. i.e. anyone else who wrote GPL software can then sue you.
This could be made to work, since when someone releases GPL software, they are essentially granting a free license to everyone to use any patented methods within the software. If that right were revoked for those starting lawsuits, it could be a useful start.
It could, in principle, fix the problem of large real companies (eg Microsoft) trying to crush smaller ones. What is left unresolved is how to deal with the really bad guys: "pure IP organisations" such as Eolas.
This entire process has shed light on some serious problems with the proposed European Constitution. Its time to lobby both the public and the left leaning parties (greens, lib dems, etc) into supporting a "no" vote on ratification because of the council's ability to override the democratically elected parliament.
Bring back the website shutdowns, but do it for real this time. No backdoor access, no link that can be clicked. If the European Consitution is ratified in all countries, the future of software will look like this.
Someone should take the Denmark representative's job, by the way. His national parliament required him to move the item to a "B" item, which he is required to do, and he did not do it.
I'm catching a slow boat to China !
Before 1913, our Senators were elected by our state legistatures. This produced Senators that were nigh untouchable, and their job was just another rung on the politican's ladder. All their parties had to do was demagogue national-level concerns to keep the state voters in line and they could keep their man in power. Finally we had to amend our own Constitution to do something about it, oh, only about 120 years after it was created in the first place (Amendment XVII). Something like this can last a long time.
I'm not writing to gloat, merely to inform. From my standpoint, unelected legislators are never a good idea. If you must have two legislative houses in the EU, better to have an upper and a lower house where both are popularly elected. If I lived over there I would vote against any Constitution that featured an unelected body.
...patent system is good for small inventors and small software developers...
... patent lawyers and the like. Furthermore most s/w patents are taken out by megacorps for defensive purposes, they never quote innovation as the reason (except in press releases for politicians).
Oh, the IP man is back. Let me say this once again. There are no economic arguments proving your case. I have asked many times here, and on other bulletin boards, for such proof. None is ever forthcoming. In fact, most research on the subject shows that a patent system distorts the market and has no positive effects on innovation.
See, for example, the paper by the economist Bronwyn H. Hall at the University of California at Berkeley 'Business Method Patents, Innovation, and Policy'. Hall reviews the research into patents and comes to the conclusion: " Broad evidence that the patent system encourages innovation always and everywhere is hard to come by. When innovations are incremental [such as with software] and when many different innovations must be combined [such as with software] to make a useful product, it is less obvious that benefits of the patent system outweigh the costs."
In the Journal of Economic Growth, 2004, vol. 9, issue 1, pages 81-123, you find: "Furthermore, patents affect the allocation of R&D resources across industries, and patents can distort resources away from industries where they are most productive."
The only people to benefit from software patents are
Did he inhale?
It's not yet over but I I'm that much pissed off so I ripped my membership book of the Social Democratic Party in pieces and sent it to the chief of the party together with a harsh comment of the politic of the last 6 years.
There are many more items but this was the last drop to let overflow teh barrel.
CU
In other words, only vote yes for the consitution if you think this is the way the EU needs to be governed for the next couple of centuries. If you need more to feel happy with the EU, vote no. I guess.
Here you can find the contact information, including e-mail addresses, of the Dutch members of the European parliament:
P ag e.jsp?cat=EP&contentCode=MENU_86
http://www.europeesparlement.nl/content/content
Crap...
Let me just say that those of you that think that the fact this only means that the directive is now sent to parliament is any consolation... Think again!
They are NOT going to back down just because a couple of thousand geeks want them to.
The problem is, even if the open source development takes a dive into the underground, and software gets developed without a license and hosted on obscure ftp servers or encrypted BitTorrents, what will it really matter.
If developers can't create and sell their software or services without having to spend thousands of euros every month to check whether there are any prior patents, any independent development is dead in the water.
And sadly just when it started to get interesting (not a coincidence)...
Personally I gave up developing independently, commercially a few years ago. I'm now developing in house applications for a large industrial cooperation. I wonder how the in house development is going to be governed. We hardly buy any software; everything is developed by a team of developers. I don't see it happening that we will pay for the right to create our own 'clickable command buttons' and other bizarre patents.
Hell, we'd probably need to start by patenting all the stuff we made already, not to sell or license it, but just to protect ourselves from other guys who probably thought of the same stuff.
When will people learn that there is no reason why 10 or 100 or 1000 people couldn't come up with the exact same idea at the same time?
It's just so ridiculous.
Democracy is pretty much dead in Europe. The politicians are corrupt and the governments are disregarding the will of their own people and acting against them. This is called totalitarian government and those governments are illegitimate from a democratic point of view and their laws are void. I would not be surprised to see some European governments get overthrown by their own people within the next two years. Just remember how it went in East Germany and how the wall came down. People want democracy and justice and are willing to defend their universal rights with any means available.
I agree 100%. We need more anonymity and security. Here are the first great tools:
Freenet: http://freenet.sourceforge.net
Tor: http://tor.freehaven.net
I hope to see other types of anonymity enhancing software emerging soon.
I wonder how much democracy is actually left in the EC. According to polls over 85% of the general public in Europe is against any type of software patents. This does not meen that people fully understand the repercussions of software patents but the governments have to respect the democratic opinion of 85% of their citizens. So far this process does not look anything like democratic. How can Europeans let their politicians bullshit and oppress them like this? Where are the rallies and demonstrations on the streets?
Parent says:"if this treaty is taken into effect, only then will the actual text of the constitution be written, by a committee of jurists and corporate lawyers"
Obviously, this is complete nonsense. The Constitution for Europe IS and WILL ALWAYS BE a Treaty. If all the ratifications are in, the treaty is adopted and enters into force in November 2006. No new text has to be written by then; of course not. I don't understand why you think lawyers then need to write it.
This Treaty would replace the European Community Treaty and the European Union Treaty, making the whole apparatus of the EU more transparant and understandable.
Last I heard, the Council had passed this months ago, and it had been in the Commission that it was being discussed and was sometimes on the A-list for adoption. Based on my understanding of the structure of the EU as of yesterday, this doesn't make any sense; not only is passing it as an A-list item wrong; not only is it against the rules to refuse to make something a B-list item; but the body which did this isn't even the right people.
Either I'm missing something major about the distribution of power in the EU, or the Parliament should skip voting on this directive and go straight for a vote of no confidence. Or perhaps they should pass a directive criminalizing ownership of software patents; not having the power or procedures to do this doesn't seem to be stopping the other side.
For bloody fucking sake. I'll vent my anger here or I'll endup emailing my MEP lots of swear words.
Bloody wankers. Cuntish motherfuckers.
Well it seems the 3 or 4 emails I sent to mep where nicly ignored.
Dam fuckers.
Shoot me
The UK has an elected and an unelected (appointed, in the main, some hereditary members) house. It's odd that in the UK it's seen as the supposedly accountable house (the House of Commons) that rides roughshod over the people, and the unelected and unaccountable House of Lords has been the voice of reason.
In fact, the Lords were a sufficient pain in the neck for Tony's Cronies that they have been forced to vote on their own existence, and they are in the process of being "reformed" (ie: made toothless). From my point of view that's tantamount to betrayal.
It just goes to show that people as individuals can be intelligent, viable humans, but aggregate opinions over a sufficiently large number, and it's not the cream that floats to the top, [sigh]. It's depressing just how easy it is to get the result you want by producing a message you think will be popular, rather than one that is accurate. It's also depressing that people vote for the same results over and over 'because gran'pa voted that way'.
Lone voice in the dark gloomy wilderness, screaming in desperation and despair. Is there *no-one* there ?
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Merely bureaucratic treachery like this end-run for SW patents is never as quick as this operation. No, this kind of power seizure only happens when the decisionmakers, like EU Councilmembers (specifically in the committees which processed the directive), are working for the corporations which benefit. There might be some "think tanks" or academic gobetweens. But the corporations (*cough* Microsoft *cough*) fund the operation, as well as the planning and press releases that enable it to succeed. And those slimy money trails are the most vulnerable links in the chain. Europeans targeting this scam for undoing would do well to find exactly which politicians and staff received which bribes^Wcontributions, through which organizations, from which corporations. It's not necessary to establish the precise return on the quid pro quo, unless you're a lawyer bringing a suit. Just revealing the illicit links, and publicizing them, can bring a sleazy operation like this to its knees. The corollary: if you don't follow the money, and stop this criminal act, it will be institutionalized, and ever harder to reveal or stop in the future.
--
make install -not war
Not related to the constitution, but enjoy this quote from Bendtsen (link in danish):
What an idiot.In other words, only vote yes for the consitution if you think this is the way the EU needs to be governed for the next couple of centuries.
Also constitutions are not set in stone, they can be changed. For example, the German constitution was last changed in summer 2002 (animal protection was added as a 'state goal' to the constitution). Unlike 'normal' laws, however, it takes more to be able to change it - in Germany, a 2/3 majority in both chambers is required. I don't know what is necessary to change the EU constitution, and no doubt it will be more difficult than for other regulations. But it surely is not like we are stuck with it for the next centuries...
As I recall, at the time there was plenty of media coverage. Usually of the 'OMG WTF Killer Bikers!' tabloid type. Much like the current 'NE1 Coud Be A Terorist' tripe boosting advertising rates today.
A couple of motorcyclists special interest groups can't hardly count as representative of public opinion. In fact I would bet that the average european would be in favor of caps on motorcycles. (btw. 100PS = 100HP) Bikers are not exactly popular.
As with the current topic, (software patents) 'public opinion' didn't really exist on the issue after the tabloids and their sheeple had forgotten about it (about a week after the story broke). In fact, the more I think about it, the greater the parallells between these cases. Both are largely about freedom, and neither really catches the public eye. If I didn't read Slashdot, I'd never have heard of this one, if I hadn't read bike mags during that period, I wouldn't have heard about that one either. The average European couldn't give a shit until they are affected by this crap, which is why it's up to bikers (and geeks) to oppose it.
You suspect protection of BMW? Are you kidding? Don't you think that BMW can't easily build >100HP bikes? This makes me especially suspicious. If a corporation goes out of its way and voluntarily abstains from skimming a lucrative market segment, the suspicion arises that maybe, just maybe, this actually may have been an ethical and good choice.
I hold no brief against BMW. I own one of their bikes (K75S) and one of their cars (318i), and in my opinion, they make excellent vehicles. I also believe that their decision to restrict themselves was probably made on safety-related grounds, or at least conservative ones ('100PS should be enough for anyone.')
BMW themselves did not necessarily have to be involved, Germany had and has powerful unions, who would also have an interest in bolstering a domestic industry, to say nothing of large private and corporate shareholders.
As I mentioned above, BMW are now making 100PS+ bikes, the current K1200RS makes 130 bhp (see link in previous post)
Do we Americans get to make snarky, condescending little comments about how Europe is turning into a totalitarian state like Europeans have been saying about the US since the DMCA? :)
And I was right when I said Europe would have SWpats since it's like on cops when the cop says the robbers have to keep getting lucky, and the cops only have to get lucky once.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Nuff said...
Get it into your heads: the corporations will keep taking until the people forcibly tell them no. The existing system has been rigged so that you have no voice and the convoluted procedures are in place to hide accountability. It's a huge scam. Drive a stake into its heart while you still can.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
Clearly, it depends on your perspective. If you are an investor in a business that earns from protected inventions, or if you are an inventor, then obviously, you may be inclined to think that they are good. If you have to pay someone who has done all the work to invent something, and you don't think you owe them anything, you might think they are bad. Each can be presented as greed. I still think, and our political leadership in the EU (who are generally represent a wider range of interests than just hackers), agrees with me, that there is benefit in a scheme to reward innovation by enabling inventors to earn directly from their intellectual property (the invention) (as opposed say from just selling a better software implementation of an invention). The mind that can conceive a new algorithm or inventive process may not have the resources or discipline necessary to implement commercial quality product. Both are necessary, but without patents, the inventor will be ripped off by you guys.
There is a pretty strange thing going on here. Slashdot is news for nerds, which I always assumed included a substantial number of software developers. The comments are uniformly anti-software patents. As a software developer myself, I am 100% in agreement, software patents in general stifle innovation in order to protect monopolists. The amazing thing is that governments around the world have decided to 'protect' us against our will, so there must be some of us that support software patents. I invite all such people to post here and explain why. This would be an excellent topic for a slashdot poll in fact, as there are really only three choices:
1) No software patents
2) Allow software patents
3) Cowboy Neal
Both the Parliament and the Council are strengthened. And the strengthening of the EP only makes them as strong as they in this particular directive process (codecision) in several other cases. Which means: still easily ignored by both the Commission and Council, with as only weapon to kill a directive process (but still very disadvantaged when it comes to changing the text of a directive).
Donate free food here
Doesn't this say that software is NOT patentable?
- Black Web Page Protests
- Boycotts
- FOSS delays in releases
- Threatening license changes
- Three Hour Mail Relay Slowdowns
Whatever is done it should leverage the important position that FOSS now has in the world's economy. The reaction should be well thought out and be a unified response.The problem is that it's set to pass by default.
Imagine if Congressman Corpmonkey could do his masters bidding by simply avoiding work on a particular day. Rather than explaining why he voted in favor of drilling in the protected areas of Alaska he can simply avoid voting by claiming he didn't know about the issue, had a family emergency, wanted to speak at an AIDS awareness rally, needed to feed orphans, felt it was more important to visit the troops, etc.
The president of the US has the same type of passive approval in his arsenal. If he wants a bill to pass but is afraid that the people will be upset if he approves a bill, he can simply do nothing and the bill becomes law on its own. Here's a wacky example of such logic at the state level.
...is that it doesn't work.
I don't think I need to explain this in details. You don't have a chance to elect decent people, those who are elected are not accountable, there are many avenues for corruption, there is little oversight and those who know how to game the system will win through sheer insistence.
The only way to change anything is through violent force. Find out how your MEP voted. If he/she voted for patents, find out where he/she lives, go there and kill him/her. Repeat as necessary, all the while bombarding the media with your statements (patents bad, democracy good, corruption bad, stand up and fight, and so on). There simply is no other way to go. The corporations have more money than you do, their lobbists have more time, their lawyers know the loopholes better and they all have more contacts.
Seriously, I believe we don't need too many cases of targeted violence before terrorism becomes a good word again.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
No, it isn't. This is the quick way for the council to send a big "Fuck You" to the parliament and pass it as it stands.
Not only have the council ignored the parliament, and broken their own rules in the process, they've got the directive to the point where only a 2/3rds majority of all members states can prevent it becoming law (which isn't going to happen short of a miracle). No restart happens unless the parliament rejects it.
EU Commissioners have far too much power, far too little responsibility, and are too difficult to get rid of.
It looks as though the EU and the US government have far too much in common.
> Also constitutions are not set in stone, they can be changed.
:
>In Germany, a 2/3 majority in both chambers is required. I don't know what is necessary to change the EU constitution,
Well, that is the problem : 100% needed
It almost means carved in stone...
That's why I somewhat agree with the GP post (that seems to be aware of that)
refuse that Constitution and hope that a better one will be proposed.
The EU isn't a republic, it's not supposed to have a ruling parliament, the party elected official with majority votes from each nation is supposed to rule. It's not undemocratic, since we haven't agreed on a 'republic style democracy'. Now we are more in a club for rich nations, trying to create a strong free trade zone, jada jada jada.. With a trade framework which enables this, and that's when these things happen... this time, the smaller/poorer nations lost... like the did before 2002 something.. Isn't there a list with nations that where pro software patents, I know my nation where, Sweden, one quick call to Ericsson, and the liberal socialist government where convinced.
So, if software patents will finally make it into EU legislation, where do I get my freedom to innovate? Which government has not yet been bought by US corporations?
Considering that Peru has passed a law that obliges the use of OSS unless no OSS exist for the given task, that may be the place to go.
Can one get political asylum if I am being persecuted because of my ideas?
Corporate interests?
People talk about the Council bowing to corporate interests, and some corporations want this, but from where I'm sitting this software patent thing would harm most of the companies in Europe as well.
I say that the Stupid People of the World lobby won this one.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
for s in `cat filename`
do
cat $s
done
okay I just patented this and anybody that uses this or any form of this has to pay me
1 billion dollars - uaaaaaaaaagh!!
Did you write to your government? I did. I wrote to Prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Minister of economy and comerce Bendt Bendtsen, and that irish EU commisioner, Charlie McCreevy, explaining that a lot of voters were following this intensively and that their disgust with the lack of respect for democratic decisions may set EU to a complete halt as 9 more countries still have referendums regarding the European constitutions.
Offcourse it came in late, I wrote friday, because they (intentionally??) put it on the agenda with less than a weeks notice.
I was actually going to vote yes, EU has done much for the development of Europe, now taking a new huge leap accepting all the eastern European countries.
But the present treatment of the directive regarding software patents raises doubt: if the current EU shows such disrespect towards democracy, how can I send more power to Brussels and assume they will respect that?
Use your vote (if your government thinks you should have one), and use it wisely.
They are doing this by trying to apply patents and copyrights nearly universally (remember HP trying to apply the DMCA to printer cartridges?). Next thing you know, auto parts will have anti-circumvention devices and special lock codes so only a licensed auto-mechanic can repair them. Then you have DVD region codes (which HP seems to want to include now in printers too), which are nothing more than pure vendor lock-in so they can charge different prices at different places as they please giving no alternative.
This is Neo-Feudalism. Make no mistake about it. The barons are the corporate leaders (many of the Japanese corporate leaders used to come from Samurai families, so for them I suppose this is going back to the old times). Hopefully we can revert it by peaceful means before it sinks in.
Either the EU and the US government are filled with corporate slaves or mental retards. I'm not exactly certain which is worse. At least corporate slaves have some comprehension that they're selling out.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
EU Stupid Fuckwits
If you think Bendtsen is an idiot presently, try reading this: Minutes, meeting of the Folketing's EU Affairs Committee, June 23 2004. Bendtsen is just about the most arrogantly ignorant idiot you can imagine, and this really shows him off as what he is. Note his condescending tone...
In response to the several posters who have urged me to vote "Yes" because, in their estimation, a vote against the new treaty merely supports the undemocratic nature of the EU, I can only say that they obviously have not read the treaty text.
The "new EU" is by no means any more democratic than the present. In fact, it retains the current system whereby the unelected council dominates the political process. Since it also takes away veto rights of individual (democratically-elected) national parliaments, I consider it a step backwards for democracy in the EU. The present mess has only convinced me that it is a proud and noble thing to vote "No".
- Peter Ravn Rasmussen
Wouter suggests those who oppose this sort of political move create a link for the phrase banana republic and point it at the ue.eu.int website.
Not sure this will make much difference, but it sounds a fun experiment in search engine confusion if nothing else. Just no one do it with more Google rank than me as I'm using it as an experiment in page rank.
Banana Republic will be mine, all mine, just as soon as I can prise rank #1 from bananarepublic.com. At least until it belongs to the EU.
I need to learn more but having had a quick glance the constitution as it stands will confirm the powers of the council, and enshrine what is effectively an unelected house as the most powerful entity in the EU, chosen for being one member from each state or whatever the council wants.
In the UK we are still struggling to get more democracy into our second house, and the unelected trough feeding scum, religious bigots [bishops surely?] and others, out.
As it stands I can't see how I could vote yes. At least there is a simple "out" method at the moment, no negoiation needs we just repeal the legislation that bought us in.
Trade stuff is just a scare story, neither the EU or its member states would deny the UK open trade, and we'd just join NAFTA if they did, and sort out trade with the commonwealth, smaller EU states with less good relations with the USA might be more susceptible to pressure.
EU Lobbyist: The Force is with us, Master Gates.
Hooded figure: Welcome home, Lord Ballmer. You have done well.
EU Lobbyist: I bring you good news, my Lord. The patent war has begun.
Hooded figure: Excellent. (smiling) Everything is going as planned.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Welcome to the EU dictatorship ! French people has to vote for the EU constitution soon (29 May 2005) and other country will follow, let's hope they will vote for the 'NO' ! Another good idea from the EU : http://www.stopbolkestein.org/index.cfm?Content_ID =1000
To India or some other country with civilized laws. Instead of just outsourcing your job, you can outsource yourself. Just think of it: Better climate, lower cost of living, hacking open source full-time while living on a nickle..
And the babes..
Well, this is not funny indeed.
I am pretty sure, that all the US patents that has been granted today or ealier are not patentable in Europe, since they are old inventions. We use common sense here.
Another thing is, many of the small things patentable in the US does not live up to the stricter "patentable" definition we are going to use in europe.
And finally, if somebody uses your patent, and you do not react within reasonable time, you lose your rights.
So you can not use the american way, trying to convince everybody to use your patent, and later go for payment. If you do not sue within reasonable time, you lose your right.
It might be software patents, but very different from the US. And one thing worth noting is, that patents protects against commercial exploitation. It does not protect against non-commercial exploitation of patents, like Freeware / GPL etc. The only rights protection that influences non-commercial entities are copyright.
So patent stuff, and thereby you open it up for Open Source.
Indeed, constitutions are not set in stone, however, particularly the important bits are loathe to change. Addition of minor stuff like voting rights for women are commonplace, but true wholesame change of the distribution of power? The only example I can think of is France that seems to change Republics after every major crisis, but this only happens every half century or so. Do you really feel happy with the though that maybe in 2055 the executive power of the EU will be given to elected officials?
Currently, the 'blood of patriots' is worth something less than a hundred dollars on the open markent, and with your spare change you can purchase the integrity and immortal souls of every member of congress. The war is over, and we, the 'have-nots', have been roundly defeated.
However, all is not lost. In order to prevent any sort of cohesive resistance, the powers that be have elected to maintain a plentiful supply of beer at reasonable prices, and insure that you can get 200 channels of daytime television for a reasonable monthly fee. Sit back, watch another MASH re-run, and have a cold one mate. Cheers!
Karl Marx thought so, too. He identified the problem all right - read the parts of the Communist Manifesto that deal with how capitalist imperialism was set to evolve and tell me it hasn't happened. Globalisation, corporatism, empire by proxy, it's all there. Unfortunately, his proposed solution didn't work out.
Any better ideas? I thought European-style social democracy was working pretty well, but the EU seems intent on acting paradoxically against its own interests here...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Individuals and small companies dont have the resources to apply for, fight for, or fight against patents.
Only corporations can afford the time and money to do that.
How is this supposed to help the people?
People take a lot more notice if it's written on paper so if you have the time then formally written on paper is best (even handwritten!)
Stop spreading that misinformation.
It's 1/2, not 2/3.
Hey, "DisprinDirect"
If you're going to indulge in insulting comments, maybe you should learn how to spell first: "thoes" [sic]; "teh" [sic]; "plagerists" [sic] indeed! It's the Commission, not the commission (proper noun).
Congratulations, you're the first pro software- patent poster that I've seen so far on this thread. Feel lonely?
And while you're at it, why don't you publish the reference number of your patent, so we can all see how brilliant you are. And I hope that you are a European citizen (as I am), otherwise it's YOUR vote that doesn't count.
AZT was invented by the U.S. govenrment, that is, the research was funded by the U.S. Govenrment. Subsequent research demonstrating that the drug could be used on live HIV was done at the expense of (and personal risk of) a U.S. govenrment researcher at the National Institute of Health Dr. Hiroaki Mitsuya.
Nevertheless Glaxo a U.S.-British drug company has been ating as if they have patents on the drug. They do, in Britain. After research by the NIH (funded by U.S. Taxpayers) Glaxo filed for a patent in Britain and has since used U.S.-British trade treaties to gfive that patent force in the U.S.
EU patents are no different.
See the article Here.
for supporting the patent directive in the EU, don't worry, FOSS will remember you for this.
So, why is this one NOT front page worthy?
I dont see how the other articles relating to this issue bouncing back nad forth were promoted to front page status but this one was not.
This is clearly controversial and important to for the voting public to be aware of.
comment directly in my journal
I mailed to everyone on your link list.
;-)
A lot them returned as spam + this gem:
This email is being checked regularly, however please note that I am no longer an MEP or a Quaestor. I continue as Chairman of the Pension Fund
If you have any questions about long term visitors badges, please contact: SecuriteGeneraleDG1@europarl.eu.int
Richard Balfe
OpenSource
Someone or group among us would be able to duplicate a patented technique with own original skills - do so, then make the source available free to everybody. You cannot patent an idea, only a technique, and this free source will be a different technique than the patented one.
> Both the Parliament and the Council are trengthened.
That has to mean the Commission is weakened, and they seemed to be the bad guys in this case, as well as the least democratic organ (three steps away from the voters).
In the interests of fairness, the House of Lords rejected the proposed "Detention without trial" bill that Ton' and Charlie were trying to ram through. The system works.
comment from one of the politiciens (in my own words):
:-)
"this was like a real fight and finally we concluded to accept (unanimously) with the aim of taking this to the next level (the parlament) where the real battle will take place. It is now already shure that the result will NOT be what will be submitted to the parlament."
So does this mean: get ready for the patent war?
Battlefield: european parlament
Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
I've been hearing from Europeans whose favorite products have been modified or eliminated by order of the EU government despite the distinct lack of demand for that kind of regulation for years.
How many times have the directly elected representatives voted this measure down? How many times have unelected and unaccountable EU bureaucrats ignored them?
Also note on this issue that the only people whose will is being represented is that of the US Microsoft Corporation and its associates. Is that what you pay your taxes to the EU for?
If I were a citizen of a EU member country, I'd vote NO on any increase in EU power. What you've got is not working, it needs to be thrown back with the instructions "do it over and do it right".
While I am one of the harshest critics of the US government (aka the Corporate States of America), if President Bush tried to get a bill passed and it lost twice in a row in Congress, even he'd pack it in and tell his corporate major campaign contributors "Sorry, I tried. Maybe in a year or two." Even the wingnuts who provide his primery support base would accept this for the most part.
This doesn't mean our President or Congress or court system is composed of virtuous people, the whole world knows that it isn't, it's just that our Founding Fathers did a better government design job than the anonymous group of bureaucrats you got yours from.
People have copied the US system. IMHO, nobody is ever going to try to replicate the mess that is trying to coalesce into a EU-wide government, whether the EU primary body of law is turned into a constitution or not. Government teachers worldwide are going to show the EU as a case study on how NOT to organize a government along with the Polish Parliament of a few hundred years ago where every Baron had a veto.
If you can, I'm not all that optmistic.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Perhaps it is time to rethink the concept of the European Commission. This clearly has not been working out. In fact it has been getting worse over time. The U.S. has also had very bad times from people being appointed to positions of responsibility. Try to learn from the mistakes rather than imitate them.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I think the patents are just one aspect. Actually, it is the attitudes of the Commission and the Council that reveal the ugly monster Europe is about to transform into. It's much more difficult to prevent these kind of things in an European context.
If the Council gets more power, then they will be able to disband the Senate, which would bring about the fall of the Republic. Their Clone army would hunt down independant Coders throughout Europe, who, though they have the power of the Source, cannot escape the reaches of the evil Council. But if there was one Coder in all of Europe that could be hidden away for the continent's darkest day, he could be trained in the ways of the Source without the Council's knowledge and become more powerful than the Council ever imagined...
http://www.anonymous-p2p.org/