Slashdot Mirror
Major Blow to Opponents of Software Patents in EU
Sanity writes "According to a FFII report, and a Financial Times article, proponents of software patents have just won a significant victory against smaller software companies and open source software proponents as the EU's legal affairs committee rejected most of the effective amendments that were proposed to the Computer Implemented Inventions Directive, which is widely perceived to usher-in U.S.-style software patents in the EU. All is not yet lost as the rejected amendments can be re-tabled when the entire European Parliament has the opportunity to vote next month. If you value the freedom to code without worrying about getting sued, and you live in the EU, now is the time to take effective action." And JasonFleischer writes "Richard Stallman has a piece in The Guardian which does a nice job of explaining the problems with the EU patent directive that will be voted on next month (and for that matter software patents in general), using literary examples."
The parliament, the only elected body, has little to NO power whatsoever. The commision says, "we want to do this." Parliament says, "that's a very stupid idea, no way." Whereupon the commision says: "Oh, fuck you, we'll do it anyway."
The companies calling for software patents are Nokia, Siemens and Philips, consumer electronics companies, and patent lawyers who see an opportunity to parasitise another industry.
the US already has software patents and it has the biggest software business in the world
And most currently granted but currently unenforceable european software patents are owned by US companies. It is suicidal for the EU to allow them, basically bending over for bill gate's dick in europe's ass (Ireland loves american cock, apparently).
You can spell neither amateur nor enthusiast. Boeing or ford would laugh at the idea of being threatened by "amateurs". However, because software IS different to physical goods, microsoft has to buy politicians to try to stem the tide of open source.
I've found the right e-mail address to all of them except one, if you want to tell them what you think, here's the addresses:
e u.int, cfjellner@europarl.eu.int,o m, anna.hedh@telia.com,. int, nlundgren@europarl.eu.int,u .int, carl.schlyter@mp.se,. int, anders@wijkman.nu, lars.wohlin@telia.com,n .se, maria@liberal.se
jandersson@europarl.eu.int, charlotte.cederschiold@moderat.se,
lek@europarl.
helene.goudin@telia.c
ehedkvist@europarl.eu.int, ghokmark@europarl.eu.int,
aibrisagic@europarl.eu
cmalmstrom@europarl.e
jsjostedt@europarl.eu.int, e-b.svensson@bredband.net,
awestlund@europarl.eu
inger.segelstrom@riksdage
However the inger.segelstrom@riksdagen.se wasn't valid longer, I tried with inger.segelstrom@europarl.eu.int but that failed aswell. If anyone know the right address please let me know.
No, you are wrong. What we are seeing are bad patents that are neither unique nor novel and companies abusing the patent system here in the US.
So we end up with patents like Amazon's assinine "one-click" patent, to Kodak pulling out their Wang patents against Java.
I could post links to bad software patents all day long that pretty much 'eclipse' your idea of "really good arguments".
Personally, I take a more balanced view
But the problem is that the system is so abused that it is dishonest, if not immoral. You would think that EU representatives/legal committees would recognize this, hence my parent post.
Also, I find your comment about little software companies really offensive, as many of us work for such companies and it's how we put food on the table.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
The EU is NOT a federal country. It has very little power over member states. The parliament has a consultative function but no real authority over member states. The Commission is just an administrative body and has no real power either. The EU Council has the power, it's basically a board room where EU countries negociate stuff. States are represented in the Council by the Heads of States not by anonymous European civil servants as you imply.
This is a correct but incomplete description of the status quo. The rub is that member states are obliged by EU contract to adjust their laws to the content of EU directives.
This implies a transfer of legislative powers to the government-controlled EU Council, which undermines the checks and balances a democracy should have. To continue your US analogy without federal government:
Imagine a council of State Governors could create directives that have to be integrated into state law, unless the states want to break the US constitution.
An acceptable way of fixing this would be to give more power to the EU parliament. This would turn the EU parliament into a body with powers similar to Congress, and restore a proper balance between government and parliament.
C - the footgun of programming languages