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 ..."
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?
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
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
http://wiki.ffii.org/Cons050307En :-(
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
I.e. all hands on deck for a topic that is not likely to attract votes from ordinary EU citizens.
It all depends. On the surface, this is about patents, but (assuming we're not being misled) this is about democracy, and the EU Parliament being made irrelevent.
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
So (nearly) did a blanket 100PS power limit on every motorcycle manufactured in or imported into the EC. This was former Commissioner Martin Bangemann's pet project, and it took intensive lobbying from among others, the Motorcycle Action Group and Triumph Motorcycles to slow it down, but it only died when Bangemann himself ceased to be a Commissioner.
This was a virtally unresearched, transparently anti-competitive (Bangemann was trying to protect BMW, who, up until about five years ago, had a similar self-imposed limit) piece of legislation, supported by almost no-one else and more than once rejected by the European Parliament, yet it still took the downfall of its sponsor to kill it.
Moral?
EU Commissioners have far too much power, far too little responsibility, and are too difficult to get rid of.
Incidentally, I'm uncertain whether BMW themselves actually had anything to do with this mess, but shortly afterward, they lifted their self-imposed limit and now make some very nice bikes.
Yes the Danish representetive Bendt Bendsen is pro-swpat. He followed his mandate as little as possible. The presidency would have know that, he was willing to stop with any possible excuse and gave him one.
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.
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
It isn't actually that bad.
For absolute majority 367 votes of 732 is needed, this equates around 50.136612 %, not 70 as stated in the parent.
Four things can happen now:
1. The EP approves the Council's proposal. This ends the process and the proposal is made into law.
2. The EP approves the proposal but with amendments. The new proposal is then sent to the Council for a second reading. This requires absolute majority or 367 votes of 732. Before the Council's second reading the Commission is allowed to make a statement.
The Council's second reading can accept the EP's proposal with a qualified majority, or reject it. If it is rejected, the Council and EP must form a committee that consist of an equal number of representatives from the two bodies. If the committee agrees the proposal is sent to the EP and Commission for formal adoptation, if no agreement can be made the law is dead and can't be resurrected.
If the compromise goes to formal adoptation, the Council must approve the compromise with qualified majority, and the EP must approve it with a absolute majority. If either Council or EP fails to approve the compromise the law is dead. If both approves the compromise, it is made into law.
3. The EP rejects the proposal. This terminates all future attempts to pass this piece of legislation. This requires absolute majority or367 votes of 732.
4. The EP does not do anything within 3 months (+ 1 month possible as an extension). In this case, the Council's common position is treated as accepted and made law.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"