Slashdot Mirror
Software Patents In The European Union Continued...
Christopher Reimer writes "O'Reilly Policy DevCenter has a nice overview concerning the legalizing software patents in the European Union. From the article: 'The Computer Implemented Inventions Directive (CIID), which seeks to clarify the issue, is still being fought over in the EU and may or may not result in legalizing them. For small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and in particular, free software projects, there is much to lose.'"
Please do not get confused. The Parliament is doing the Right Thing(tm).
It is the European Commision which does what it wants..or rather what Big Business(tm) wants...
Linux runs everywhere, and it works ! Let no-one say (in the future) that they invented some part of it, claim it's novel, and encumber it with a patent.
Torrents available here http://home.btconnect.com/chrisandcarolyn/torrents /
Try http://writetothem.com/.
Quite weird actually, the supposedly pro-business right-wingers listening to their voters and actually doing something for the small guys while the anti-business socialists are very much pro-patents and don't even want to hear the other side of the issue.
Karma: Good! Napster: Baad!
In denmark there has been quite an effort amongst small/medium sized companies to get the danish government to changes its vote in the EU council.
:|
A majority from the opposition forced our representive (who is in favour of software patents) to "vote no" at the council meeting this last monday.
But he got around the command by NOT forcing a vote...
People are still pissed at that. I know that i am
So, we'll have a vote on a EU constitution later this year and unless someone convinces me otherwise, i'll assume that the system is fucked up and vote 'no'.
And THAT is what i've told my MEP....
This is not true. The parliament voted explicitly against the directive as presented to them by the EU Commission and made many important changes. However, the broken decision process in the EU allowed the Commission to totally ignore the Parliament's decision and revive the Commission's old version of the directive to vote about.
I had to mention it, as I am quoted in the article as: "Tom Grek, an IT specialist working with Bristows, a London-based technology law firm". I am an electronic engineer and longtime Slashdot reader now working in law (not quite - yet - a qualified lawyer).
Well, would you believe it; seconds after I posted my previous message, I got a response from Richard Corbett MEP. He includes a nice summary of his position, copied here:
"My position is as follows:
* I am not in favour of the patenting of software as exists in the US.
* Europe needs a uniform legal approach to stop the drift towards extending patentability to areas, which would not have been traditionally allowed, and to stop patentability of pure business methods, algorithms or mathematical methods.
* Software products as such, must not be patented.
* Opensource software must be allowed to flourish and the Commission must ensure that this Directive must not have adverse effects on opensource software and small software developers.
* Patents and the threat of litigation must not be used as an anti-competitive weapon to squeeze out small companies."
I'm much more encouraged by those views. Let's just hope they translate into actions.
There also were odd problems with the sound: "Someone doesn't want me to speak and switches me off!"
Council050307 recordings
I wrote to my MEP about the subject (A Liberal Democrat). While I was surprised to find the Liberal Democrats in favour of patents (being 'lefty' they usually are agianst big business screwing people over) she did send me an intereasting document on the matter which I'll list:
----------
Start of Document
----------
European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services
Statement to the European Parliament on Computer Implemented Inventions
European Parliament Plenary Session
Strasbourg, 8 March 2005
President,
the Commission is grateful for this opportunity to make a statement on the proposal on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. I already had the opportunity to debate the proposal with the Committee on Legal Affairs on 2nd February and to discuss it with the Conference of Presidents on 3rd March. I took very careful note on both occasions of the views of the European Parliament. I noted that the Parliament considers, in general, that its views were not given sufficient weight in the first reading. From the debate in the Legal Affairs Committee, I noted that there are differing views on the substance of the proposal, in particular on its content and purpose.
The Commission gave the EP's request of 24 February, which was submitted under Article 55 of the Parliament's internal rules of procedure, careful consideration. But the Commission concluded that, at that stage, regrettably, it could not submit a new proposal, as the Parliament requested. Not because the Commission wished to persist stubbornly with the proposal, but because the Council was on the point of adopting a common position.
As I explained to the Conference of Presidents, the Council reached a political agreement in May 2004 in first reading. The Council has been on the verge of confirming the political agreement in the form of a common position since December 2004. The Commission had supported the political agreement of May 2004. The Commission could, therefore, not go back on its word when the Council was in the process of confirming its common position.
The Council has now made up its mind and adopted its common position. It did so yesterday at the Competitiveness Council. Jeannot Krecké, Chair of the Competitiveness Council, already explained to the Legal Affairs Committee, the reasons behind the Council's stance. It confirmed its common position, primarily for institutional reasons. The Council wanted to avoid a precedent whereby Member States would be seen to be backing away from a deal they had signed up to in May 2004. The Council confirmed its position to show that a deal is a deal and that it was not creating a log-jam on this dossier, in an area which is key for innovation. Jeannot Krecké noted yesterday, when the Council took its decision, that some Member States had concerns on the substance of the text and that these would be addressed in the second reading.
The ball is now very clearly in the European Parliament's court. It's for you to decide how you want to play it. I don't have to remind you of the Parliament's rights: we discussed this in the Conference of Presidents. You can, of course, reject or substantially amend the proposal. If the Parliament decides to reject it, then the Commission will respect your wishes. I will not propose a new directive.
Should you decide to propose amendments, the Commission will give them due consideration. No doubt, there are improvements that can be made. You will understand of course that I cannot speak on behalf of the Council and I would urge the Parliament to engage constructively with the Council in the future on this dossier. I am ready to help in any way.
Before concluding, I would like to say a few words on the substance of the proposal since the European Parliament will now need to turn its attention to this. The Commission proposed to clarify the legal rules on patentability for software-related inventions. This does not include computer programmes or other softwar
In general, if the developer in question had indeed made his invention before someone else, AND HAD PUBLISHED this invention, then it is prior art, and public domain. In this case any patent would be invalid. All you have to do to repel any litigation is show that you published your invention prior to any patent being filed.
However, If the developer had kept his invention secrete, presumably in the hope of making a profit from it later, then he can't claim that it's prior art.
Patents are a contract - you PUBLISH your invention and you get protection for 20 years, after that it's public domain. Like any business, there are choices and risks to consider, and you takes your chances.
[There are no doubt numerous errors and ommissions in the text below. Please mod any corrections and additions up.]
:-) Europe is made up of lots of countries, two of which, simply for example, are the United Kingdom (aka Britain) and Germany. We've banded together under the banner of the European Union (EU), each as sovereign nations, delegating some roles and responsibilities to the EU where it is in our interests to co-operate. One such example is monetary union - a number of EU countries abolished their currencies and now share the same currency.
A primer for those of you that aren't in Europe and also for those of you who are in Europe who find the whole thing confusing...
Europe is a place to the East of the USA, across the big bit of ocean.
One of the chief issues that the central bodies take care of is 'harmonisation'. Harmonisation is about creating a level playing field across Europe, chiefly in legal and economic senses. A main tool for this is the Directive. The central body consults, then draws up a Directive which outlines a part of law, then the Directive is implemented as law in each of the EU countries, and thus the laws in each country come to some sort of standard.
The current argument concerns a draft Directive.
To understand how a Directive is agreed, you need to know who the players are...
The EU has 5 central bodies of which 3 are of immediate concern with respect to the Directive. The Commission, the Council and the Parliament. The Commission is chiefly to manage things European. The leaders of the Commission (Commissioners) are nominated by national governments and have portfolios. The Parliament is directly elected by the people of Europe in a using a proportional representation system (is this true across all of Europe? It is in the UK.) The role of Parliament is to scrutinise legislation. The Council is composed of representatives of the national governments, and as the Council web page says, this is the main decision-making body, and where the power lies - in national governments making decisions together.
So what's the process involved in agreeing a Directive and where are we in the process?
There are numerous arcane rules concerning the process by which Directives comes into being, and it depends on what the legislation covers. For the Computer Implemented Inventions Directive, a draft directive was prepared by the Commission and ratified by the Council (someone - is this right?) and then put before the various committees of the Parliament for comment and voting. Then it went before a Parliamentary plenary sitting, who voted for numerous changes of the original Council version. The legislation then went before the Council once more. They decided to ignore the Parliamentary ammendments and the requests of various parliaments of various countries to restart the whole process, and have decided to send the original Directive (with minor changes?) back to Parliament for the next stage in the process. Parliament has yet to vote.
The rules for the first and second plenary vote of Parliament are different. The second round has a much higher barrier to introducing changes - an absolute majority is required (someone?) - and if the barrier is not passed then Parliament is assumed to have no objection to the legislation, and it will become a Directive.
Understand from all of the above that it is the national governments that are driving this legislation forward.
Is there a need for a Directive at all?
The need for harmonisation has arisen because different European countries have different standards for judging the allowability of patents involving software, which means that the same patent has been allowed in some countries and not in others. Often the figure of 30,000 European software patents is quoted. (Does anyone know were this comes from?)
It's easy to see some examples of the sort of thing that has been granted - the European patent office is on
Hopefully these points will assist anyone who wants to write to you politicians.
1. Keep it to ONE page only - any more than that and it won't get read.
2. Stick to the point, do not indulge yourself by expressing emotion, your letter will not be as effective.
3. Illustrate why it is a problem - politicians need only be educated about the fact to realise that they will be causing problems for their constituents and likely raise the ire of the public.
4. Be respectful, address the Member by thier proper title.
5. Use a dead tree snail mail first, fax second, email last - most politicians ignore email.
6. Give the politician oppotunity to get political mileage from your suggestions - if they look good and can be seen to be doing good it is more likely they will adopt your position(human nature - whats in it for me).
7. Use mailmerge but sign each letter personally. You can use the same letter to address all politicians on all sides of politics in your country, or in the case of the EU, other MEPs - it will just demonstrate the level of concern for this issue. You may consider changing the letter in some way to deliberatly target politicians who DON'T agree with your position, they may change thier mind.
8. Start immediatley, these things move quickly and other "entities" will be lobbying as well, before you know it it becomes law.
9. If you are really concerned READ the proposed act AND suggest changes. I have done this and it has worked.
10. THINK about your position, WHAT reasons are there for the member to adopt your position eg. the economy will suffer because small business will be locked into monopoly offerings.
The bottom line is Politicians are people to and they need to be educated regarding the issues. The good thing about this is one letter from Joe Bloggs == One letter from M$. A corporation maybe able to get direct access to the politician but if thier office is full of letters from people with a dissimilar position it wont be all that effective.
You can be effective, Do it now
My ism, it's full of beliefs.