EU Software Patent Directive Getting Hot

zoobab writes "Next wednesday, on the 6th July, the European Parliament will have the last chance to prevent US-style software patents in the EU. If the Parliament fails to reach 367 votes for the key amendments, then the Council directive will legalize business methods and software patents. Yesterday, many political groups have tabled amendments to patch the Council text. A demonstration online is running with currently 2400 websites shutting down until the vote. A physical demonstration is also planned in Strasbourg on next tuesday the 5th of July."

Comments

How to contact your MEP

[Ed Avis]

A list of all MEPs with their phone numbers at Brussels and Strasbourg.

Re:How to contact your MEP

[RichardX]

Or you can use www.writetothem.com which will tell you who your MP/MEP/MSPs are and let you email them.

Re:How to contact your MEP

[Anonymous Coward]

What good is it when despite a clamouring in opposition by *citizens* a law which only *corporations* are in favour of is passed?

By all means, lobby your MEPs, but remember, this whole thing is democracy sliding down the toilet.

I don't see any citizens groups calling for software patents. There are only business groups. That law is being made for business groups and not for citizens so overtly is a dark, dark day.

This whole thing is smiley glad-hand eurocrats who believe they have been "born to rule" lording over the rest of us. And as much as I have affinity for my european brothers and sisters, we don't need the EU if this is what it means.

We don't need the EU to have affinity and treaties and co-defence and economic agreements. We don't need the EU to feel close to each other. These things exist outside of some pile of red tape, eurocrat wet-dream 400+ page consitution. Why the hurry anyway? Why can't we keep trying till it's right? Why is anyone opposed to the absurd notion of a 400+pg consitution suddenly a xenophobe? Who's interests are served by speeding this all up and keeping it too complex for people to understand?

We don't need the EU as they imagine it. Get rid of the leeches and the fuckers. The French people smelled BS, while their smiley glad-hand politicians tried to sell them down the river, the Dutch smelled it too. The Austrian government wasn't even going to give it's people a vote!!! These people are crypto-facists, they are well meaning in their own heads, but their stupidity and mixed priorities will sow the seeds of undemocratic institutions. They have done more than sow seeds, they are nursing a monster which should have been aborted long ago.

Remember this! There are better ways to intergrate (I am pro intergration, not some xenophobe) than to let slimey eurocrat fuckers sell you down the river. Remember!

Re:How to contact your MEP

[pdbaby]

Better yet, if you want to prevent software patents here simply patent "A method to convince a panel that Software Patents are a good idea". If they look close to getting software patents through, sue them for patent infringement... IP's a serious business.

For extra credit: find out a way to patent one-click political figure purchases

Re:How to contact your MEP

[Sanity]

The reason corporations control our politicians is partially due to exactly the cynicism and apathy you are trying to spread. Democracy isn't a birthright, you need to fight for it or you will lose it.

So, what are you doing to defend your democracy?

Re:How to contact your MEP

[nanoakron]

I recently contacted 9 local MEPs. The general spread of replies was as follows.

UKIP, Lib Dem AGAINST software patents
Conservatives TENTATIVELY AGAINST
Labour ALMOST CERTAINLY FOR

So concentrate on those lying scum-sucking Labour MEPs in your local district.

-Nano.

Re:How to contact your MEP

[RWerp]

I smell a lot of bullshit in your post. First of all, you claim that We don't need the EU to have affinity and treaties and co-defence and economic agreements. We don't need the EU to feel close to each other. These things exist outside of some pile of red tape, eurocrat wet-dream 400+ page consitution.. So, as I understand it, you claim that such things like common defence exist outside the EU. Pray tell me where they are to find, because the last time I checked, each European country had a separate army. There is no such thing, as you surely know, as European common foreign policy. We have economic integration, but this is strictly within this "fascist EU". It does not take a lot of thinking that you cannot have neither a common foreign policy nor a common defence without some common political structure. Needless to say, we would imagine such structure to be quite different than the current EU. But having just national government, with all their known vices, which you point out quite nicely in your post (though I disagree with you on the subject of referendums, not having a referendum on ratifying an international treaty is OK with me, as the government which had it signed and parliament which is to ratify it both came to being as a result of democratical elections in which responsible adults expressed their political preferences), is even more different. It may come as a shock to you, but most people who supported this so-called Constitution (which it wasn't, it was just a treaty with a huge PR campaign for and against it -- think Maastricht Treaty to the power N) are as critical as you are about the remoteness of the EU's political institution from the ordinary citizens. In fact, this treaty was made to amend it, by making a step towards more integration, and giving more power to the European Parliament. It wasn't enough for many people (myself included), but one needs to start somewhere. I don't see how we are going to get more direct democracy in the EU by rejecting the treaty. It will be extremely hard now to find consensus behind another attempt. Just think how long it took to shape this one.

Why the hurry anyway? Why can't we keep trying till it's right? We were doing this since the days of Schuman. But rejecting anything which does not meet in 100% your expectations is not a way to achieve anything. It's just immature wishful thinking.

Why is anyone opposed to the absurd notion of a 400+pg consitution suddenly a xenophobe? First of all, this was not a real constitution. It was long and boring international treaty, which by some idiotic (in hindsight) PR decision has been nicknamed "the constitution". The EU cannot have a constitution because it is not one state. When the EU eventually becomes a one state, it will have a constitution which will be much shorter. Second, there's no denying that xenophobia played a role. While the fear of Turkish membership has played not that big role as it was originally thought, all France was talking about the "Polish plumber" (see the famous photo here) crazy from fear before those dreadful Eastern Europeans. The word "xenophobia" somehow springs to mind.

The French said they voted "no" to protect their social model. Well guess what, not everyone in the EU is so enchanted with their way of life. If we ever are to have a common Europe, we must make some compromises. The French people declared they do not want to make compromises. So much about their will of integration.

Re:How to contact your MEP

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The French said they voted "no" to protect their social model. Well guess what, not everyone in the EU is so enchanted with their way of life. If we ever are to have a common Europe, we must make some compromises. The French people declared they do not want to make compromises. So much about their will of integration.

Right. The French decided that working like dogs for a fraction of their pay (see: Poland), having elderly people siff through garbage for food after their pensions are deflated to the point of the absurd (see: Poland), having medical care only for the rich (see: Poland) and a long list of other "world's worst social ideas" straight from Utah imported oh-so-gleefully by the Poles is not a compromise. It would be a total surrender to vicious greed and corporatism. That is what the nutty "free-market constitution" meant for Europe, turning the whole place into Poland/Utah (replace Mormon madness with Catholic one) with a Truly Undemocratic and Fully Bureucratic Hell thrown in just as an icing on the cake. Contrary to some popular opinion in the USA, the French do not seem too eager to surrender. Good for them.

For those not in the know: Poland's economy is a brainchild of the neocons and was shaped chiefly by Goeffrey Sachs, the idiot who thought up the "economic shock therapy" (think Russian Oligarchs and Yeltsin). It is at present a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the IMF. Imagine a far-out right-wing economic idea and chances are Poland has implemented it. And it has worked wonders! (if you don't mind elderly people sleeping amongst thrash-cans all over the place, organized crime that makes the Mafia resemble a nursery and politicians so corrupt that they make Nixon look like a paragon of integrity and honesty).

Re:How to contact your MEP

[RWerp]

From your sudden attack on Poland I gather you are a Pole ;-)

Right. The French decided that working like dogs for a fraction of their pay (see: Poland),
... and for a fraction of the living costs, to add.

having elderly people siff through garbage for food after their pensions are deflated to the point of the absurd (see: Poland)
While noone could deny that poverty is not a problem in Poland, it's not like there are no homeless people in France. And in Poland, old people at least do not die like flies in hot summer.

having medical care only for the rich (see: Poland)
This is absurd. Poland has national health care and quite affordable (I'm not earning much but I can afford a private -- no insurance -- dentist who does a really good job) private sector. We have a whole lot of problems in health care, corruption and low payment to doctors being the biggest, but the OP suggested Poland has not national health care; this is a lie.

and a long list of other "world's worst social ideas" straight from Utah imported oh-so-gleefully by the Poles
I don't know why you picked Utah, but calling Poland, a country which has a 5% GNP budget deficit, redistributes ca 45% of GNP and subsidies big state enterprises, a "neocon's brainchild" (for starters, Jeffrey Sachs is definitely not one) is totall bollocks. And the stuff about "Catholic madness" just shows who's biased around here.

That is what the nutty "free-market constitution" meant for Europe, turning the whole place into Poland/Utah (replace Mormon madness with Catholic one) with a Truly Undemocratic and Fully Bureucratic Hell thrown in just as an icing on the cake. Contrary to some popular opinion in the USA, the French do not seem too eager to surrender. Good for them.
This treaty was heavily influenced by the French from the beginning. Ommission of the "advocatio Dei" and the like. It *was* a compromise, which the French later rejected, opting, apparently, for 100% compliance with their wishes or not at all. If the French do not want to make compromises, let the give away CAP subsidies, since the rest of Europe does not see any sense in subsidising the richest farmers on the continent.

For those not in the know: Poland's economy is a brainchild of the neocons and was shaped chiefly by Goeffrey Sachs, the idiot who thought up the "economic shock therapy" (think Russian Oligarchs and Yeltsin). It is at present a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the IMF. Imagine a far-out right-wing economic idea and chances are Poland has implemented it. And it has worked wonders! (if you don't mind elderly people sleeping amongst thrash-cans all over the place, organized crime that makes the Mafia resemble a nursery and politicians so corrupt that they make Nixon look like a paragon of integrity and honesty).

For those not in the know, this is almost verbal excerpt from Polish far-left (or far-right, does not matter) newspapers.

Re:How to contact your MEP

[muszek]

Call me when you're back from the outer space. I just want to know if you get better.

In case some of you don't know... this guy talk about "every right-wing idea already implemented" in a country that has 50% income taxes for the richest people and a government that keeps its hands on every aspect of ppls lives. Not that I'm overly liberal when it comes to economy (in fact, I'm less and less liberal as the time passes), but I think that what a parent says is a pure nonsense.

Re:How to contact your MEP

[IgnoramusMaximus]

And in Poland, old people at least do not die like flies in hot summer.

You might find it interesting that while old people in France did indeed fare poorly in that hot summer, most of those who died had no immediate family. Yet they could afford their own places to live, albait they apparently did not think much of air-conditioning. I am told air-conditioning is not as popular in Europe as it is in North-America, particularly among techno-phobic elderly. Next thing you will blame the French for not going door to door and trying to see whats up with old recluses ... something they eventually did anyhow. Note also that for the French this was a national point of shame, complete with resignations of ministers and emergency measures. The garbage can dwellers of Poland on the other hand seem an insignificant "collateral casualty" of the "lets get rich quick!" mentality which seems to become the leading force over there.

This is absurd. Poland has national health care and quite affordable (I'm not earning much but I can afford a private -- no insurance -- dentist who does a really good job) private sector. We have a whole lot of problems in health care, corruption and low payment to doctors being the biggest, but the OP suggested Poland has not national health care; this is a lie.

Really? You mean to tell me that the national healthcare actually has doctors on duty in public hospitals, fully equipped? Not closing continuously due to lack of supplies or telling patients to bring in their own families to care for them due to lack of funds? I must have been hearing this from some other Poland then.

As to "affordable", it is in the eye of the beholder. In the USA, a visit to a doctor with a broken pinkie might be actually "affordable" for the uninsured too. Try the same with an injured spine.

Speaking of lies, I happen to know people with families in Poland whose elderly parents would find the care certainly and decidedly unaffordable, were it not for a constant stream of money being sent their way from their children abroad. Hell, they would find milk unaffordable, given that their two room apartament rent, gas and electricity exceed their pension.

This treaty was heavily influenced by the French from the beginning.

You mean the French bureaucrats, wholly owned by multinational corporations, whom the French public wanted nothing to do with?

It *was* a compromise, which the French later rejected, opting, apparently, for 100% compliance with their wishes or not at all.

A compromise among wolves dividing the prey? And the prey refused to go along quietly. I am shocked!

If the French do not want to make compromises, let the give away CAP subsidies, since the rest of Europe does not see any sense in subsidising the richest farmers on the continent.

Personally I do not see much sense in the concept of EU if the general idea seems to be to make ultra-rich richer and permanent masters to the serfs via convoluted 400+ page paper chains, average citizens of wealthy countries poorer and to make everyone who is not a corporate lordling work harder then the shoe-shines in Bangladore -- in order to "outcompete" the Chinas and the Indias of the world in the race-to-the-bottom.

Once some people pull their heads out of their asses and realize that the whole purpose of the excercise is to improve living conditions for all, that they should strive to lower their working hours to match the French not the other way around, that they should try to get their economies working for all the inhabitants of their countries instead of the priviledged 1%, then maybe a "constitution" or some other treaty can be drafted, one which a baker or a plumber -- be it in France or Poland -- can actually read, understand and agree with.

Until then, the king-makers, crooks, thieves and snakes of various sorts will do their "neo-liberal market" voodoo dance and woe onto anyone who falls for their lures

Re:How to contact your MEP

[IgnoramusMaximus]

in a country that has 50% income taxes for the richest people

The official top rate is supposedly 40% and if you are paying it, you should consider buying a bridge in Brooklyn I happen to have for sale. The regular rate for the wealthy, as elsewhere in most of the world is of course 0%. The law is specifically drafted to allow variety of exceptions, loopholes and various other techniques to wiggle out of paying taxes (if you are wealthy enough that is). Nothing new here really. What was new, for example, are the facts that national assets were privatized in fire-sales ala USSR and that 100% foreign ownership of most corporate assets in the country is allowed. Combine these and you get the idea of the state of affairs as to most large companies. Corporate rate is 19% (on paper) which is lower then, say, Canada at 22%.

and a government that keeps its hands on every aspect of ppls lives.

You confuse corruption with governance.

..I think that what a parent says is a pure nonsense.

You are entitled to your own opinion, I will just stick to the facts though, thank you.

Re:How to contact your MEP

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I missed this somehow:

From your sudden attack on Poland I gather you are a Pole ;-)

Canadian actually.

... and for a fraction of the living costs, to add.

So are the living costs for people in Indonesia. Then, by your logic, the French should have gleefully accepted the wage of an Indonesian farmer, to be "competetive". I fear that this is precisely the plan, for all the workers in industrialized Western nations to equalize with India in their incomes. Poles should take note, because there is always the "next, cheaper" workforce waiting in the wings, in Lithuania, Kazakhstan or Nigeria, ready to take their place given a chance. I can already see Warsaw papers going on about the dastardly "Nigerian plumber".

Re:How to contact your MEP

[RWerp]

The garbage can dwellers of Poland on the other hand seem an insignificant "collateral casualty" of the "lets get rich quick!" mentality which seems to become the leading force over there.

You're not living in Poland and I do. Stop propagating such falsehoods about my country or I'll drop a line or two about those filthy Canadians which cannot see a furry animal without beating it to death with a club and peeling it's skin, sometimes in reverse order. How nice is that?
As I said, we have problems. Nobody is satisfied totally with the current state of affairs. You have nicely cut out my arguments (a bit of statistics) which proved that Poland is not a neo-liberal country. Hell, the biggest part of Polish state budget expenditure is pensions and welfare. We'd like very much to have a shiny welfare system which takes good care of everyone who really need it, but sorry, we currently just can't afford it. Let me tell you that Poland, with its 'shock therapy' was the first post-communist country to come out of depression caused by the collapse of artificial communist economy. Those countries which delayed reforms in order to reduce the 'shock' part were left with no therapy and are years behind (Ukraine, Bulgaria, etc.) Initially, Poland was in much worse shape (whopping inflation) than its neighbours. We found our medicind for that. It included also IMF advice, but there was some time in 1991 when our most liberal prime minister ignored some IMF advice and did to the contrary of it, because he thought it would be better for Poland (and it was). So painting Poland as an IMF puppet is only a product of your imagination.

Note also that for the French this was a national point of shame, complete with resignations of ministers and emergency measures.

But when the French government proposed a "Solidarity Day", to scrap one irrelevant holiday so that the day's earnings would be directed towards the care of elder people, the French public revolted. So I guess it's solidarity and shame as long as someone else pays for it. Typical socialist thinking.

Really? You mean to tell me that the national healthcare actually has doctors on duty in public hospitals, fully equipped? Not closing continuously due to lack of supplies or telling patients to bring in their own families to care for them due to lack of funds? I must have been hearing this from some other Poland then.

Yes, we have doctors in hospitals and I suppose they're "fully equipped", though you might wish to ask their wives about it. Honestly, it depends on what you demand. I'm pretty sure that an average German public hospital is better equipped than average Polish hospital, but there are hospitals in Poland which do the state-of-the-art medicine, for public money. Anyway, my grandmother has been to a hospital 6 months ago, with a broken leg which needed a surgery. She was operated as soon as her condition allowed it and nobody asked for cash. It is true that the care in hospitals is not perfect and we needed to take care after her to some extent, but we'd visit her anyway: we have not reached the stage when you just dump the old wreck in the hospital and leave a delivery address. Guess it's different in Canada.

Speaking of lies, I happen to know people with families in Poland whose elderly parents would find the care certainly and decidedly unaffordable, were it not for a constant stream of money being sent their way from their children abroad.

Only a small fraction of pensioners have families abroad (and those Poles abroad are probably your main source of information). If what you were saying was true, the other should be now starving. I know perfectly this is not so. In fact, the social group which faces most economic difficulties are not pensioners, with a stead albeit trickling source of income, but young couples with children. Their main problem is lack of jobs. Poland has 18% unemployment, because of the rigid work law which makes it unattractive to hire employers and high ta

Re:How to contact your MEP

[Anonymous Coward]

Well put! Also, that's a nice quote from Churchill.
--A Canadian living in Britain

Re:How to contact your MEP

[RWerp]

Thank you. It's not that I dislike democracy, but we should be aware of its vices as well as of virtues.

Re:How to contact your MEP

[IgnoramusMaximus]

You're not living in Poland and I do.

That does not stop me from having access to macroeconomic data. You can step-dance all you want but you cannot hide from numbers.

Stop propagating such falsehoods about my country ...

As I already explained, the "falsehoods" are based on statistics and reports from friends with families in the fray. Multiple sources corroborating each other. On the other hand I have you, claiming that things are going so peachy that the French should have jumped with joy on the prospect of opening up wide. Apparently the French thought otherwise too. Funny, that.

..or I'll drop a line or two about those filthy Canadians which cannot see a furry animal without beating it to death with a club and peeling it's skin, sometimes in reverse order. How nice is that?

Try that with one of these. People will pay money to watch you try.

On a serious note, this is not about bashing Poland but it is rather hard to point out to people full of national pride that their country needs a lot of work before it can be considered a reasonable partner for "unification". This is the sort of discussion I could have with someone from Indonesia who would be all bristling with indignation on a suggestion that Canadians would not fancy "unifying" with Indonesia in order to promote "free trade". I would probably get a diatribe about seal hunts from him too. Keep in mind seals are animals, and as much as animal rights advocates cry about it, there is a really looong way from a seal cub to an elderly person who worked all her life only to see her country to kick her into the gutter as a reward.

As I said, we have problems. Nobody is satisfied totally with the current state of affairs.

I am glad that you are at least not quite totally satisfied!

Hell, the biggest part of Polish state budget expenditure is pensions and welfare.

Which is true of most countries. Your government spends 18% of the GDP on programs, compared to say, UK at 21%. Compare their corporate tax of 30% to your 19% and you can easily see you are actually more neo-liberal then Britain is. A monster as far as the French are concerned, for sure, considering that both the Germans and the French see Britain as a scary hive of neo-liberalism.

We'd like very much to have a shiny welfare system which takes good care of everyone who really need it, but sorry, we currently just can't afford it.

It is all a matter of priorities, thats all.

Let me tell you that Poland, with its 'shock therapy' was the first post-communist country to come out of depression caused by the collapse of artificial communist economy.

And the fact that the socialist government of Poland -- unlike the others -- allowed all sorts of small businesses to flourish long before the collapse of "communism" had nothing to do with it, yes?

[ copious volumes of hand waving skipped ] So painting Poland as an IMF puppet is only a product of your imagination.

Based on your own argument that it (supposedly) defied IMF ... (cue drum roll) ... once ... well, uhmmm .... yes it is an IMF puppet!

But when the French government proposed a "Solidarity Day", to scrap one irrelevant holiday so that the day's earnings would be directed towards the care of elder people, the French public revolted. So I guess it's solidarity and shame as long as someone else pays for it. Typical socialist thinking

Ah I see! That is how "socialist thinking" works! Lemme see, a corrupt prime-minister proposes a "working holiday", in a bill full of double-talk and corporate handouts "to pay for the elderly", with a new bureaucratic program while at the same time reducing income to existing funds such as the "Caisse nationale d'assurance mala

Re:How to contact your MEP

[RWerp]

You're a fanatic who can't keep up a decent discussion without name-calling. EOT.

Re:How to contact your MEP

[IgnoramusMaximus]

You're a fanatic who can't keep up a decent discussion ...

Fanatical? Yes, I guess refusing to abandon reason in order to follow you down some rabbit hole to the Never-Never Land of Make-Believe Wonders of Personally Responsible Greed might in your eyes count as fanatical addiction to reality. A nasty vice, I am sure.

... without name-calling.

Yes, particularly when assaulted with some weird sexual innuendo and truly inane "arguments" lacking even a modicum of internal consistency.

EOT.

Indeed. Farewell to thee, Oh Gender-Confused Polish Knight of Glorious Illogic in the Service of Avarice-At-Someone-Else's-Expense. May your pantyhose remain untangled underneath your armor in your Campaign To Spank the Naughty French Until They Cry "Oui!".

Oh no!

[MyLongNickName]

Highland Recycling's website is going on strike! If this doesn't get the EU's attention, I don't know what will.

Re:Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Highland Recycling's website is going on strike!
> If this doesn't get the EU's attention,
> I don't know what will.

Your welcome, I'm the webmaster. :)

To answer your question, if taking down our website doesn't work, then our backup plan involves the fleet of manure haulage vehicles we have out back. And yes, that should get their attention.
--
Highland Recycling
www.highland-recycling.co.uk

Re:Oh no!

[MyLongNickName]

;)

I sure as heck didn't expect to get a respone! I applaud your style :)

Quickly!!!

[HG Slashdot]

Someone Patent dupes while its still legal to...

thanks to this article

[Oceanplexian]

quite a few more sites are gonna be shut down as well

Re:thanks to this article

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Slashdot though, of course. Lord forbid they practise what they preach, not while there's ad revenue to be made.

Re:thanks to this article

[MyLongNickName]

Because the EU really gives a crap what a U.S. based company thinks of their politics, right?

Re:thanks to this article

[Anonymous Coward]

They might not, but the millions of visitors to this international site each day might take notice.

Re:thanks to this article

[johnMG]

Not Slashdot though, of course. Lord forbid they practise what they preach, not while there's ad revenue to be made.

Heh. Good point. I'd like to see some big sites shut down. Imagine if Google shut down in protest? That would get some attention. The whole freakin' internet would seize up if Google shut down for a few days.

Re:thanks to this article

[Anonymous Coward]

Google did shut down! http://www.google.com

Re:thanks to this article

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet the eurotrash seem to think that everyone in the US should care what the EU thinks.

Re:thanks to this article

[Anonymous Coward]

A bit like the US seem to think the entire world should care what the US thinks?

Re:thanks to this article

[RonnyJ]

The whole freakin' internet would seize up if Google shut down for a few days.

Er... no it wouldn't. Google, as useful as it is, is not essential.

Re:thanks to this article

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, Google has software patents.

Re:thanks to this article

[johnMG]

> > The whole freakin' internet would seize up if
> > Google shut down for a few days.
>
> Er... no it wouldn't. Google, as useful as it is,
> is not essential.

I didn't say it would *stay* seized up, but it would certainly make the world sit up and take notice.

Re:thanks to this article

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't mean that the benefit of those few patents outweighs the benefit of no-one having them at all. The absence of software patents favours companies that are able to keep being innovative over those that have had just a single successful idea.

Land grab!

[Anonymous Coward]

Grab a piece of the limited IP before others beat you to it!

Re:Land grab!

[mrjb]

Got it. It's 127.0.0.1 and it's all MINE.

Re:Maybe EU needs software patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the US economy is so great these days... that's why people there are all losing their jobs, right?

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

We've already got copyrights to do that! All that this law does it make it easier for big corporations to monopolize the software market.

Re:Oh no

[Ingolfke]

Fight improper application of the patent laws, but keep the right to protect your ideas from those that would take them from you.

Here here! You are absolutely right. Patents on trivial discoveries (1-click purchases) or ambiguous patents (communication between two digital devices via some means or another) should be stopped, but the ability patent real discoveries or innovations should be protected.

Re:Maybe EU needs software patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Did I miss several million meetings? What the hell?

Last time I checked, the dollar was worth just over half of what the pound is worth. Of course this doesn't mean our economy is stronger than the U.S.'s but it sure doesn't mean we're "lagging behind".

Innovation from the U.S.? I've always thought that the most innovation in software comes from Germany, but then that's just my opinion. Certainly I can say that we're not lacking when it comes to innovation though. A lot of great OSS was started by European software developers.

If by innovation you mean how to make a disproportionate amount of money in regards to how much work you put into something, then yes, I suppose the U.S. is innovative. Making money isn't evil, but the way in which you do it can be.

Please, we don't need your software patents. We prefer sanity.

Ooh that smell...what's that smell? It's BULLSHIT.

[Rod Beauvex]

It will only be "final" if it goes through and software patents become legal.

If software patents don't become legal, mark my words, it will just keep coming up until they do.

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, you moron, that will work!
You will sue IBM for one patent, then they will pull out ten software patents from their huge patent portfolio which your little piece of crap software infringes and you will cross licence your patent and pay for the remaining nine patents on IBMs side.
Great. Do you feel protected now?

Microsoft is praying

[WindozeSux]

It's true Microsoft is praying that the EU legalizes patents. They just want to increase the already freakishly huge monoply.

Re:Ooh that smell...what's that smell? It's BULLSH

[Richie1984]

That's pretty obvious. There are so many large and powerful companies who want this pushed through that they will keep on and on and on at Europe to enforce software patents. That doesn't mean we should just sit back and let them. There are contact details already in this slashdot discussion, and there are protest sites out there. We don't have to sit back and let it happen.

Big business wants to force this through? They'll soon find they have a fight on their hands each and every single time they try it.

Re:Oh no

[110010001000]

Copyrights protect the implementation of the idea, not the idea itself. It is frequently the idea that is innovative, not the implementation of the idea. Why would a developer WHOSE SOLE MEANS OF INCOME is the production of IP want to weaken their position? Patents can provide an important protection for you - the individual, the small business, the corporation - against those that are looking to simply copy your ideas.

Fight the improper application of patents, not patent law.

Of course I have posted against the slashdot groupthink so you will probably never read this.

Physical Demonstration

[jasoncart]

Slashdot is possibly the only place where a demonstration would have to be called a "physical demonstration". Its, like, outside and everything...

Re:Physical Demonstration

[kihjin]

Uhm... where?

Hmm

[MattWhitworth]

There's no way we can stop this utter madness then? You mean the best we can do is just limit the damage?

Anyhow, there are software patents in America IIRC, and the end of the world hasn't happened there (Ignorance +5 probably :)), although it is definitely an software economy that favors big over small businesses.

Re:Hmm

[daniil]

There's no way we can stop this utter madness then?

It must be an bizarre world you live in where software patents are considered 'utter madness'.

And no, we cannot stop this 'madness' -- but why should we? Software patents are a reasonable idea -- at least inside this particular system. Of course there will probably never be an implementation of this idea that would satisfy everyone, but does not by far mean that the idea itself is bad.

Re:Hmm

[mind21_98]

The US is extremely hostile towards open-source as a result of software patents. That's why a lot of people refuse to develop here (not to mention there seem to be far more foreign developers working on things that are encumbered by patents in the US). So yes, it's bad.

Re:Hmm

[NickFortune]

Yes, perfectly reasonable, if you want a world where large corporations can surpress any and all competition that does not stem from an organisation that holds a comparable patent portfolio.

As it stands, all the proposed implementations we've seen satisy only Bill Gates, a few thousand patent lawyers and and a handful of astroturfing trolls on slashdot.

Of course, if you have a proposal for a fair system, I'll be happy to debate its merits with you.

Failing that, I gear I must continue to maintain that software patents are a Bad Thing.

Re:Hmm

[Alsee]

Software patents are entirely unreasonable because you cannot "invent" mathematics and calculations. Software is not a feild of technology, software is a feild of mathematics. Mental steps are not an invention, and mental steps are not a field of technology, mental processes are not patentable processes.

It is physically impossible for a computer to implement an invention, a computer can only implement a calculation. You can certainly have a computer controlled invention, which the latest Parliment amendment proposals makes perfectly clear. There must be something novel and non-obvious outside of the calculations themselves. The must be a novel and non-obvious physical object or a novel and non-obvious physical process.

I may have a 100 digit number that no one has ever seen before, novelty. That 100 digit number can be quite non-obvious. That 100 digit number can even be quite useful. However numbers, logic, and math are not inventions. The notion of patents on them is fundamentally broken.

The software can in fact be (slowly) run purely mentally and the result/product produced mentally. I am a programmer, running software mentally is a routine part of writing and debugging and analyzing software. The patented LZW compression algorithm can be run menatlly and that compressed result actualy producted mentally. The patented RSA encrytion algorithm can be run mentally and information actually encrypted and decrypted mentally. Any patent law claiming validity for software patents is in effect claiming to create thought crime. Any such patent system is claiming it is illegal to think certain prohibited sequences af thought and carrying out prohibited mental processes.

-

Re:Hmm

[daniil]

Software patents are entirely unreasonable because you cannot "invent" mathematics and calculations.

Software patents are entirely reasonable because it's not calculations that are being invented and patented but different (and non-obvious) ways of applying these calculations. The significance of an invention isn't how hard it is to copy, but how it reframes the problem in a new way. The two examples you brought do just that. On one hand, they present new (and non-obvious) ways of solving a problem. In addition to that, they use a computer to implement these calculations; the patented algorithms are useless outside the realm of computer software. Yes, you can do these calculations in your head, but using the LZW algorithm to compress something in your head is useless, as the uncompressed data will still exist the same in your head. Doing it on paper is, however, pointless, as you'll just end up wasting paper. Yes, you can encrypt things on paper with the RSA algorithm, but again, it'll be quite useless if there's no computer around.

Re:Hmm

[RWerp]

Software is not a feild of technology, software is a feild of mathematics.

I don't think many mathematicians would agree. This particular position is held by programmers and computer science people, to dignify themselves. One could as well argue that industrial engineering is a field of physics.

Re:Hmm

[Alsee]

>Software is not a feild of technology, software is a feild of mathematics.
I don't think many mathematicians would agree.

I invite you ask some mathemeticians. I expect you'll find that most mathemeticials will agree, at least of those with any exposure to programming to actually form an oppinion on the question.

The colleges and universities I have looked at either have thier programming classes under the Mathematics Department or formerly had their programming classes under the Mathematics Department. The "formerly under the Math Department" case is because computer classes often multiply to the point of swamping the math department, so they get spun off into a new top level department.

-

Re:Hmm

[Alsee]

In addition to that, they use a computer to implement these calculations

Using an ordinary old computer simply to speed up calculations is hardly inventive. In fact it is blindingly obvious.

Yes, you can do these calculations in your head, but using the LZW algorithm to compress something in your head is useless, as the uncompressed data will still exist the same in your head.

It is not useless. I can use those patented mental steps to squeeze more data into an extended barcode, or to squeeze more data into a morse code transmission, or ...shock of shocks... I could even type the compressed data into a computer and use it in absolutely any other way that LZW compression is routinely used.

And in each and every cases I am violating the patent. I am actually preforming the patented process and actually producing the patented result. I am effectively commiting thought crime.

Sure most people do not bother doing such laborous calculations mentally. The point is this is proof of concept that software patents are fundamentally flawed. Any legal structure yeilding any result that thinking is a violation of law is inherently flawed and invalid.

If you try to establish a legal system containing the statement "2+2=5" then through a series of otherwise legally valid steps you are going to eventually reach "1=2" as supposedly valid law. Suggesting that calculations / logic / math can be a patentable process is the flawed "2+2=5" statement. Holding someone guilty for thinking prohibited thoughts is the "1=2" result.

Either:
(1) claim that actually preforming the LZW patented process mentally is indeed legitimately patentable and legitimately illegal; or
(2) claim and explain how that process was itself *not* patentable and illegal, yet how it somehow magically becomes a patentable invention to shout the blindingly obvious magic words "and you can do the exact same thing faster on an ordinary old computer!".

Some particular 100 digit number can be novel and nonobvious and useful, but "that 100 digit number on a computer" is not an invention. Novel and nonobvious math and calcualations are not inventions. Not if you calculate them mentally, and not if you obviously calculate them with a computer.

-

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct, because no multi-national in their right mind would seriously "play the patent card" *until* [at least] the most significant economies (i.e., USA, Japan and Europe) have signed up to this daft scheme for fear of alerting Europe to the daftness of it and putting them off!

Re:Hmm

[daniil]

t is not useless. I can use those patented mental steps to squeeze more data into an extended barcode, or to squeeze more data into a morse code transmission, or ...shock of shocks... I could even type the compressed data into a computer and use it in absolutely any other way that LZW compression is routinely used.

What all these three examples have in common is that you take something originally computer-related and then retroactively use it in some other way -- sort of like they build cars out of stone, wood, and animals in Flintstones. This does not, however, change the fact that neither the LZW algorithm nor the RSA algorithm would have been invented if there were no computers.

And in each and every cases I am violating the patent. I am actually preforming the patented process and actually producing the patented result. I am effectively commiting thought crime.

I can't see how could that be so. There is no harm done to the patent holder in you "implementing" the patented algorithm in your head. No economic loss.

Re:Hmm

[EzInKy]

may have a 100 digit number that no one has ever seen before, novelty. That 100 digit number can be quite non-obvious. That 100 digit number can even be quite useful. However numbers, logic, and math are not inventions. The notion of patents on them is fundamentally broken.


Extend your thoughts to numbers with a billion decimal places and you will understand why I'm arguing that not only are software patents broken but so are copyrights on software and copyrights on any type of digital content. A number is a number, no matter how big that number is.

Re:Hmm

[RidiculousPie]

This does not, however, change the fact that neither the LZW algorithm nor the RSA algorithm would have been invented if there were no computers

Why not? They would be of less use without computers, (RSA is non trivial to do by hand, but possible) but that does not mean they would not have been 'invented', as much as a mathematical algortihm can be called an invention.

Re:Hmm

[daniil]

Why not? Because the maths may have been there, but without actual computers there would have been no need to use such algorithms, meaning that noone (bar for a few math freaks) would have bothered with such mind games.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, IIRC, the RSA is based on the Euler theorem, discovered centuries ago, but of little "practical" use until computer crypto.

Re:Oh no

[NickFortune]

And is there some reason why you feel that copyright is insufficient to this end? It seems to have worked for Microsoft.

Perhaps you might define for us what you consider to be "real discoveries and innovations". Remember, the topic here is software patents.

And if you do feel shoftware should be patented, please explain why it deserves this double protection, apart from the ability it grants multinational software concerns to prevent free software authors from distribnuting the the software they own.

Re:Oh no

[mOdQuArK!]

patent real discoveries or innovations should be protected.

Why?

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

Well at least you're argueing sensibly.

I still disagree though. Ideas build on other ideas, that's the nature of innovation. I can't come up with something new without using something that exists. Some one one day may want to use the new thing I came up with to create another new thing, and that's okay too.

Besides that, I shouldn't get money for my idea, I should get money for implementing my idea. If some one else implements it better, then they should get credit for that. That's what a free market is about, no? Get paid for *doing*.

Confused about EU system

[tehanu]

Maybe I'm just stupid but how on earth does the system in the EU work? I mean, according to the way that things in the type of democracies that exist today don't laws have to be proposed and passed by aParliament (or whatever the equivalent is called) which is democratically elected by the citizens? How on earth can a law be passed without the consent of and in fact actively opposed by Parliament? Isn't that rather undemocratic?

Re:Confused about EU system

[MattWhitworth]

I don't think the citizens of Europe actually have a say. It's very undemocratic.

Re:Confused about EU system

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a European Parliament, voted in democratically by all member nations.

Re:Confused about EU system

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed it is undemocratic and has its roots in the history of the EU. In order to avoid giving the EU the appearance of a federation, the the governments (i.e. the executive branch) of the memberstates have the most say in all matters.

Short summary: There are 3 bodies in the EU lawmaking process: The Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.
The EP members are directly elected by the population of the EU.
The Council of Ministers is just that: the ministers of the member states.
The Commission gets proposed by the Council of Ministers and confirmed by the Parliament (note the EP only has a veto right here). It is the de-facto executive branch of the EU and the ONLY body that can start a legislative process.
Depending on the kind of legislation, the EP has some say in the matter.
The Council of Ministers ALWAYS has a say and usually has the stronger position too (compared to the EP).

So, in short, the LEGISLATION of the EU is mostly done by the EXECUTIVE of the member states (division of power anyone?).

This has, in literature about this topic, been shamefully called the ``democratic deficit'' of the EU.
It's sickening.

Re:Confused about EU system

[toddbu]

The sad fact is that this same problem exists in the US in the form of appointed officials. Out here in Seattle, our director of elections is appointed by an elected county executive. During the recent Washington governor's race, several problems popped up with the way that votes were counted. Many on both sides of the fence felt disenfranchised in the process, and the entire thing led to a huge court fight. The problem here is that many people, Democrat and Republican alike, would like to see the system fixed, but our hands are tied since the decision ultimately rests with the county executive. Sure, you can fire him for standing behind his appointment and replace him with someone else, but that seems like a draconian solution the problem. For someone with as much authority as an elections director has, wouldn't you want to directly decide who this individual will be? Granting someone power without electing them is always a bad idea.

Re:Confused about EU system

[thunderbee]

Why do you think we voted against the european so-called constitution? It made matters worse than they are if you can believe it.

Re:Confused about EU system

[OohAhh]

Electing a partisan official to run elections is worse. Anyway, how would you get rid of a corrupt election official if he can rig his re-election? The only reliable solution is to mandate that whatever the system it has to be fully open and auditable. Anyone that tries to obfuscate the system is doing it for no good reason.

Re:Confused about EU system

[OohAhh]

A couple of points. Which we is you? France or Holland? I know I haven't read any of the proposed constitution, did you? How much?

Re:Confused about EU system

[Ichido]

Have you been watching the U.S. Supreme Court this year? The U.S. is NO LONGER a "Democratic-Republic"! We are being Dictated to by Judges, who do not have the right to dictate! Shame on us, the citizens of the U.S.A. Read the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and The Federalists Papers and let us, the Citizens of the U.S., take back our government!!!

Re:Confused about EU system

[cahiha]

Democracy doesn't always work that way. Sometimes, the people elect representatives, which then in turn elect other representatives. Some parts of the US work that way. Sometimes, representatives negotiate and make decisions on behalf the the people without parliamentary approval (but with a parliamentary mandate). Furthermore, democracies often guarantee that certain wishes of minorities are respected even if they conflict with the wishes of the majority.

As for the EU, everybody participating in Brussels has a democratic mandate; however, the system clearly isn't working very well yet. However, the best structure is still unclear.

Re:Confused about EU system

[Anonymous Coward]

But the constitution would have strenghened the EU as a federal government, increasing the power of the (directly elected) parliament.

Of course, you might not just be being hyocritical. My view is that if the parliament was more powerful, then Big Business would spend a lot more time buying off its members. Either way, we're all fucked.

Re:Confused about EU system

[shmlco]

We are being Dictated to by Judges...

The job of the judicial branch (SC) is to apply the body of law and the constitution to the subject at hand. They cannot create law, though they can create precedent in how a law is interpreted, or strike down what they feel is bad or unconstitutional law.

That said, if you don't like how a law is interpreted, or feel a ruling is vague, then petition your congress-critter for better laws.

Re:Confused about EU system

[NickFortune]

The integrity of the democratic process is weakened by each level that a legislator or official is removed from the electorate.

It makes it possible for people who would never be elected to office to nevertheless hold postions of power. The name Peter Mandleson springs to mind for some reason. This can happen since the politics often works on the basis of patronage, and leaders sometimes have to find jobs for unpopular supporters. If the unlected body becomes stuffed with such placemen, then any appointments they may make become further divorced from the will of the people.

And any measures they enact will be likewise unrepresentative.

Furthermore, since these appointees do not owe their jobs to the electorate, they may not feel especially motivated to implement the will of the electorate. In fact, answerable to no-one, they may just decide to line thier own pockets by whatever means necessary.

If this euro-state we keep hearing about uis ever goign to happen we need the power in the hands of the MEPs. Not the Commission, not the council. Otherwise it becomes just another confidence trick to sidestep democracy for the benefit of a few vested interests.

Re:Confused about EU system

[csteinle]

It also allows governments to get something unpopular passed by the Commission and Council of Ministers (which the national governments control), and then blame it on the EU at home. Very clever, really.

Re:Confused about EU system

[cahiha]

The integrity of the democratic process is weakened by each level that a legislator or official is removed from the electorate.

That's probably true. However, a weak democratic process that lacks integrity is still a democratic process, just not one that works particularly well. The EU may be working poorly, but it is a poorly working democracy.

If this euro-state we keep hearing about uis ever goign to happen we need the power in the hands of the MEPs.

Maybe, maybe not. Foisting direct elections on an unprepared population has proven itself to be an unreliable path to democracy throughout history.

Transitioning to a functioning EU-wide democracy will still take decades. Rushing that may just as much cause chaos as leaving everything to the bureaucrats.

On the whole, I think Europe is doing pretty well. The rejection of the EU constitution is putting the brakes on some of the centralization, and maybe it will be a wakeup call to some of the apathetic European populace.

Re:Confused about EU system

[thunderbee]

I read enough. I read the parts that give the commission more power.
Reasons to vote against would take up pages, and honestly, it doesn't matter.

The constitution was not accepted as it is, they'll either disguise it and try again, or just slowly start behaving just as if it had been accepted.

Democracy can not win this fight. There's too much apathy, too many TV-heads, believing what's fed to them without checking to make a difference.

Look at the other answer to my post. Any points there? No. Just plain beliefn and repeating the media mantra.

If you're interested, you could read this. It's precise, and for every point made, gives you the number of one or more articles that support the point.

I have yet to read the same thing from the "yes" side.

Re:Confused about EU system

[NickFortune]

That's probably true. However, a weak democratic process that lacks integrity is still a democratic process, just not one that works particularly well. The EU may be working poorly, but it is a poorly working democracy.

The only virtue of democracy is that it implements the will of the electorate. Democracy is not an end in and of itself. A poor, malfunctional democracy is no democracy at all.

On the whole, I think Europe is doing pretty well.

May I ask where you live? I hail from the UK and I very much disagree. The EU is a mess of corruption, cronyism, and contempt for the democratic process.

The rejection of the EU constitution is putting the brakes on some of the centralization, and maybe it will be a wakeup call to some of the apathetic European populace.

IMHO, the rejection of the EU constitution was europeans shaking off their apathy and exercising their democratic rights. It's just a shame that more nations are not being given the opportunity to express themselves. But of course, no one is going to ask the electorate unless they are confident of getting the desired answer. Which brings me back to pointlessness of a weak democratic process.

What is it you think the EU does so well?

Re:Confused about EU system

[Elektroschock]

Der Spiegel called it a "minor democracy" True. In the Council of Ministers it is even worse as not the Ministers but the staff workers from the National departments of Justice decide there. The Minister just formally approves what the delegation does. In this case the minister's staff often acts against the will of National Parliament.

Re:Confused about EU system

[seweso]

It's a trap, before you know it they give all te power to Senator Palpatine!

Re:Confused about EU system

[cahiha]

The only virtue of democracy is that it implements the will of the electorate. Democracy is not an end in and of itself. A poor, malfunctional democracy is no democracy at all.

You assume that there are democracies that work really well; there are not. Democracy is a messy business, fraught with compromises, corruption, inequalities, and problems. But, as Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

What is it you think the EU does so well?

It has managed to transform a war-torn, feuding continent of greedy, genocidal colonial powers under a variety of fascist regimes, communist regimes, dictatorships, and monarchies into a prosperous alliance of nations with free movement of individuals, free enterprise, free elections, and sound human rights guarantees. It has led to the longest stretch of peace among its members in recorded history.

I hail from the UK and I very much disagree.

I think you are misinterpreting the loss of cultural identity and political self-determination that unavoidably goes along with integrating into the EU with a lack of democracy. That's not surprising: the UK is used to being in control and it is not used to being told by a another authority how to run its affairs. But the British Empire is history and the UK today is just another European nation on the fringes of the European continent.

No nation is being forced to join the EU. If the UK doesn't want to be a member, that's fine. As Norway and Switzerland show, there is life outside the EU even within Europe. But perhaps it is time for the UK to make up its mind one way or another.

Re:Confused about EU system

[NickFortune]

The only virtue of democracy is that it implements the will of the electorate. Democracy is not an end in and of itself. A poor, malfunctional democracy is no democracy at all.

You assume that there are democracies that work really well; there are not. Democracy is a messy business, fraught with compromises, corruption, inequalities, and problems.

I set forth the benefits of democracy, you tell me that democracy doesn't work in practice. That doesn't invalidate my point. If a democracy isn't representative, then it's no better, and arguable worse, than a number of alternatives.

That's not a recommendation of the alternative so much as a condemnation of half-hearted democracy BTW.

But, as Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

I believe Winston was countering suggestions that we do away with democracy in favour of communism. I'm not suggesting we dispense with democracy - I'm suggesting we try and implement it. Properly, that is, not in some "ten-percent is as good as we can hope for" sort of way.

If you don't see representation of the people as one of the strengths of democracy, perhaps you'd be so good as to tell why you do support it? Brand Loyalty? Religious affiliation? Expain this please.

What is it you think the EU does so well?

It has managed to transform a war-torn, feuding continent of greedy, genocidal colonial powers under a variety of fascist regimes, communist regimes, dictatorships, and monarchies into a prosperous alliance of nations with free movement of individuals, free enterprise, free elections, and sound human rights guarantees. It has led to the longest stretch of peace among its members in recorded history.

Wow, were we all that bad? I think your adjectives are breeding out of control.

In any event, that's wrong. The EEC which predated the EU might have had a claim to that effect. But the EEC was a free trade zone, not some wannabe superstate. The EU dates from 1992. In any case, the EEC was only formed in 1957. That means all of us greedy genocidal colonial powers managed to get our act together all by ourselves.

I think you are misinterpreting the loss of cultural identity and political self-determination that unavoidably goes along with integrating into the EU with a lack of democracy.

No, I'm equating a lack of democracy with a lack of democracy, If we could elect the euro ministers and officals (something which you tell me we're not ready for) then I might not mind so much. As it is, I get to pay, but get no say in how that money is spent.

I notice you didn't want to say where you came from. Tell me, does the phrase "no taxation without representation" ring any bells?

Re:Confused about EU system

[cahiha]

I set forth the benefits of democracy, you tell me that democracy doesn't work in practice.

You called the EU "undemocratic" because it has problems. I was just pointing out that all democratic institutions have problems. The EU can justifiably be called a democratic institution, just like the British government or the US government.

The EEC which predated the EU might have had a claim to that effect.

It's the same organization, only the name changed over time to express its growth and tighter integration among its members.

That means all of us greedy genocidal colonial powers managed to get our act together all by ourselves.

No; the immediate changes after WWII were simply due to loss of power. It took sustained efforts by the EEC and EU (plus a good deal of political pressure from the US) to shape European nations into less aggressive and more cooperative players.

Wow, were we all that bad? I think your adjectives are breeding out of control.

And I think you haven't come to terms with the crimes that your nation committed against the rest of the world over the last several centuries, or with the new status of the UK in the world.

I notice you didn't want to say where you came from.

Because there is no meaningful answer to that question.

Re:Confused about EU system

[NickFortune]

You called the EU "undemocratic" because it has problems.

No. I called the Eu undemocratic because the people who make the descisions are not elected by citizens of the EU. I think that's a pretty good definition of "undemocratic".

To say that EU democracy has problems is like saying a car has problems jut because it has no wheels, no engine, no transmission and no bodywork. If you can find anything in the remnants, you could, technically describe it as "a car with problems". But there's no way that car will get you to work in the morning.

And for cars and democracies both, it they can't fulfill their intended purpose, what good are they to anyone?

The EEC which predated the EU might have had a claim to that effect.

It's the same organization, only the name changed over time to express its growth and tighter integration among its members.

That turns out not to be the case. The EEC was a free trade zone. The scope and mandate of the two oganisations was entirely different. The EU was a successor organisation - that's not the same thing.

And I think you haven't come to terms with the crimes that your nation committed against the rest of the world over the last several centuries, or with the new status of the UK in the world.

Forgive me if I ignore the transparent flamebait.

I notice you didn't want to say where you came from. Because there is no meaningful answer to that question.

That's just silly. What are you then - a citizen of cyberspace? A child of the cosmos? Maybe you hail from some higher dimension for which we humans have no name?

Refuse to answer if you think answering weakens your position, but let's not be childish.

Re:Confused about EU system

[cahiha]

No. I called the EU undemocratic because the people who make the descisions are not elected by citizens of the EU. I think that's a pretty good definition of "undemocratic".

That's not how democracies work. Supreme court justices, foreign ministers, FDA commissioners, immigration officials, housing authority officials, and city planners, people who make decisions that can make or break your life, are all unelected by the citizens. Most decision makers in a democracy are not elected by the citizens, they are appointed by people with a (usually indirect) mandate to do so. Appointment of representatives of the UK government to the EU is no different.

Furthermore, you are placing blame in the wrong place. The only people who decide who is going to represent the UK at the EU is the UK government. If you think that the selection is "undemocratic", then that's a problem internal to the UK, not a problem with the EU.

Finally, the EU does have a body of directly elected decision makers and power is being transferred to them gradually. The reason that transfer of power isn't happening more quickly is because the representatives of the governments of the member nations don't want it to (probably a good thing).

I think you are really just using complaints about a lack of democracy in the EU as a smokescreen. What really bothers you is the fact that democratically elected representatives from France, Germany, Poland, or Italy can make majority decisions that overrule decisions that your national government makes. You just don't like further European integration.

"And I think you haven't come to terms with the crimes that your nation committed against the rest of the world over the last several centuries, or with the new status of the UK in the world." Forgive me if I ignore the transparent flamebait.

Which part should I forgive? The part where you choose to ignore the actions of Britain as a colonial power? Or the part where you choose ignore the fact that in the 21st century, the UK is not a world power anymore?

That's just silly. What are you then - a citizen of cyberspace?

Now you are asking a different question. I've moved back and forth between several European nations and the US many times and hold dual citizenship if you must know. At this point, I feel more at home in the US, although I think Europe probably has a brighter future, at least if people like you can overcome their lingering nationalism.

Re:Confused about EU system

[NickFortune]

That's not how democracies work. Supreme court justices, foreign ministers, FDA commissioners, immigration officials, housing authority officials, and city planners, people who make decisions that can make or break your life, are all unelected by the citizens.

You're talking about how they work. I'm talking abouyt what they are supposed to do. I'm not interested in making excuses for non-representative democracies. I want fair and equal representation for everyone.

Furthermore, you are placing blame in the wrong place. The only people who decide who is going to represent the UK at the EU is the UK government. If you think that the selection is "undemocratic", then that's a problem internal to the UK, not a problem with the EU.

Please stop trying to project your petty nationalism onto me. It is tiresome, counter-productive and juvenile.

I'm not talking about the UK's role in Europe. My point concerns the unrepresentative nature of the EU. You will find that I am not the only european dissatisfied with the setup in the EU, nor is the UK the only nation whose citizens have expressed doubts as to the viability of the Union. The recent rejection of the EU constitution by France and Holland should testify to that

Re:Confused about EU system

[cahiha]

You're talking about how they work. I'm talking abouyt what they are supposed to do. I'm not interested in making excuses for non-representative democracies. I want fair and equal representation for everyone.

OK, so, to summarize (1) you believe that in order for a government to be called "democratic", all decision makers need to be elected by the citizens, and (2) you acknowledge that there is no government in which that is the case. Therefore, you apparently deny that democracies exist at all right now.

I'm just saying that it's pretty clear that something called "democracies" exist, that all of them have lots of unelected decision makers, so the EU is no exception. And with the European Parliament directly elected, the EU seems no less democratic than the UK, with its anachronistic Upper House.

"Furthermore, you are placing blame in the wrong place. The only people who decide who is going to represent the UK at the EU is the UK government. If you think that the selection is "undemocratic", then that's a problem internal to the UK, not a problem with the EU."

I'm not talking about the UK's role in Europe. My point concerns the unrepresentative nature of the EU. You will find that I am not the only european dissatisfied with the setup in the EU

I'm not talking about the UK's role in Europe either. I'm saying that the EU doesn't choose who represents you in the EU bodies, so you can't hold the EU responsible if you aren't happy with your representatives. The members of the European Parliament are already elected by the citizens, so you presumably had an opportunity to vote for yours. The other legislative body, the Council of Ministers, consists of representatives appointed by your own national government. If you think their choice is undemocratic, you have to take that up with your own national government; nobody but your national government has a say in that.

Furthermore, the "setup of the EU" isn't something bureaucrats in Brussels decide, it's something the national governments constituting the EU decide on. The current system (European Parliament and Council of Ministers) strikes me as pretty sensible. If you don't like it, you have to work through your government and your EU representatives to change it; as far as I can tell, your government actually opposes a greater transfer of power to the directly elected representatives, so if you consider that "undemocratic", you are sitting right at the source of those policies.

As for the EU Constitution, based on the polls preceding the referenda, people generally like the idea of an EU Constitution, they just hated this particular document. So did I. Our rejection of this Constitution is different from your apparent general Euro-fatigue.

Re:Confused about EU system

[NickFortune]

OK, so, to summarize (1) you believe that in order for a government to be called "democratic", all decision makers need to be elected by the citizens, and (2) you acknowledge that there is no government in which that is the case. Therefore, you apparently deny that democracies exist at all right now.

Ahem.

1. I belive that a democracy is weakened by every level of patronage that seperates its legislators and executives from direct election by the people.
2. I acknowledged no such thing, but I'm willing to entertain the notion.
3. I note that the EU has most of its executives and legislators removed from direct accountability to the electorate by two or more levels.
4. I note that dissatisfaction with the EU is running high, even in traditionally pro-euro nations like France.
5. Widespread EU corruption is a matter of record.
6. From this I concude that the EU is a piss-poor excuse for a democracy, as predicted by 1 and 2. QED.

7. You do like your straw men, don't you?

While we're reviewing:

• I offered my opinion that the sole virtue of democracy is that it implements the will of the electorate.
• I also maintained that a weak democracy did not implement the will op the electorate.
• your rebuttal was that democracy was still better than the alternatives.
• I asked you what the benefit of democracy was that we could discard representation of the people and still you would support it
• I'm still interested in that answer.

I'm not talking about the UK's role in Europe either. I'm saying that the EU doesn't choose who represents you in the EU bodies, so you can't hold the EU responsible if you aren't happy with your representatives. The members of the European Parliament are already elected by the citizens, so you presumably had an opportunity to vote for yours

Yes, but the MEPs are not legislators. Their role is advisory. They have very little power, and as has been recently demonstrated, no power that cannot be overruled. So my vote there is next to meaningless.

The other legislative body, the Council of Ministers, consists of representatives appointed by your own national government. If you think their choice is undemocratic, you have to take that up with your own national government; nobody but your national government has a say in that.

Cute, but wrong. EU commisoners seem to be lifetime appointments. Neil Kinnock can do what he likes - I cannot unelect him. What incentive has he to represent my inerests? On the one hand there is the electorate that never brought him to power, and have no effect on his position. On the other hand there are multinational corporations lobbying for anti-competive legislation who offer substantial incentives for complisnt commissoners.

In an accountable democracy, there might be checks and limits to this sort of corruption.

As it is - well just hit google news with "eu corruption" and see what you get back. It's hardly controversial.

Re:Confused about EU system

[cahiha]

I offered my opinion that the sole virtue of democracy is that it implements the will of the electorate. I asked you what the benefit of democracy was that we could discard representation of the people and still you would support it

I disagree with your premise: the EU does not "discard representation of the people" merely because many of its representatives are appointed. (I also disagree with your premise that the "sole virtue of democracy is that it implements the will of the electorate", but that's a separate debate.)

The EU system is analogous to the way most federations work: it has a directly elected lower house, an upper house consisting of members appointed by the member nations, and an appointed executive branch. That kind of arrangement is an accepted way of implementing representative democracy. I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's not going to change.

Because the EU is still in its infancy, created out of a mostly economic association of sovereign governments, the lower house currently has less power than in other federal governments, but, then, the EU as a whole also has less power than a federal government. That transfer of power is intended to change gradually over time, to give everybody time to adjust.

Yes, but the MEPs are not legislators.

The MEPs are very much legislators. Not very powerful legislators, but legislators nonetheless.

Their role is advisory. They have very little power, and as has been recently demonstrated, no power that cannot be overruled. So my vote there is next to meaningless.

That's because governments, like your own, like to keep it that way. I'm sure that if the UK made a big deal out of it and said "we insist that the MEPs get more power right away", they could get other member nations to listen and perhaps change something. In actual fact, the UK government appears to be trying to push things in the opposite direction.

"The other legislative body, the Council of Ministers, consists of representatives appointed by your own national government."

Cute, but wrong. EU commisoners seem to be lifetime appointments.

You're confusing two separate parts of the EU government. The Commissioners are part of the executive branch, the Council of Ministers are part of the legislative branch. The Commissioners are not "lifetime appointments"--they serve at the leisure of the member governments, need to be approved by the President and the European Parliament, and can be ousted in a no confidence vote by MEPs.

Neil Kinnock can do what he likes - I cannot unelect him.

Your Commissioner is Peter Mandelson, not Neil Kinnock. And I suspect that if you "unelect" your government, Mandelson will be kicked out as well.

As it is - well just hit google news with "eu corruption" and see what you get back. It's hardly controversial.

All governments are corrupt to some degree or another. Search for "british corruption" and "uk corruption" and you'll get lots of hits, too. Furthermore, your premise that giving more power to the MEPs or abolishing the Council and Commissioners and replacing them (with what exactly?) would reduce corruption is unproven. More likely, more financial transparency, more responsibility of the member nations for their officials, and better supervision would be more effective than changing how those bodies are elected.

Again, I can just ask you, what do you want? Why do you keep complaining about the EU as if it were some monarch or dictator imposed from the outside? The EU does what its member governments decide it should do, no more and no less. Your democratically elected government decided that your nation should be part of the EU and helped define the way the EU operates. What's your problem with that?

If anything, the UK government is keeping the EU from being a more democratic government and instead wants to maintain it more as a loose economic association. A loose economic assoc

Re:Confused about EU system

[NickFortune]

I disagree with your premise: the EU does not "discard representation of the people" merely because many of its representatives are appointed.

Well yes, but...

(I also disagree with your premise that the "sole virtue of democracy is that it implements the will of the electorate", but that's a separate debate.)

... it seems likely that we have differing notions of democracy, which may be the root of our misunderstanding. I don't think it's a separate debate at all. I think it's the central issue.

Your Commissioner is Peter Mandelson, not Neil Kinnock. And I suspect that if you "unelect" your government, Mandelson will be kicked out as well.

I actually did know that. However, i fell and broke my wrist yesterday. Painkillers, endorphins and stress byproducts make for a heady mix, which may be why I wrote such bollocks about the EU structure. Sneer if you must. Anyway, I conceed the point.

The underlying point remains though: Peter Mandleson has no more reason to care than did Kinnock in his day.

Again, I can just ask you, what do you want?

Did you ask me that before? Sorry (no sarcasm) but I must have missed it. Anyway, what I want is a Europe where all legislators are directly elected. For all nations, because I belive the current setup is unfair to all. I want a democratic Europe, by my understanding of the word, and not yours, whatever that might be.

And if I can't have that, then yes, I'l take a rollback to the EEC free trade agreement that must have had something going for it judging by the way it lifted us poor grubby imperialist warmongers... but we've done that bit, haven't we?

Why do you keep complaining about the EU as if it were some monarch or dictator imposed from the outside? The EU does what its member governments decide it should do, no more and no less. Your democratically elected government decided that your nation should be part of the EU and helped define the way the EU operates. What's your problem with that?

I think it's systematically unjust, and unrepresentative, and I think that as a citizen, I'm entitled both to complain and to criticise. Do you disagree?

That is, unless, of course, you actually agree with the policies of your own government, and you would like the clock turned back and the EU become less of a federation and more of an economic union again.

I've dealt with this already, but just to be clear. The current UK govt are a pack of lying tosspots. I do not support their activities. I`don't know what their stated policies are, but I doubt I endorse them either, unless Tony is having one of his soundbyte days, in which case he could be saying anything at all.

I have no idea why I'm offering this data, considering your extreme reluctance to express any conviction at all, except for negative ones regarding myself and my nation anyway. Tell you what: consider it a token of good faith.

I suspect that that's your real agenda. But please don't hide that agenda under a pretense of making the EU more democratic, because in actual fact, that agenda has the opposite as its goal.

Not that you're being at all self righteous or judgemental here.

But even so: the crux of the argument remains the question of what you think a democracy is for. As long as you refuse to answer that question, I have no way to tell if your position is consistent, or if you're changing your premise every five seconds

Obviously, I deny any anti-democratic agenda.

I've stated my aims and defined my terms. I encourage you to do likewise.

Until you do, we're not going to get anywhere.

Re:Confused about EU system

[cahiha]

Anyway, what I want is a Europe where all legislators are directly elected.

European legislators are directly elected, in the same sense they are in most other democracies: the lower house is elected, the upper house is appointed.

But even so: the crux of the argument remains the question of what you think a democracy is for. As long as you refuse to answer that question, I have no way to tell if your position is consistent, or if you're changing your premise every five seconds.

My "premise" is consistent and simple: the EU is structured like most other federal democracies in the world: three branches of government, two houses, a directly elected lower house, and an appointed upper house. The primary difference between the EU and other federal democracies is that the EU has more limited powers than a federal government, and that's mostly because member governments have cold feet over transfering more power to the EU (and that's because of voters like you--see, you do count).

The underlying point remains though: Peter Mandleson has no more reason to care than did Kinnock in his day.

I thought your point was that those were lifetime appointments. Is Kinnock dead?

In any case, they aren't lifetime appointments: each commissioner is answerable to his appointing government and the MEPs, and commissioners can be ousted by them.

I think it's systematically unjust, and unrepresentative, and I think that as a citizen, I'm entitled both to complain and to criticise. Do you disagree?

You can complain and criticize, but other people are entitled to point out that your criticism is based on factual errors: your concept of democracy applies to no democracy in the world (and certainly not your own), you don't know your representative in the EU, you confuse executive and legislative bodies in the EU, you make wild and incorrect statements about "lifetime appointments", among other things. If you don't know even basic things about how the EU works, you aren't criticizing, you are merely whining.

The current UK govt are a pack of lying tosspots.

It seems to me you just have a problem with democratic governments in general: you are unhappy with the EU government and you are unhappy with the UK government. Democracy is no guarantee of good government, or of honesty or integrity in government. The only thing democracy guarantees is that if enough people are sufficiently unhappy, they can get rid of a government after a few years. It means that you can voice your unhappiness, but it also means that you have to live with it if the majority of your fellow citizens are not sufficiently unhappy to do something about the status quo at the ballot box.

considering your extreme reluctance to express any conviction at all, except for negative ones regarding myself and my nation anyway

I don't view the UK much differently from other European nations. In fact, there are many historical UK contributions that I view as very positive: literature, language, scientific research, some legal and business traditions, etc. As a nation, the UK has a lot to be proud of.

What I observe is, however, that, more than other European nations, the UK seems to have trouble coming to terms with the unpleasant bits of its history, its current economic and political situation, and finding its post-WWII role in Europe. And as issues like EMU and Iraq show, the UK likes to go it alone.

In the end, I think Europe isn't going to go very far in the direction the UK wants it to, and it certainly isn't going to go in the direction you want it to. I think the only option the UK has is to decide whether it wants to be part of the EU as it is or not. If you think the EU is undemocratic and corrupt, then elect a UK government that takes the UK out of the EU

Re:Confused about EU system

[NickFortune]

Anyway, what I want is a Europe where all legislators are directly elected. European legislators are directly elected, in the same sense they are in most other democracies: the lower house is elected, the upper house is appointed.

Ah, I see.

You're using te word "directly" to mean "indeirectly". A bit like using "up" to mean "down", "peace" to mean "war" or "democracy" to mean whatever it is you mean by the term.

It seems to me you just have a problem with democratic governments in general

It may well seem like that to you, but I have to ask what you understand by "democratic". You've stated that representation of the people is not important to your vision of democracy, nor is implementation of the will of the electorate. The baby being thus thrown out, I find myself having problems understading why you find the bathwater so fascinating.

Now I am not so arrogant as to assume that my understanding of democracy is better than your own. However, I will insist that exlain your onw conception of the system, and explain why these apparantly key features can supposedly be discarded without reducing the system to a shallow farce intended to decive the electorate.

As it stands your description of demcoracy could equally apply to "communism", "facism" or "monarchy". And for all I know, one of those alternatives is what you have in mind.

The reason I cannot tell, is because you persistenty dodge the issue.

Have the courage of your convictions: tell me what you think democracy actually is.

Re:Confused about EU system

[cahiha]

You're using te word "directly" to mean "indeirectly". A bit like using "up" to mean "down", "peace" to mean "war" or "democracy" to mean whatever it is you mean by the term.

You are using the term "democracy" whatever you want it to mean. I use it to mean exactly what almost everybody else understands it to mean: the form of government found in the UK, in France, in the US, in Germany, and in Japan, among others.

And I'm saying that the EU operates the same way: it's a federal democracy; the only differences are that it is one level above national governments and that it is less powerful than national governments.

The reason I cannot tell, is because you persistenty dodge the issue.

No, it is you who keeps dodging the issue. All you keep telling us is what you hope good government should accomplish, not how a government should work and how the millions of decision makers in a government should get appointed "directly".

Name a single democracy in the world that works the way you say it should. Point to a description of how your kind of government would work. Then we can talk.

Re:Confused about EU system

[NickFortune]

I use it to mean exactly what almost everybody else understands it to mean:

I rather doubt that. In any event, I want you to state the principles behind Democracy as you understand it. You can't just say "everyone else agrees with me" and expect to be taken seriously.

the form of government found in the UK, in France, in the US, in Germany, and in Japan, among others.

So you define democracy by the status quo? Whatever is in place, that is Democracy, and any attempt to improve it is Anti-Democratic? That sounds more like you're advocating Fascism than Democracy.

Governmental types are defined by ideals and principles. Those principles remind us what the system should be about, and what we should strive for.

You refuse to state the principles behind your version of Democracy. Since a definition of terms is a reasonable starting point for any reasoned debate, I have to wonder at this unwillingness on your part. Maybe it would help if I offer a few possibilities:

• The most charitable conclusion is perhaps that you see Democracy as an absolute, rather than as an ideal to be worked toward. Under this analysis, any change from current governmental practice can be held to be anti-democratic, since the assumption is that democracy is what is being done now. This is a very convenient position for politicians who are currently in a position of power. Certainly it provides a framework for creeping erosion of civil rights and silencing the government's critics.
• It may be that you support the the convergence of government and industry, with the demands of the private sector taking precedence over civil rights and the will of the electorate. It would be difficult to justify an ethos that raised corporations above citizens, so maybe this is why you refuse to offer an ethical framework.
• It's possible that you are secretly opposed to fair and representative government, and seek to undermine the philosophical foundation of the democracy you pretend to espouse for in order to further your own unstated agenda.
• It's possible that you're astroturfing for some PR agency. You might not even know what your principles are supposed to be.
• It's possible that think that the value of democracy lies purely in the spelling of the word, and that it has no value other than that some governments claim to implement it.
• It's possible that you're trolling and don't give a toss. It's much easier to attack an opponents position if you can avoid taking one yourself, as you have been oh so careful to do.
• It's possible you argued yourself into a corner early on and don't know how to get out of it with feeling stupid
• It's possible that you haven't got a clue.

Personally, I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. You come across as a bright kid who has weathered a couple of flame wars, and who is desperately trying to drag this discussion on to grounds where he has all his arguments lined up and rehearsed. I also think you might have something to add the debate, at least if you can raise your game enough to argue like a grown up. For this reason, I've risked wasting my time and energy trying to get you to offer the simple courtesy of defining your terms.

So: what is the guiding ideal of your democracy? What is it about? is there any reason other than blind obedience to authority why I should respect your model? How does society benefit?

These are questions we should all ask ourselves from time to time.

Re:Oh no

[110010001000]

Copyright protection only protects the implementation, not the idea.

If I come up with a truly innovative idea, there is nothing to protect me against a mega-corporation simply taking that idea and implementing it - stealing any the R&D investment I have made. Is that what you want? In order to have a healthy industry you better have patent protection. The EU doesn't have a healthy software industry now - and the lack of patent protection is a big reason why.

Re:Oh no

[shaitand]

Patents are NOT supposed to protect ideas, they are supposed to protect physical implementations of ideas. To ensure this, you used to be required to submit a physical working model of an invention until the government ran out of warehouse space.

Copyrights are supposed to cover written implementations of an intangible work (books, software, etc) and patents to cover physical things.

NOTHING is supposed to protect ideas.

Small developers can not afford patents, they certainly can not afford to enforce them or defend them. At best a small developer hires a lawyer and gets wacked with two or three patents from the megacorps patent arsenal. Patents have never been a tool of the little guy.

Re:Maybe EU needs software patents

[mr_sas]

There's more than 99 unemployed I assure you.

Re:Oh no

[mOdQuArK!]

Why would a developer WHOSE SOLE MEANS OF INCOME is the production of IP want to weaken their position?

The bigger question is why should society allow individuals/companies to monopolize a concept, when it would be much healthier for the society to allow anyone & everyone to use it in competition?

Re:Maybe EU needs software patents

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how the parent thread was mysteriously modded "overrated" even though it was completely topical and had a legitimate point, while this post, full of errors is modded up. The moderation abuse is too obvious.

I like the mod's idea of freedom of speech is too shut down speech you don't like to hear, no matter how valid it is.

Re:Ooh that smell...what's that smell? It's BULLSH

[Rod Beauvex]

Glad to know there's hope. :D

Re:Oh no

[TheRaven64]

I am in favour of software patents in principle, but they should only be allowed after serious patent reform has taken place.

At the moment, they allow you to protect your IP, but not to exploit it. If you wish to exploit your IP, then you have to do so without infringing any IP held by any other large company - and they all have large numbers of trivial patents that can be enforced at any moment. If you somehow do exploit your IP and become profitable, then you will get a call from a large company telling you all of their IP that you may or may not be infringing (but couldn't afford to fight in court anyway) and offering to buy your company for a fraction of its value.

The only way to be immune from this sort of behaviour is to not make anything yourself. Wait until someone else independently discovers your invention and becomes profitable, then sue them.

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents are monopolies on ideas. A patent can prevent me from putting my own thoughts to use. That is inherently wrong. The fight is against software patents because of the unique situation in a field without physical production and distribution limits, but patents in other fields are similarly broken. Companies are starting to feel this too, now that pure intellectual property shops crop up, waiting for companies which actually produce something to get entangled in their draftnets of monopoly rights, which have been acquired for the sole purpose of setting up these traps, not for actually using them. Whole application fields are locked away from humanity because companies can not afford to risk stepping on these landmines. RSA only came into widespread use when the patent ran out. Patents HARM progress instead of encouraging it.

Reaching a lot of people at once

[NetSettler]

When Slashdot publishes something and people get too much traffic (being "Slashdotted"), it makes an impression. I wonder if Slashdot might join this boycott whether that wouldn't make more difference than many of us put together. A kind of "anti-slashdotting" effect.

Alternatively, perhaps someone should construct a trampoline thing like Salon has where in order to gain entrance to the site, you can watch an "ad" (something explaining the issue) to trampoline through. For big sites that were leary of losing cash flow by shutting down, it might still allow them to contribute to the effort.

Re:Reaching a lot of people at once

[Joe Enduser]

Actually, I think such a trampoline is what this is. There is a link on the demonstration page to the real site. Therefore, sites are not actually shutting down.

Being in Europe, I joined immediately after reading this.

Re:Reaching a lot of people at once

[FrostedWheat]

I wonder if Slashdot might join this boycott

Yes, because as we know they rushed to get rid of their GIF's when that whole patent mess started.

Re:Oh no

[110010001000]

Because it is NOT healthier for society in the long run! Does the EU have a healthy software industry producing innovative products? NO - and this is why. It is unfair for a mega-corporation to come in and simply grab all of my R&D investment. The little guy and small shop needs this protection too.

Anyway, I am through discussing my views on this because it is obvious that I will just get modded down so there is no room for debate there. Stupid site.

Serious Reform of Software Patents

[NetSettler]

I am in favour of software patents in principle, but they should only be allowed after serious patent reform has taken place.

I have a concrete proposal for serious software patent reform:

Turn it into something like the Nobel Prize, where you issue only a small number per year, only for things that are truly innovative. Details and rationale here.

Re:Serious Reform of Software Patents

[mOdQuArK!]

I've got an alternative to your alternative, although it's similar in concept: only allow a fixed, reasonable-sized number of patents at any given time. This will make it a lot easier to handle the patent database, and for people to know whether they are violating anything.

As slots become available when patents are invalidated due to expiration, obviousness or prior art, then the empty slots are filled from a pool of patent applications (new ones, obviously).

For a patent slot to be filled by a particular patent application, people/companies are allowed to bid for ownership on any patent application from the pool. The money paid by the winning bidders for each auction will go to the patent applicant.

The N available empty slots are filled with the patents from the top N bids.

Patent ideas which don't achieve an available slot become public domain.

By putting all of the applications into a bidding process, you force all of the bidders to do due-diligence on every application, since if they purchase ownership of a patent which gets thrown out later due to obviousness or prior art, that will represent a big waste of money.

The patent applicant will get an amount of compensation automatically equal to what the market thought that owning their idea was worth. For small inventors, this would probably be the equivalent of hitting the jackpot in a multi-million dollar lottery, without having to do much more work than thinking really hard. This scenario will definitely encourage a lot of smart, but not necessarily rich, people to keep submitting new ideas.

From a society benefit, things are good too, since the winner of the bid is much more likely to take full advantage of that idea than someone who is much poorer.

The only issue I haven't worked out fully is an alternative to allowing a person/company to bid for ownership of their own patent application, since if they're sure they can get it, they could just bid ridiculous amounts of money & pay themselves. For the bid process to be rational, you need to make sure that if someone wins a bid, then they actually have to pay someone that money (and not keep it). Perhaps the money could be automatically used for public domain "Applied Research" or something.

Re:Serious Reform of Software Patents

[NetSettler]

That's certainly an interesting proposal, too. I'm probably biased toward mine both because I'm "used to it" and "I've thought about it more", but hopefully I can overcome that and look at it more objectively with a bit of time and thought. (My kneejerk fear is that all the "bidding" in yours will somehow devolve into a corrupt system, though I'm not sure of how. As I said, I'll think more. And hopefully others will, too.)

Meanwhile, hopefully someone will at least mod your suggestion up to match mine in visibility. I think it's good for people to have a number of concrete alternatives to visualize so they don't think this issue is full of whining with no implementable alternatives.

Re:Serious Reform of Software Patents

[mOdQuArK!]

Well, I'm sure there could be a lot of behind-the-scenes deal-making & such, but I figure that running an auction is a pretty well-matured type of sales process that a lot of people understand quite well, even accounting for all of the usual possibilities of corruption.

Aside from my lack of a good solution about trying to figure out what to do if a patent submitter wanted to bid for their own patent, the most likely problem I can think of is if the legislators make the patent application & bidding process a closed system (like the FCC auctions for spectrum licensing, which sure feel corrupt to me). For the auctioning process to properly assign true market-valuation to each patent, it really needs to be open to as wide a pool of bidders & applicants as possible.

Re:Serious Reform of Software Patents

[NetSettler]

the most likely problem I can think of is if the legislators make the patent application & bidding process a closed system

Well, this is no small matter. I personally find it much more scary than you appear to.

But I certainly give you credit for honestly thinking hard about not only the potential positives but also the potential negatives of your own proposal. It shows you are trying to think it through carefully.

My other concern is that although auctions are good at identifying price, they are not good at identifying either need or merit (which may or may not be the same thing, depending on circumstance).

Simple answer, EU _isn't_ a democracy

[TERdON]

Yep, it's pretty undemocratic, but of course, then EU never has been a democracy (even though there's even a demand that the member states have to be). It's basically nothing more then a union between the member states, dictated by the governments/majorities in each country.

Basically all of the power that EU has is held by the european council, which just is the prime ministers of each country (or in specific questions the minister whose area it is, eg agriculture/work market/whatever ministers). They have the right to sign treaties for their countries. (Which is basically the way "everything" decided in EU has to be decided, as EU really isn't a nation on its own).

This seemed so undemocratical though, so they created the parliament too. Basically, it has the right to give advice, and some vetoing rights, but not much more. Its purpose is more or less to make matters seem democratical. Then there's of course the commisionary, to further complicate the issue. Even though I'm interested in the topic, I don't really understand the system, and I hardly even expect my MEPs to understand it, as it is quite complicated...

Re:Simple answer, EU _isn't_ a democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The parliament does have one big power though, it has great controll over EU:s budgett. Nothing can get done without money...

Re:Simple answer, EU _isn't_ a democracy

[Khalid]

This a good summuray. But as you said, its a quite complicated system, as everything designed by commity. EU is the fruit of countless negociations and comprimise between countries with different cultures and political systems. The thing is very difficult to hold together and its getting even worse with the new members; hence the constitution proposal, although it doesn't seems to be going to be adopted anytime soon. So I believe things will get worse and worse.

Re:Simple answer, EU _isn't_ a democracy

[OohAhh]

It's basically nothing more then a union between the member states, dictated by the governments/majorities in each country.

This is how it is meant to work. The Council then says that it's legitimacy comes from the ministers being supported by their respective parliaments. However in the case of the CII directive this is not the case. In fact there was active collusion between some ministers and the European Commission about how best to ignore the opposing views of certain member states parliaments. With such an obvious will to oppose democracy one can only guess at what might be inducing them to behave so.

Re:Maybe EU needs software patents

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the author of the post that was modded up, and I too am surprised at the moderation (not to my post, but the parent). I didn't think it was overrated, just wrong. Overrated doesn't even make any sense with regards to that post, since it hadn't received any up points.

I'd be interested to hear why you think my post was erroneous though?

what good is it...

[debiansid]

What good is a patent law going to do for a country and, for that matter, the software industry? It is valid in only that country anyway. What is to stop people from using those patented algorithms/ideas in other countries like, say, India?

Could someone please tell how a patent law will benefit a country? (not sarcasm, genuine question)

Re:what good is it...

[smokeslikeapoet]

An appologist for patent law would say:
"Patents encourage innovation because it enables persons and legal entities to profit from their inventions. Companies would not continue to develop innovative software without patents because there would be no guarantee that a competitor would rush to market with a 'knock-off' thereby killing the return on investment."

I however believe that software isn't a manufactured good, it is a service. You can't patent good service.

Re:what good is it...

[OohAhh]

What's to stop them using the "patented algorithms/ideas in other countries like, say, India". The patent lobby is trying to get software patenting everywhere. Europe and the USA may be two of the biggest markets, but don't assume they aren't trying for the rest of the world too.

It won't benefit any country, just the mega corporations, patent parasites, and as always the lawyers.

Re:what good is it...

[debiansid]

True, they would try to get patenting everywhere. But the fact as of today remains that India has already unanimously thrown the IT Patent bill out of the window. Its not a marginal case Europe, so it can be safely assumed that we will not be seeing any patenting of S/W in India anytime soon. And India cannot be the only country that sees it so clearly. There must be other nations too who will shoot off Patent bills.

So as a result there will always be nations where patents are useless. And that also doesn't mean that the larger corporations will stop providing services or offshoring jobs to India. It is a massive consumer market as well as a hugely cost-effective and educated developer resource. These advantages are far more valuable for corporations that a measly few patents.

The medium and small businesses that generally find themselves restricted due to patents, however, will find it really favorable to move into a country like India where they can implement (or rip off) those ideas that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to.

Re:what good is it...

[symbolic]

I don't think it's a service, I think it's a good... much like a book is a good. What's problematic, is that rather than protecting a single expression of a concept, patenting makes it possible for only one means of expression. It would be like taking a symphony, which arguably would be borrowing from the collective work of others, and stating that you now own a particular method of musical expression. Sounds rediculous, but that's exactly what's happening with software patents.

Re:what good is it...

[smokeslikeapoet]

If it's not a service, then why does the software of out of business vendors wind up on the discount rack of Compusa?

Aw man.....

[ardor]

Several large groups formerly pushing hard FOR swpats are now AGAINST them. Which is quite late.

The majority in the EU parliament wants modifications to the directive, which would bind sw-pats to controlled effects on natural forces. This excludes things like "patent on data-streaming" pretty well. You keep mentioning large companies pushing for software patents: many of these companies are car manufacturers who want to patent their controller software for their cars. This IS reasonable, since it costs a hell of a lot of money to develop this software, and copyright can't do a thing to prevent other from stealing the mechanisms. They don't want to be able to patent all software - just the one they need. They are not patent trolls like Acacia or Forgent.

I hope the directive gets adopted. Because the real question is not whether we get sw-patents or not; the question is: can the current situation be remedied by this? Contrary to what many people say, it IS possible to patent software in the EU right now. Just ask EADS, they patented mapping software, and already filed lawsuits about it. The software exclusion clause in the current patent law is useless, because any skilled lawyer can bypass it. So, if the Council version gets adopted, it won't change much - which is bad. The parliament can help us to adopt a better way.

Re:Aw man.....

[OohAhh]

The exclusion in the European Patent Convention is only useless because the European Patent Office has chosen to ignore it. OK, I'll be generous, they re-interpreted it into irrelevancy. However those software patents are not enforcable in all EU member states because of local variations in the law. If the CII directive is passed unammended then they will be.

Re:Aw man.....

[ardor]

The EPO chose to ignore it because it is useless. The lawyer just has to circumvent the definiton "software patent". That is what many US patents do too.

As for the directive in local countries: this is a directive, not a law. The countries have to implement a law based upon that directive. Things like the definition of the required "technical nature" of the invention can be implemented in any way possible. This is a double-edged sword: Europe will still be a mess for patentability - each country will have variations that need to be adressed, which makes patenting quite annoying. The council version is not detailed enough to tackle down important issues - these will be implemented in different ways. This helps against patent trolls, but makes it harder for people with stuff worthy of patenting really hard to do so (useful patenting: the car controller I mentioned before, and extremely complicated algorithms for speeding up holographic projections in a prototype holographic screen; Slashdot mentioned this in the past, a year ago or such).

Re:Aw man.....

[TheoMurpse]

who want to patent their controller software for their cars

What is Volkswagen going to do? Stroll into Mercedes' manufacturing plant and say, "You have been manufacturing cars at such a rapid pace, that you must be using the same method as us!"

This controller software is one thing that has no need to be patented, unless the company is also selling the software, and I doubt they are doing that.

Re:Aw man.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Noone has ever tried to enforce a software patent in Europe really though. I figure cause the reinterpretation and gobledygook used to get it past is so flimsy, that it wouldn't stand in court.

And in many EU nations, it can be, that the loser gets to pay the defendents bill as well. So it doesn't even have to be particularly useful as extortion measure.

Re:Aw man.....

[b5turbo]

Well, if the automotive software is patented, kiss any chip upgrades goodbye since they would become illegal.

Re:Aw man.....

[ardor]

No. You can take a controller chip and flash a new code on it. Patents do not protect against this. If the chip is encrypted and you have to crack the encryption, then you can be sued.

You would be in trouble if you reverse-engineer the code and use the mechanisms of it in your stuff.

Re:Aw man.....

[ardor]

If they can't patent it, then they have to keep it secret.

If they can patent it, then they can license the software to other car companies.

Re:Aw man.....

[b5turbo]

VW (and Audi), for example, encrypts their coding in their ECU's (2001+ I believe), companies like GIAC and APR have to reverse engineer (according to their sites) the chips in order to rewrite the fuel maps, remove limiters, raise boost pressure, etc. I have a GIAC chip in my 2000 VW Passat 1.8t but no lawsuits yet in the USA from what I've seen out of this kind of stuff. The 21st century is becoming the "IP whoring" century.

Re:Aw man.....

[JacksonG]

They can do that already using good old Copyright law no need for patents to license software.

Patents would allow them to stop other manufacturers from duplicating the processes at all which is why they want them of course.

Re:Aw man.....

[nlmarco]

In Germany, 160 software patents were tried in court during the last approx. 25 years. ALL of them have been nullified by the supreme court!

See http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere/bgh-dispo76/index.en .html

That means: Though the EPO ignores the EPC and allows software patents, they're currently not enforceable - and AFAIK NOWHERE in Europe! Hence, this time bomb of about 45000 software patents could now be activated by the new directive.

AND: It is normal that the directive is directly (word-by-word) translated into national law!

Marco.

Re:Aw man.....

[horza]

Contrary to what many people say, it IS possible to patent software in the EU right now.

It's possible to patent it with the EU patent office, but all the patents are illegal hence cannot be enforced.

Just ask EADS, they patented mapping software, and already filed lawsuits about it.

The only reference I can find in Google is this one, where the guy says the patent is invalid but didn't want to pay for a lawyer.

The software exclusion clause in the current patent law is useless, because any skilled lawyer can bypass it.

Hence the push to vote against the legislation, not just for the amendments.

Phillip.

If you live in the EU and read this...

[Anonymous Coward]

...please just take the time to write a letter to MEP. That site gives the addresses and phone numbers you can write and fax to. (Emails are too ineffective; most MEPs get so many that they just get their secretaries to send out form responses.) If we can Slashdot politicans about this issue in real life, we might have a chance to stop this pro-corporate bullshit going through. See swpat.ffii.org for more info, and this site for more specific information about communicating with politicos.

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU has more of a healthy software industry than the US. It is not dominated by a few megacorporations but has many small to middle sized specialized companies. It also has some top global players, e.g. SAP.

Re:Oh no

[idonthack]

Modded Troll? Come on, someone with some mod points come over here and fix this.
---
The only thing I hate more than a hypocrite is a person who hates hypocrites.
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fight improper application of the patent laws, but keep the right to protect your ideas from those that would take them from you."

Isn't the easiest way to take someone's software from them to say that you have a patent on it?

Re:Oh no

[NickFortune]

software patents are a GOOD thing

Oh, really?

It protects your IP (assuming you have any) from predatory behavior from mega-corporations.

What IP? Are you talking about patents? Copyright? Trade Secrets? IP covers a number of unrelated legal mechanisms.

The only part of "IP" patents protect are patents themselves. Obvious, really. It does nothing to protect existing copyrights, which is the sort of "intellectual property" that the majority of IT people are likely to hold. Quite the reverse.

Suppose you are an IT startup. You have a good idea, and you work hard to implement that idea using ideas that have impeccabile prior art. Then a patent gets granted to ScumBagSoft that covers part of your poduct. All of a sudden your hard work can be released or surpressed at the pleasure of ScumbagSoft. They may licence your idea back to you, but the fact remains that your product cannot be marketed except with ScumBagSoft's permission.

How has that protected your IP? The IP in this case is copyright, and patents rendered it worthless.

It wouldn't even matter if you had the patent on your idea. As Stallman pointed out, patents are granted on overlapping areas in software. The chances are your idea will infringe many other patents. Any one of the patent holders can prevent you from profiting from your "IP" simply by refusing to licence their patnet. That remains true even if you the patent on your own idea because of the way patents are granted.

You can cross licence, but that depends on the willingness of the other parties involved. As a startup, you won't be able to trade one for one with the likes of Microsoft, which means the big players can wait for your company to go bust, and then pick up rights to your patent for peanuts. And even if licencing is an option, you could easily end up in a stiaution where you have eleven patent holders all demanding 10% of your gross.

Where's the protection in that?

You can't even afford to fight the case in court. One maybe, but not several. The threat of legislation will scare investors away, and if you can't fight the case, you can't distribute your product, and so can't recoup your expenses, let alone profit from your innovation and hard work

software patents are a GOOD thing. It protects your IP (assuming you have any) from predatory behavior from mega-corporations

Perhaps you'd like to explain how that works? It seems to me that patents make our "IP" worthless and provide predatory mega corporations with the means to steal what is rightfully ours.

If you still disagree, feel free to explain where you feel I may be in error.

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I come up with a truly innovative idea, there is nothing to protect me against a mega-corporation simply taking that idea and implementing it - stealing any the R&D investment I have made."

R&D cost for software ideas: $0. It's worth nothing. zip. zilch. Unlike a car chassis which has to be expensively tested over and over, the hard work for software is not in the ``R&D'' but in the implementation.

Furthermore, the even if the patent was granted, it wouldn't ``protect'' you. The megacorp would just threaten you to sue you with a few dozens of THEIR software patent from their vault unless you not only give them a free license, but also pay royalties for their patents.
In short: You won't be ``protected'' at all.

How is that different from indeed having them???

[TERdON]

You smell kinda like a troll, but I'll bite anyway, you might "just" be uninformed, and if I'm wrong, some one may have believed you and gotten uninformed.

Could you give an example of anything in the software area that would have benefited from such a patent?

Also, what stops that from happening even with a patent system? Look here, written in easy-to-understand Slashdot style:

1. You write a nice piece of software doing X in a novel way
2. You apply for a patent
3. You get it, nice. :)
4. You start selling your app.
5. BigCorpCo notices your app, sees it fulfills a market desire and wants to use it without paying you royalties.
6. BigCorpCo asks its lawyers to find all of their "trivial" patents that you accidentally inflicted on when writing the software.
7. BigCorpCo sends you an C&D-letter asking you to
8a. Pay them royalties
8b. Grant them cross-licensing rights for free.
8c. Get sued into oblivion.
9. (...)
10. Profit!!! (ie for BigCorpCo, not for you...) :(

Basically, there might (please give me one example, BTW, of such situations in the past) be situations, where software patents could be usable. But even though there is at least one such situation, the patent system would also carry so much bad things that it's basically not worth it.

Also, many software developers are really tiny. What you need is basically a computer (a $100 one does the job albeit slowly), and enough money to pay for food and possibly rent until you (hopefully) get your first sales.

For such companies, even the costs of applying for a patent may be inhibitely high to actually apply for them. And we shouldn't even talk about court conflicts. They could be the tenfold of the total yearly budget...

The only small companies being able to defend their own patents would be the ones not really using them, but having the business idea "sue every one who tries to do what we thought of (ie bought from some one else) first!".

Or are you saying only big companies should be able to hold software patents and be able to use them in practice???

Think about this, man!

[idonthack]

1. You think of this awesome idea.
2. NO PATENTS.
3. Some big mega-corporation comes and takes your idea, and makes their own software that implements it.

If you had a patent, you could say, "Hey! You big giant mega-corporation! WHAM BAM LAWSUIT!!!" and then the little guys could sell stuff. But without patents - it's almost the same as it is now.

The problem with the system we *already have* is that any simple idea can get patented, and it doesn't wear off for years. Most software patents we have now are actually things we've been doing for years, except someone added "with a computer", or "on the Internet", or even "with just one button!". What we need a is system where only really innovative, inventive and SPECIFIC ideas can get patented, the patentholder can discriminate between different people implementing the idea, and the patents only last a couple years. This way, the little guys can get something actually done and give some competition before they get crushed underfoot. It also prevents the big guys from patenting a broad area of software, and then keeping everyone else out.
---
A guy walks up to his friend and sees him hitting himself on the head with a hammer. "Why are you doing that!?", he asks. "Because it feels so good when I stop.", was the reply.
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

Re:Think about this, man!

[Anonymous Coward]

1. You think of this awesome idea.

All by your lonesome. Either the idea isn't great or it's not a very realistic scenario.

2. NO PATENTS.
3. Some big mega-corporation comes and takes your idea, and makes their own software that implements it.

They still have to implement it which is the most expensive part of it.

If you had a patent, you could say, "Hey! You big giant mega-corporation! WHAM BAM LAWSUIT!!!"

WHAM BAM 10 COUNTER LAWSUITS for violating patents from their 50,000 patent repository. Yeah, great idea.

Re:Think about this, man!

[nkh]

"Hey! You big giant mega-corporation! WHAM BAM LAWSUIT!!!"

And since they way more money than you AND a bunch of trivial patents they were granted ten years ago, you lose the lawsuit and you're ruined.

Every software patent is tied to some kind of mathematical algorithm. Just read this from Knuth and tell us why mathematics should be patented.

Re:Think about this, man!

[mOdQuArK!]

With the way it's working out, it becomes more like:

1. You think of this awesome idea.

2. You try to make a product based on the idea.
You might even get a patent on it.

3. Megacorporation with billions of dollars &
hundreds of patents crushes your company & ruins your life.

Now why were patents useful again?

Re:Oh no

[NickFortune]

Trade secrets.

Non disclosure agreements.

Microsoft grew to their current position of power using only these tools. That agrues that they are adequate to the task.

And if existing protection is adequate, then we should not grant additional protection, especially where it is so open to abuse by the same corporations you claim to be so worried about.

Response to astroturfer...

[argent]

If I come up with a truly innovative idea, there is nothing to protect me against a mega-corporation simply taking that idea and implementing it - stealing any the R&D investment I have made.

Software patents won't change that.

Because any IMPLEMENTATION of your idea is software, and so will almost certainly violate at least one patent in the large corporation's patent arsenal. As soon as they find one, they can hold you over a barrel... give us a license for this token fee and we'll grant you a license to this other patent for the same fee.

Why does this effect software more than physical goods?

Because software is inherently so much more complex than any physical object.

The EU doesn't have a healthy software industry now - and the lack of patent protection is a big reason why.

Can you provide one example of a way in which a software patent has helped promote a healthy software industry?

Re:Response to astroturfer...

[NickFortune]

Why does this effect software more than physical goods?

Because software is inherently so much more complex than any physical object.

A better answer, I think, is that source code represents the design of the software. It's an unpopular position. Analysts feel it trivialises the high level design work they do, managers feel it grants too much kudos to the humble developer. Academics feel it constitutes a "hacker's charter". Nevertheless, software fits industrial models a lot better if you consider source code as the blueprint and the compiled binary as the final product.

I don't have the reference, but there's a paper in the back of Robert Martin's Agile Software Developemnt that makes the case much better than I just have.

Getting back on topic, if source code is design, then it is only protectable by copyright, as even the astroturfers in this debate admit. So in that case, patents would only apply to the compiled binary.

There's probably too much work involved in using the idea as an argument against software patents, but I do think it explans the why.

Although the best answer to why is software different from hardware is still "why is it the same?" The only commonality is that both words end in "-ware".

Re:Maybe EU needs software patents

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that you don't need software patents over there, and I hope you keep your sanity, I'm not sure what "Last time I checked, the dollar was worth just over half of what the pound is worth" has to do with the question... Are you implying that the strength of the pound is significantly due to greater innovation in software, and that lack of software patents is the reason? I'd say that the recent strength of the European economy has many, many factors, and that software innovation is probably not in the top 5.

And as for your accusation that we do less work and try to make disproportionate amounts of money, one could easily turn that around and point out that you're the one who is rejecting software patents so you can steal the ideas of others, avoiding the hard work of coming up with the new ideas. Both accusations are ridiculous.

But back to the basic question, stay away from software patents. I don't know when the hammer will fall over here, but there's a lot of "mutual assured destruction" patent stockpiling going on over here, and I can't do my job at all if I have to go search a patent database every 10 seconds to see if someone has patented using pictures to represent interface controls. Eventually something's going to go off, and I'll go move to the EU while the US software industry spends the next 60+ months stalled in litigation.

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the US doesn't have a healthy software industry - and the patent protection is a big reason why. Of, we have some very happy companies, but shitty software. The actual programs suck ass. This is because they all patent everything they can to try to prevent competition.

You have it ass-backwards. Mega-corporations have groups of people who sit on their asses all day coming up with ideas and trying to patent them. It only benefits the corporations. Little guys don't get the patents. We don't have the time or money it takes to come up with more ideas (because they got it first), get the patent searches, etc.

Do you like how mega-corporations can patent practically anything and prevent you from writing your own software? I don't use any software from Microsoft, and never will, so why should I be prevented from writing my own that does the same thing theirs does? (Because, unlike copyright, it is illegal for me tor write software without distributing it that infringes patents!) Just so some greedy bastards can prevent my from doing what I love and only allow me to have software that does whatever it is if buy I their overpriced, shitty software? Bullshit.

Personally, I am opposed to the concept of patents entirely. Frankly, no ideas are truly unique. There are 6 billion humans - get off your high horse and admit that nobody comes up with anything that somebody, somewhere, hasn't already thought of. Hell, calculus was discovered numerous times by numerous different groups of people with no contact with each other. Are you trying to claim that the few new software ideas are so much more complicated then calculus that they should be protected? Bullshit.

Sometimes I can't help but think

[ShatteredDream]

That we'd be better off in the US if we made it a class six felony to lobby on behalf of a company or labor union. Maybe the only way to rein in these kinds of assholes is to do what none of the Europeans and many Americans couldn't stomach: make the penalty for trying to genuinely corrupt the system the death penalty.

I can't help but notice that both America and Europe have the same problems here. For America at least, I think we should eschew the flag burning amendment bullshit and try something new: amend the Constitution so that attempting to bribe members of the body politic or accepting said bribes on their part constitutes capital treason.

Re:Sometimes I can't help but think

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, there are good lobbies, e.g. the EFF. I'd hate for them to be at risk of imprisonment or the death penalty simply because the committee in charge of deciding evil lobbying is themselves bought out by big business.

Re:Sometimes I can't help but think

[steve_l]

..I didnt know about the flag burning stuff till you said it, now I see your point. A classic bit of minor-rewards-for-a-subset-of-voters payback for the elections, leaving the govt to get on with the complexity of resolving hard problems like Exxon's stance of Global Warming with the rest of the worlds' consensus.

It is notable that in france, companies can write of bribes to foreign companies/govts as tax deductible expenses. Only in-france bribes are illegal. Its going to take a lot of effort to move the EU forward...

More advice

[Sanity]

• At this stage sending an email is a complete waste of time, MEPs now routinely ignore emails about this Directive because they have been swamped. You need to phone them(or meet them, but it is probably too late for that now)
• Most MEPs want to do the right thing, but many have been mislead by an aggressive pro-patent campaign that have variously claimed:
  • That companies will leave the EU if the EU doesn't introduce software patents (why? Your location makes no difference as to whether or not you can file for patents in other countries)
  • That the current text of the Directive won't introduce "pure" software patents, and so this is all a fuss about nothing (wrong, the European Patent Office has already granted many software patents that are currently unenforceable, but would become enforceable if the Directive isn't amended)
  • That people who don't want software patents really don't want patents on any machine that might include a computer (wrong, the Rocard-Bozek amendments won't prevent patents on machines that contain computers)
• If you can, try to research your MEPs position on the issue before phoning them
• Don't rant and rave. Be polite, but clear that the council text will hurt you/your business unless the Rocard-Buzek re-tabled amendments are passed.
• Stress that a no-vote or an abstention counts as a vote in favour of software patentability.

I shutted my ENTIRE site down...

[Cinquero]

http://omnibus.uni-freiburg.de/~stierm/

There is a script so you can do so, too.

Re:I shutted my ENTIRE site down...

[dago]

Well, given that you're in Freiburg, you could also go to Strasbourg too.

(ok, I'm in Bern, could go as well ;)

Re:I shutted my ENTIRE site down...

[Cinquero]

i don't think these 'physical' demonstrations are efficient. You can't make people think just by standing around and proclaiming something. Shut half of the net down and it would have a much greater effect because it would adversely effect many one's lifes...

Re:I shutted my ENTIRE site down...

[dago]

Sure, the impact of shutting down your personnal website will be much larger ;)

Emails are a *complete* waste of time now

[Sanity]

I have spoken to many MEPs over the last few weeks, and take it from me that emails are a complete waste of time at this stage. You need to phone them to make any difference.

Re:Emails are a *complete* waste of time now

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. Me and many others have contacted our MEP's by e-mail in Finland. For example I got replied immediately by Eija-Riitta Korhola of Finland. She has already made proposals and she has stated in her web-pages opposing the current proposal.

If you have voted (remember to be honest here) contact this MEP, be polite and informative.

Note to all Luxembourgers!

[ArsenneLupin]

The French people smelled BS, while their smiley glad-hand politicians tried to sell them down the river, the Dutch smelled it too. The Austrian government wasn't even going to give it's people a vote!!!

Fortunately, the Luxembourgish government is giving their people a vote. And interestingly enough, this referendum will happen just a few days after the softpat vote in parliament...

Luxembourgers: observe the outcome of the Softpat vote in EP, and vote accordingly on next Sunday!

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you dare express any dissent on this site. Or you will suffer the wrath of the "-1 Troll" as you just did.

Comon people, why in the hell would you mod this peron down to -1 Troll??? He/she was only expressing why patents may be a good thing, it wasn't a flame in any way.

I hate you all.

Re:Oh no

[Mac Degger]

And it's worse than that: patents aren't cheap. Especially in software, where often it's a single developer who implements his own idea (Bittorrent, for a good example), getting a patent is a hassle which costs time and money. And all that for something which you might not have developped yet.

But the best argument against patents is gained by looking at who wants software patents and who doesn't. It's the small guys, where true innovation nearly per definition happens, who are against these patents, for the reasons you've explained. And it's the large corporations who already have lots of money, and whose only innovation is throwing that money at a problem (usually by buying those innovative companies) who want software patents.

So if patents are supposed to foster innovation (their stated aim), and the past decades if not century has shown that they don't do that, the only conclusion is that software patents should not see the light of day.

Re:Oh no

[oogoliegoogolie]

If I come up with a truly innovative idea, there is nothing to protect me against a mega-corporation simply taking that idea and implementing it - stealing any the R&D investment I have made.

Oh please! Since when have software patents protected the little guy? Patents cost money. How many individuals or small companies have the resources to patent every idea they come up with, let alone fight to uphold their patents against potential violators. Mega-corps have the resources to setup entire departments for these purposes-small guys do not have that luxury. Even if you have a patent and some mega-corp steals the idea, are you willing to spend years and a small personal fortune to fighting it? And you are hardly guaranteed of winning. If you lose then what? You are broke, you dont have a patent, and the company still gets to use your idea.

The litigation over patents we read about are one mega-corporation suing another mega-corp. Or a handful of crafty lawyers/businessmen creating a dummy corporation that buys up IP and then sues other companies. It's not individuals or small mom & pop software companies that pushed for software patents, it's huge corporations that did it. Copyright and licences have worked well for 20+ years, and they leveled the playing field somewhat between large corporations and solo programmers or small companies. Patents transfer the power from small companies to large corporate entities.

For that matter, name one software patent that is truly innovative.

Why isnt the slashdot shutting down...

[Anonymous Coward]

My question is, is slashdot shutting down too? lets put our foot where our mouth is!

(we nerds can do something else till then ;) )

Link to web demo

[Cow Jones]

http://wiki.noepatents.eu.org/webdemo/

Register your site now!

Re:Maybe EU needs software patents

[justsomebody]

The EU is falling apart with double digit unemployment

Cound't stand not to say this joke. 99 unemployed in whole Europe is a dream come true.

plummeting Euro

It is bound to happen in future. What would be bad here? Me personally, I will feel better as this step is finished.

unsustainable social contracts

In what point? I do live in EU, but I don't feel that. Or maybe I live in the wrong thrird rate country

immigration

And? US has outsourcing. I would take immigration over outsourcing anytime

absorption of traditionally non-European countries into the common market

And? Take out European word from your sentence and you'll see that the worlds history goes this way from ancient times, but now that Europe does it, it is bad?

and so called "free" trade agreements.

And the point would be??? US does that to complete world forcibly, but I don't see you complaining about.

Nice place to visit, but whenever I do I can plainly see it is going downhill fast.

Some of us live in EU. And I can assure you that it is a nice place to live. About downhill? Not really a status quo, but I bet the viewpoint result depends on where and how do you live, so I can't say that for EU, but for my self (and saying that I can assure you that I preffer EU over US anytime).

Prologoue about patent stupidity

EU doesn't need SWPatents. It is enough that US courts are full of stupidity. The only people that would welcome SW Patents are either very large companies or they work in patent consulting, and be that in court as patent lawyers or officials in patent agency

Now question for you.

Just how in the world do you invent something that is not based on the real life interaction and in the same time it is not some physical, technical or matematical invention.

Remember it is a piece of software you talk about. Mathematical process would not be treated as SW invention. It would be just workable software application of THE mathematical invention.

Physical? There's no physical results in software. In the case they are then software is just a part of the complete technical invention.

Technical? Every computer interaction is based on the real life interaction to make them as simple and understandable as possible.

Here's a few examples:
Encryption? Enigma comes to mind and there were much older solutions scattered all troughout the history.
Network? Well, a group of people interacts usualy with some form of language that allows them to communicate. In case of different languages, they use interpreters, signs...
Interface? A long time in history there were paper forms, casette players and such. All that software does is just immitates them as best as possible and adds some features that are bound to happen in digital tech. For example you had CD racks for a long time, and if you sorted them by alphabet you could easily find a CD you're looking for. How could you invent that for example.

Just currious. Name one software invention that IS INVENTION and not implementation of a normal interaction or preknown fact or job. At the same time it has to be software invention and not application of problem in another realm (tech, phys, math). All that software does is describe problem (problem that exists in another realm of science) in computer language, so in your case you actualy agree with patenting description. What should we patent next? Sentences, Words, Letters???
Taken your viewpoint even forward with my strange sence of humor, your lungs are violating the process patented for creating artificial lungs. Description and intention is the same and as far as I recollect no one patented natural breathing process. The only difference in the real world is that patent application of breathing process is nothing but patented mechanical solution to breathing that already exists in nature. In other wo

Physical demonstration?

[bergwitz]

Is your backup plan the mentioned physical demonstration?

Help save democracy in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of Europeans are against software patents. If there is any democracy left in Europe the consideration of software patents should not even come up.
What is happening to democracy in Europe? We need to do something about that ASAP. If you are European the best way to get back on track to democracy is to write your representatives and express how you feel about software patents, democracy, and related issues. Enough talk - we need real democracy in Europe NOW!

Fly me there

[fsterman]

I already have friends there, a pad to crash at, and would streak if I could get a plane ride!

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way to be immune from this sort of behaviour is to not make anything yourself. Wait until someone else independently discovers your invention and becomes profitable, then sue them.

Not true, if you own enough broad patents then the other party could be theoretically unable to sue you without infringement. Take a look at Microsofts Blatent trap^w^w patent licensing, good look filing suit when you lose the rights to use word processors, databases and spreadsheets in doing so!

Copyright is fine for protecting software, of course if this parasite-serving text is passed into law, I won't be writing any more software. Is anybody else in the EU considering becoming computer free if the facists get their way?

Re:Oh no

[justsomebody]

I am in favour of software patents in principle, but they should only be allowed after serious patent reform has taken place.

Name one valid software patent then. What software piece in the world would you allow to be patented.

I thought that I agree with patents too, but in the end I discovered that not even one thing could exist as software problem. Problem is in another science realm, all that software does is describes that same problem and translates it to a computer, nothing but a mere description.

So, software patent or description patent? I think software patent does not exists.

At the moment, they allow you to protect your IP, but not to exploit it. If you wish to exploit your IP, then you have to do so without infringing any IP held by any other large company - and they all have large numbers of trivial patents that can be enforced at any moment

And being a coder I imagine my self going over few millions of patents for every trivial function in my software. Even in that case you can't eally read patents without a lawyer that translates them into a real life language. You know I have to sell some software too.

If you somehow do exploit your IP and become profitable, then you will get a call from a large company telling you all of their IP that you may or may not be infringing (but couldn't afford to fight in court anyway) and offering to buy your company for a fraction of its value.

Now, here you have some strange case of humor attack. That part would be good in... ??? What way???

The only way to be immune from this sort of behaviour is to not make anything yourself. Wait until someone else independently discovers your invention and becomes profitable, then sue them.

One could move to US if he would like to live like that. But I son't see people wanting to move.

Re:Oh no

[Tim C]

The EU doesn't have a healthy software industry now

Bullshit. My experience and that of my friends of working in it for the last six years begs to differ.

The letter that I sent to my MEP

[D. J. Keenan]

Following is a copy of the letter that I sent to my MEP yesterday. I'm going to be doing some follow-up on Monday-Tuesday. If anyone has any recommendations for improving the the letter (especially if you see any technical/factual errors), please let me know.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Dear ______,

In the first week of July, the European Union Parliament will vote on the patentability of computer software. The outcome of this vote has great implications for European freedoms as well as large implications for European businesses--implications that, moreover, have been sometimes overlooked. I ask you to consider the following.

A patent grants the holder a monopoly on the use of an idea. (It is thus very different from a copyright, which covers the expression of an idea; copyrights for computer software are not in dispute.) Until now, the idea for a patent has had to be expressible in some physical form. With computer software, though, such physical expression is not possible.

A computer is like a chef who does not know how to cook anything on his or her own, but who can follow a recipe perfectly. Software is a recipe. The software that you probably have on your computer does things like send e-mail, word processing (e.g. with Microsoft Word), and Internet browsing. The computer cannot do those things on its own, but it can follow recipes (i.e. software) that tell it how to do them. Software makes computers useful.

A recipe obviously does not have a physical form in the way that, say, a machine invention has. Hence software has, so far, not been patentable. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to make software patentable. (The EU Parliament voted against a version of this legislation on 24 September 2003, by 364 to 153. The EU Commission, questionably, then made the legislation more extreme: it is this that Parliament is now to vote on.)

The proposed legislation, as written, will allow the patenting of almost any ideas that can be used in software. As an analogy, if this approach were adopted for recipes, it would allow the patenting of things like "cut the food into small pieces and then boil" and "wrap the food in aluminium foil and bake at 200 C". No one could develop a new recipe that did either of those things without the permission of the patent holders. This is clearly absurd; yet that is just what is now being proposed for patents on computer software.

There are a few very large companies, though, that would benefit from this. Large software companies, e.g. Microsoft, would hold many software patents. Those large companies would have cross-licensing agreements with each other, agreeing not to sue each other for patent infringement. Ultimately, only such companies could produce computer software. Small and medium-sized enterprises would be almost entirely shut out.

The business implications of software patents are thus reasonably clear. The largest technology companies would be favoured, while all others would be severely harmed. And Linux, Firefox, etc.--i.e. most open-source software--would likely become extinct. The resultant reduction in competition in software would likely lead to higher prices and lower quality for software consumers--including other, non-technology, businesses.

The enclosed article from yesterday's Financial Times makes a similar point: it concludes that software patents are "anti-innovative". The article's analysis is based on experience in the USA, where software patents have existed for several years. The analysis, though, overlooks a crucial factor. Some large companies in the USA have built up portfolios containing thousands of software patents, but they have not been enforcing those patents. Microsoft is one such company. Yet Microsoft has been lobbying extremely heavily for making software patentable in the EU. This makes no sense: why would Microsoft lobby heavily for software patents if it was not going to enforce its patents? I beli

Re:The letter that I sent to my MEP

[D. J. Keenan]

Here is the reply that I received from the Liberal Democratic party (in the UK).

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed Directive on the patenting of computer-implemented inventions (CII).

The Council of Ministers adopted its Common Position on 7 March 2005. This clarified the boundaries of what can and what cannot be patented when software is involved and does not extend current practice; nothing will become patentable that is not currently patentable. Importantly, non-technical software, mathematical algorithms, and business methods are all specifically excluded. EU legislation is needed to bring legal certainty into what is at the moment a highly unclear and unsatisfactory situation for firms of all sizes. This is not a case of big business against small businesses.

On Monday 20 June the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee adopted the Rocard report which will now go to the July plenary session. The Liberal Democrats supported amendments to the Common Position which sought to clarify definitions and to clarify further what is included and what is excluded; specifically, to exclude software when not used in conjunction with either a product or process.

This is the key point of the legislation. Pure software is covered by copyright law. Computer-implemented inventions are as those used in such fields as medical devices, LCD displays, bio-cellular imaging, data compression, drugs testing, linguistic analysis, to name but a few areas of application.

European SMEs are at the heart of innovation and they need to be able to protect their inventions by patents if they are to recoup money invested in research and development. SMEs are the engine of economic growth in the EU and create both wealth and jobs. In 2004, European SMEs were awarded over a thousand CII patents in a growing trend over the last six years.

Liberal Democrats have voted in support of defending innovation legally as it will help to boost European competitiveness, particularly with respect to the USA and China.

Your views have been a helpful contribution to the advice we have received on the potential impact of the Directive and we will take them into account. I wish to assure you that Liberal Democrat policy is clearly against allowing the generalised patenting of software and that this principle is guiding our consideration of these matters.

I can assure you that the Liberal Democrats will continue to fight for a fair and legally sound outcome on this very important issue.

Re:The letter that I sent to my MEP

[nickos]

Here's the contents of an advisory email about this sort of thing from the FFII (lists of MEPs removed to get around /. lameness filter). The "Key Messages" section for each party is particularly interesting.
--------
Dear XYZ,

You have registered as a supporter of FFII and thereby agreed to receiving e-mails which tell you how you can support our work.[1]

The European Parliament will vote next Tuesday or Wednesday. Unless more than half of the members (= 367) vote for serious amendments, the Council's version will become law and US-style software patent enforcement will begin in Europe.

On 5 July there will be a demonstration in Strasbourg, with coaches from Paris, Brussels, Munich, Amsterdam and possibly elsewhere http://noepatents.eu.org/index.php/StbDemo050604

Final things for you to do:

* Check that your MEP will attend the plenary session, an abstention is a vote for the unmodified council version.

We recommend him/her to vote for the 21 cross-party amendments[2], but even a vote for the official liberal or conservative party line is probably better than not showing up or abstaining. If the 21 cross-party amendments do not get passed we recommend that your MEP should vote to reject the directive.

* At this point sending e-mails alone is probably of no great value. Below you find a list of UK MEPs with phone numbers and some hints on specific messages to be delivered.

* Phone calls can be very effective if you are well informed. *Otherwise they can backfire*. Always be polite, never get aggressive. Explain clearly how software patents would affect *you* and *your* business. Only contact MEPs from *your own* region.[4]

* Before calling your MEP by phone, please make sure you have read the 21 cross-party amendments yourself, have a printed copy ready beside your phone and are well aware of the central ones, particularly Amendments 8, 4, 3, 9 and 1.

* It would also be good to have read the FFII discussion paper[3]. You can use Sunday (tonight) and Monday morning for preparation. MEPs arrive in Strasburg Monday afternoon.

* For help, please email the UK coordinators at uk-help@ffii.org with your name, region and relevant details of your business or profession.

* More instructions on how to contact your MEP are at http://wiki.noepatents.eu.org/index.php/MEPinfo

With kind regards, Hartmut Pilch and Alex Macfie, FFII

[1] Your user id is XYZ at http://aktiv.ffii.org/, in case of
difficulties you also may contact buero at ffii.org.
[2] Buzek-Rocard-Duff amendments
http://wiki.ffii.org/AmPlenPr050701En
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/amends05 /komprom0506.en.pdf
[3] http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/juri0504 /ffiiepp050615.en.pdf
[4] Map of UK Euro regions at
http://www.europarl.org.uk/uk_meps/MembersMain.htm

UK MEPs

email @europarl.eu.int
Strasbourg phone, MEP assistant: 0033-3881-77 XXX
Strasbourg phone, MEP him/herself: 0033-3881-75 XXX
Strasbourg fax: 0033-3881-79 XXX

LIBDEMS (ALDE UK)
=================

Messages:

Please follow the 21 cross-party amendments which are championned by Andrew Duff
http://www.andrewduffmep.org.uk/news/163.html

The Duff line conforms to the recommendations of the UK Libdem party policy documents and of the European Liberal Youth (LYMEC)

Please don't spam them

[Elektroschock]

MEPs got so many mails, often very damaging. If you want to do something useful, join #bxl-ffii on irc.freenode.net or participate in the webdemo

Us reform discussions

[Elektroschock]

Why don't we team up and get rid off EU software patents first, then reform US patents. us-parl is the right mailing list you should join.

Re:Maybe EU needs software patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice moderator manipulation! Call them abusive and get the post *you* don't like modded down. Nice one!...no really!

Meaningless.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

A demonstration online is running with currently 2400 websites shutting down until the vote.

Meaningless.

Re:Meaningless.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not meaningless. If mainstream sites close (and they could well be forced to close on a permament basis thanks to software patents), more people will become informed and the corrupt civil servants who put their names to this garbage directive will be held accountable. Such a result can only be achieved with a groundswell of public support, 2400 websites is a good start towards that end.

Also, 1 + 1 = 2

Re:Meaningless.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

If mainstream sites close (and they could well be forced to close on a permament basis thanks to software patents), more people will become informed and the corrupt civil servants who put their names to this garbage directive will be held accountable. Such a result can only be achieved with a groundswell of public support, 2400 websites is a good start towards that end.

Support your argument. Can't? Because it's crap. How will 2400 obscure web sites "going black" inform anyone about anything, other than the people who already know what,s going on? It won't.

Re:Oh no

[Darren Winsper]

Silly puppy. The US software industry was established and going strong well before software patents came to be.

Actually...

[ichigo-666]

The really crazy thing is, France and Holland voted democratically against the constitution, which if it had passed, would have increased the parliament's power and simplified the decision making processes, therefore making EU more democratic. So basically EU is and will be an undemocratic, bloated and bureaucratic elephant because the citizens don't want it to become democratic and more streamlined.

And before anyone starts to whine about the constitution being "long" and "bloated", try comparing it to the massive amount of contracts that the constitution was supposed to replace. Does it seem bloated anymore? Didn't think so. People who have no clue what they are voting about should stay the hell away from voting booths.

Re:Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

While there was a small degree of improvement in the power of parliament (they could sit in at some meetings formerly closed, but not say anything, mind you!), it would have effectively set the current status quo in stone. Make that concrete.

There was no way in the world any serious amendment to the European Constitution could have taken place after ratification.

We need a much more democratic European Constitution, not some token enhancements to the current situation without being able to change it from then on.

Re:Actually...

[ShieldW0lf]

France and Holland are autonomous states, and because of good administration and social conscience, which the population there insisted upon, they are wealthy and well off states. They are surrounded by neighbours who are poor and exploited by the ruling class.

If you were in such a position, would you want to surrender your national autonomy to a massive "democratic" monster which isn't really and which you no longer have any power to influence when they attempt to reduce you to the level of your neighbours?

It's really simple. If you want to get the people from these countries to play ball, and I mean the people, not the bribed officials, you need to give them a reason to want to do so, or they will rightfully tell you to where to go and how to get there.

It's pretty clear that if there exists such a reason, the people of France and Holland don't see it.

They appear to be very happy with the way things are run, and they seem to be very happy about the fact that a great many things that piss off powerful corporations are firmly ingrained into their culture and legal system to such a degree that the only way to change them is to entirely circumvent both their democracy and their legal system. And they're intelligent and informed enough to see that this is exactly what is being attempted and governing themselves accordingly.

They certainly have MY respect. I wish more nations had people of such character.

Re:Oh no

[Urusai]

Both copyrights and patents are befouled by the ongoing capitalist devolution.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm? story_id=4128994

It's time to revise IP entirely, but this is a mere pipe dream. In reality, modern degenerated capitalism (syndicalism?) and the pernicious illusion of democracy have simply created a new type of serfdom. This is the cusp of a new dark age. Don't bother fighting it, you'll just die embittered.

Software patents= job losses

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the companies behind it its the big boys. The guys most threatened by competition that are currently top of the heap. If you want to have an effect then you have to remind your MEP that these are the same companies that are multinationals in all markets and are shifting jobs out of Europe.

Sure they'll benefit from software patents. You can't make a GSM phone without paying a big chunk of money to Ericsson for example, not to use their technology but simply to connect to a GSM network! They'll get the same benefit from software if you want to use the handset equivalent of the 'progress bar'.

But those guys only spent money to compete to stay ahead, if you make it easier for them to compete there is less incentive to spend money on research and they'll just shift jobs to the cheapest location. Who needs to spend lots on software development if no new company can enter the market? Look at how Ericsson blocked Sendo with patents driving out a competitor from the market.

Every player is in every market, so it doesn't help 'European' companies to compete, it just makes smaller European companies unable to enter the market against the multinationals. It stinks! Its even worse when you see how stupid the 'inventions' are. They have a battery status indicator patent for handsets now. How dumb can it get!

The EU Patent office has been issuing patents for software, but if they don't come to court what use are they? Nobody pushes them because the legal basis for them is non existent.

The directive makes it much worse by giving the patent office a loophole, the 'computer implemented inventions' loophole. This directive DOES make the situation much much worse. No directive is better than this.

Re:Software patents= job losses

[ardor]

Your points are valid, but the issued software patents DID come to court already. Again, ask EADS.

I'm aware that most companies pushing for the directive are the big ones. But the really DANGEROUS ones are small. Is Acacia big? No. Big companies do patent trivialities, but they usually don't use them unless they get attacked. Small patent holders like Acacia however destroy EVERYTHING and are even proud of it.

The thing with GSM is: while it is true that there are patents blocking its adoption, GSM is far from being trivial. Same with MPEG4 and H264: there are many patented techniques involved in these standards, but the patents involved are often made to prevent other from adopting them on their own. MPEG-4 patents aren't trivial, either. Best thing would be to have these patents issued as "no-cost-patents" for the public, but the companies involved in the creation of MPEG4 do want something for the money they invested. So you are mixing two kinds of problems: trivial patents (which NOBODY wants, not even the big companies - they get some only to be able to defend themselves from trivial-patent attacks) and non-trivial, blocking patents like the GSM issue.

Now mplayer, VLC and xine are in trouble. They implement patented stuff with no licenses for it. (Except H264 - you don't need any licenses for creating an opensource codec. People using these codecs for commercial playback need one, though.)
Fortunately, GStreamer isn't in trouble, because of its plugin-based system.

What this directive cannot prevent are GSM-patents. What it SHOULD prevent, however, are the trivial ones, not only because the council directive isn't effective enough, but also because the CURRENT legislation isn't effective enough. No company wants trivial patents except scavengers like Acacia and Forgent (could anyone shoot these guys please?). The major IT groups like GI (Gesellschaft Informatik) now are pushing the planned amendments of the parliament. Lets hope that it pays off.

Re:Software patents= job losses

[Anonymous Coward]

"No company wants trivial patents except scavengers like Acacia and Forgent (could anyone shoot these guys please?)"

Funny thing ... in America, mad hysterical religious nuts will shoot a doctor for perfoming abortion.

In England flea-infested junkies will dug up the bones of the dead relatives and sent to the staff of Research Labs that test on animals.

Fancy you getting your own grandmother in a box.

In Iraq they will blow themselves up and their own fellow civilians for ..?? Cos they are just thick-thick?
It's not as if they are being oppressed like the Palestinians.

What an insane world.
But yeah I can't help there, I am bad at shooting :(

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the ONLY way to be immune is to not make anything. If you make something, someone else who does not make anything can sue you and you have no hope of returning the favor, because he DOES NOT PRODUCE ANYTHING, so he cannot infringe on any of your patents.

So, what are you doing to defend your democracy?

[shmlco]

Bitching on /. apparently...

Re:Oh no

[NickFortune]

Defeatism is never the answer. Your despair serves no one except the bad guys.

This is the information age. Memes propagate faster, feedback times contract and society is faster to evolve and adapt.

The corporations and the big political interests have a head start is all. But there are more of us than there are on them, and as understanding spreads, we grow in power.

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

** You do not have to make anything to infringe a patent! **

You can infringe a patent by using a piece of software. The Microsoft license says "sue us and lose the patent license we granted you".

While your head is still vibrating from the cluebat, re-read the message you replied to.

Re:Oh no

[dustmite]

Because there isn't a "-1 Fscking stupid"?

Re:Maybe EU needs software patents

[Tim C]

I'm not sure what "Last time I checked, the dollar was worth just over half of what the pound is worth" has to do with the question...

The OP asserted that the economies of European countries keep lagging behind that of the US. The relative strengths of the dollar and the pound (and indeed of the dollar and the euro) would seem to indicate that this is not in fact the case, hence the poster you replied to pointed it out.

Re:Oh no

[TheRaven64]

Name one valid software patent then. What software piece in the world would you allow to be patented.

I can name several. RSA encryption[1] and Wavelet compression are the ones that spring immediately to mind. Marching cubes probably, although filing the patent after disclosure was a bit cheeky (not allowed under the UK patent system, but the American on is a bit broken). I'm sure there are others. A lot of things in computer science really are novel, and really do deserve some protection. What they do not deserve is 20 years of protection. They should have a maximum of 5 years with compulsory licensing of the patent during that time.

[1] Well, technically GCHQ could have claimed prior art on that one by a couple of decades, but they didn't because of the official secrets act.

Re:Maybe EU needs software patents

[praksys]

The economy of the EU as a whole has been lagging behind the US for a long time. Since 1990 the EU has undergone huge growth in terms of territory and population as new countries have joined, but the comparative shares of the world economy for the EU and the US have barely moved. Stil some parts of the EU, like the UK for example, have been doing about as well as the US. (See here for details.)

I doubt if software patents have much, if anything, to do with it though. Aging populations, labour market inflexibility, and high tax rates, are more likely causes.

A call from a programmer matters

[D. J. Keenan]

Some Slashdotter's might be thinking that they are not part of the political elite and that a phone call from themselves to an MEP won't do much good. Not so!

MEPs respect programmers on this issue. If you are an experienced programmer, a polite phone call to your MEP, briefly stating your position and the reasons for it, will be respected and could make a real difference. (For possible reasons to discuss, see other comments to this story.)

If you do call--and I hope you will--the main trick will be to explain things to someone who likely has little knowledge of computers. For example, one MEP told me that the proposed patent legislation is okay because it only pertains to "technical" software. So I then need to explain that all software can be considered technical, in some sense, and so this wouldn't be a restriction at all.

Some corporate lobbyists will say almost anything. Many MEPs are genuinely not understanding the issues because of that.

Re:Ooh that smell...what's that smell? It's BULLSH

[Alsee]

If we manage to get it passed *with* the Parliment's amendments then to a large extent it will be over in our favor. If we get the directive passed explicitly settling the law that logic is not an invention and is not patentable it will be extremely hard for megacorp lobbyists to start a brand new directive to *reverse* settled law. Most of their momentum here is that they are claiming to "clarify and harmonize" the law, and that they supposedly only want to "keep established law" and supposedly *not* actually change anything. I'm sure they'll still want to change the law if we win, but it makes for very hard sell. It is currently easy for them to attack the anti-software-patent side as trying to remove patent protections on inventions. On the other hand asking to gain patent protection on non-inventions is a very weak position :)

-

Call your MEP

[Anonymous Coward]

TRIPS mandates 20 years for patent protection, saying that patent protection on software should last for less than 20 years is the same as saying, "patents are not suitable for protecting software". I'm glad you agree ;-)

Software may be suitable for some form of enhanced copyright protection, that is not the debate we are having. Software patents limit independant discoveries, you may think RSA deserved a patent but if GCHQ had gone to the US patent office first, RSA would be infringing by even running the algorithm. This also highlights the biggest problem with software patents, prior art searches are impossible.

21 amendments tabled by Rocard/Buzek

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell your MEPs to support the 21 amendments tabled by Rocard/Buzek. (PSE and EPP parties)

See

http://wiki.ffii.org/AmPlenPr050701En

Call by phone or fax, eMails won't get read.

Here is a list of all MEPs:

http://www.ffii.org/~gibuskro/meplist/

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose you own a couple of patents. Suppose that's all you do. How on earth would you find yourself in the position to defend yourself against allegations of patent infringement?

Confused? Why?

[3seas]

Software by its nature is not patentable.

Any and all who claim otherwise and support such direction, are guilty of fraud against humans in general. There is no compromise!

Either you are a criminal against man or you are not, there is no grey area between these, anymore than there is grey area between existance and nothing.

Are those who hold software patents guilty of this fraud?

If you don't know the answer to this, then you are being deceived, perhaps by yourself.

There is nothing to be confused about, unless you are participating in the creation of confusion, making you an accessory to the crime of fraud.

Fraud regarding abstraction easily leads to many other crimes.

There is such a foundation upon which honesty on this matter exist in recognizing the natural order of prerequsites/authority. Just as human life requires many conditions to exist, so it is that the laws of physics and nature have authority over man, unless man fully understands and works in accord with physics and nature, especially his own nature.

The computer/software industry has proven time and again its persistance in applying its shortsightedness. It's inability to see past its own ....greed (for lack of a better explaination of why the computer industry is sight limited.)

Fraud is a crime. And when there is no one to enforce against crime, then the nature of crime shall take down everyone as it prevents human technological advancement that would otherwise improve survival odds, better understanding of
physics and nature.

Copyright on software is appropriate, not of broad scope claims and false (gun backed) power to deny, patents on software are simply going to far in IP ownership. You cannot enforce against any human, a claim that they cannot be human.

Abstraction is a human thing, that both allows us to advance and defines us, sets us apart from other animal life.

It is inherently not in the best interest of human survival to deny humans of their natural rights to contribute to advancement.

Don't participate in this fraud.

Re:Confused? Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess: you have an automatic +1 karma bonus.

MODERATORS: WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING? YOU ARE RUINING THIS SITE BY ALLOWING SUCH DRIVEL AS THE PARENT TO BE MODDED UP WHILE REASONED ARGUMENTS ARE SENT TO /DEV/NULL.

To the OP, you seriously need to seek professional help. You probably thought what you typed makes perfect sense. To the rest of us it is just the ramblings of a madman.

Re:Confused? Why?

[3seas]

Physics of Abstraction (abstraction physics)

Abstraction enters the picture of computing with the representation of physical transistor switch positions of ON '1' and OFF '0' or what we call "Binary" notation. However, computers have far more transistor switches in them than we can keep up with in such a low level or first order abstract manner, so we create higher level abstractions in order to increase our productivity in programming computers. From Machine language to application interfaces that allow users to define some sequence of action into a word or button press (ie. record and playback macro) so to automate a task, we are working with abstractions that ultimately accesses the hardware transistor switches which in turn output to, or control some physical world hardware.

Programming is the act of automating some level of complexity, usually made up of simpler complexities, but done so in order to allow the user to use and reuse the complexity through a simplified interface. And this is a recursive act, building upon abstractions others have created that even our own created abstractions/automations might be used by another to further create more complex automations. In general, if we didn't build upon what those before us have done, we then would not advance at all, but rather be like any other mammal incapable of anything more than, at best, first level abstraction. But we are more, and as such have the natural human right and duty to advance in such a manner.

There is an identifiable and definable "physics of abstraction" (abstraction physics), an identification of what is required in order to make and use abstractions. Abstraction Physics is not exclusive to computing but constantly in use by ... well... us humans. Elements or facets of abstraction physics include the actions of abstraction creation and use, such as defining a word to mean a more complex definition (word = definition, function-name = actions to take, etc.), Starting and Stopping (interfacing with) of an abstraction definition sequence, keeping track of where you are in the progress of abstraction sequence usage (moving from one abstraction to another), defining and changing "input from" direction, defining and changing "output to" direction, getting input to process (using variables or place holders to carry values), sequencially stepping thru abstraction/automation details (inherently includes optionally sending output), looking up the meaning of a word or symbol (abstraction) so to act upon or with it, identifing an abstraction or real item value so to act upon it, and putting constraints upon your abstraction lookups and identifications (when you look up a word in a dictionary you don't start at the beginning of the dictionary, but begin with the section that starts with the first letter then followed by the second, etc., and when you open a box with many items to stock, you identify each so as to know where to put it in stock.)

Abstraction Physics has yet to be established/recognized in a broad "common acceptance" manner, similiar to the difficulty in the acceptance of the hindu-arabic decimal system (which included the concept that nothing can have value - re: the Zero place holder). It took three hundred years (from inception) for the innovation of the now common decimal system to overcome the far more limited Roman Numeral system. (NOTE: mathmatics and the symbol sets used are also abstractions and therefor a subset of abstraction possibilities and certainly an application of abstraction physics.) Though the act of programming is still younger than many who apply it, we are technologically moving at a much faster rate of incorporating innovations and better understandings of reality. There is a physics to abstraction creation and use which can be used to model and create a non-patentable user friendly general use, and dynamic, automation (abstraction creation and usage) tool, that also allows for organized placement and access of abstractions in a logical or mapable and navigateable mann

take the power back!

[matt me]

*matt quietly hums some rage, before it gets to me and then proceeds to kick out TAKE THE POWER BACK!*

The present curriculum
I put my fist in 'em
Eurocentric every last one of 'em
See right through the red, white and blue disguise
With lecture I puncture the structure of lies
Installed in our minds and attempting
To hold us back
We've got to take it back
Holes in our spirit causin' tears and fears
One-sided stories for years and years and years
I'm inferior? Who's inferior?
Yeah, we need to check the interior
Of the system that cares about only one culture
And that is why
We gotta take the power back

The teacher stands in front of the class
But the lesson plan he can't recall
The student's eyes don't perceive the lies
Bouning off every fucking wall
His composure is well kept
I guess he fears playing the fool
The complacent students sit and listen to some of that
Bullshit that he learned in school

The circle of hatred continues unless we react
We gotta take the power back

Re:Oh no

[globalar]

The term "to patent" is a nice way of saying "to monopolize by government coercion." I am not entirely opposed to the concept of patents, but we have to realize we are not only creating monopolies, but requiring the government further regulate the market.

This is only what the concept entails. In the marketplace, corporations typically own monopolies, not the inventors or creators. Further, patents can inter-relate (whether we want them to or not), forcing litigation and prolonged examination. This effort is expended, but rarely calculated by the lawmakers in the final equation. Corporations only need make a profit, the society has many more needs.

So that leaves us with at least four casualties:

1) many new monopolies
2) expanded government regulation
3) corporate control of large amounts of knowledge
4) expensive legal infrastructure

As time progresses, these costs can only increase.

Good point-mod parent up

[Lonewolf666]

A formal ratification as "constitution" (which may be a misleading term, it still seems more like a contract between states) would have politically strengthened the European Constitution to a point where reforming the EU would have been next to impossible.
Some minor improvements in the power of parliament are not enough to compensate for this.

Re:Ooh that smell...what's that smell? It's BULLSH

[Seigen]

Thats the sad thing. What big business wants, big business gets, eventually. The only thing to stop it is if a massive amount of average people (voters) are upset. The average voter doesn't know what a software patent is, and probably has no clue what linux or open source is.

In short, I rather doubt they can be stopped. Sooner or later they will likely go in, although I hope I'm wrong. On the other hand there will probably always be a few countries where such laws do not exist and those countries might become the place to do some forms of OSS coding.

I wonder if it will ever get to the point where linux is illegal to download because ideas are locked up by particular companies and cannot be legally used by anyone else.

At any rate while I'm not 100% against software patents, if you have the idea and at least do some considerable work to be the first to implement it. They should, however, be for a very limited, non renewable term. A few years should be adequate on anything software related. Beyond that and you are stifling innovation, and not encouraging it, and wasn't that the whole point for them in the first place?

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Exactly, but that wasn't the point I was making when I wrote.

Not true, if you own enough broad patents ...

Did you miss that part of my original post?

Let me spell it out for you. Microsoft license software patents on condition that you don't sue them for patent infringement. Suppose you own a couple of patents, Microsoft own patents on everything from word processors, document printing, email and telecommunications (VOIP). You cannot sue Microsoft for patent infringement because the moment you file you are infringing on any number of their patents.

This is the high stakes game the big companies are playing. Microsoft are the example but they will cross license with other large patent holders, effectively a handful of companies are being handed the world under the pretenses of "harmonization" and "protecting innovation".

A physical demonstration you say?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

A physical demonstration is also planned in Strasbourg on next tuesday the 5th of July.

Hhhrm...

This is your software market...
(holds up egg)

This is your software market on patents...
SMASHES egg with 20Kg print-out of American software patent filings

Any questions?

We need participants with LARGE traffic...

[Cinquero]

Write to faz.net, zeit.de, google.de etc. and ask them to take part in the demonstration -- either by taking their sites down or, in the case of Google, to change their Google logo accordingly... :-)))

Just think Google being down only ONE hour... *g*

Patents by Google

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

Google has seven patents.

Great GERMAN link about software patents in the EU

[Cinquero]

http://www.zeit.de/software/patente/index

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

In most parts of the world, these clauses are void, because their existence is not apparent to the buyer before the contract is closed. Anyway, how much software do you need to manage a couple of patents? People didn't even have computers when this bullshit started.

I voted "NO"

[Werrismys]

And it did not do any good.

Voting whether Finland should or shouldn't join EU was another of those semidemocratic BS processes. If the majority had voted NO, then simply increase propaganda in mass media and do another vote in 6 months. Simple. And no (easy) way to reverse the process.

EU is bullshit. Europe consists of nations that are very self-aware and proud, and often bad relations with other European nations. I mean who wants to be allied with Poland, France or Italy?

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Re:So, what are you doing to defend your democracy

[The Cydonian]

Were you trying to be ironic?

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

In most parts of the world, these clauses are void

No they are not, this isn't a contract it's a license like the GPL. You have no rights to redistribute GPL'd licensed code outside the license, the GPL is a copyright license. You can infringe a software patent by using a piece of software, break the license by instigating a lawsuit and you have no right to use any software covered by patents the company you are suing may hold.

The software in your phone, home media center and car will likely be covered by patents. This is effectively carte blanche for major patent holders to trample over smaller companies and individuals patents because it is imposiible to sue them without reverting to a technological stone age.

Destroy the EU ..equals .. no software patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Good way to get rid of this big business subsidy is to take the only public referendum that seems to be possible in this undemocratic region. That is to vote against the European Union in every referendum that rears its head. It should be the sworn duty of every freedom loving citizen of any of these countries that would disappear into that new jailhouse of nations called the EU to vote like the French and the Dutch did, vote NO. NO on union! No on the death of democracy! NO on the institutionalization of corporate oligarchy! Let the campaign cry be something catchy sung to the French national anthem, the Marseillaise! Let all people chant "NO Freedom....NO union!!!

That letter is a lie

[Sanity]

This letter is a lie. The Lib Dem MEP on the Legal Affairs committee, Diane Wallis, voted against Rocard's amendments, in effect voting in favour of software patentability.

The Lib Dems claim to be against software patents, but this has not been reflected in the actions of most Lib Dem MEPs, Diane Wallis and Sharon Bowles being the two worst offenders.

Re:Oh no

[justsomebody]

I can name several. RSA encryption[1] and Wavelet compression

Which are not even nearly SOFTWARE ONLY related. In their original form their are mathematical and crpto algorithms. I say, I don't mind patented some inovative approach, but as long as it is patented in the realm where it belongs.

are the ones that spring immediately to mind.

Sorry, but I was asking computer SOFTWARE INVENTIONS, not other science realm solutions. This is where you should distinct why software implementation is not possible, but most of your cases are definitely patent material.

Marching cubes probably,

Again, mathematical not SOFTWARE.

although filing the patent after disclosure was a bit cheeky (not allowed under the UK patent system, but the American on is a bit broken). I'm sure there are others. A lot of things in computer science really are novel, and really do deserve some protection. What they do not deserve is 20 years of protection. They should have a maximum of 5 years with compulsory licensing of the patent during that time.

Agreed, but obviously you don't get one fact that I try to point out. Me personaly, I agree with patents, but I don't agree with software ones. Why? Here is a few points of my opinion about it.

1. Patenting should go in the science realm where invention belongs. That is something I can live with.
2. Software is nothing but a descriptive representation of another science realm problem so that this problem executes on your computer. Basicaly, software is nothing but description. And as such, description can't be invention
3. As soon as you allow software patenting, you'll start to allow patenting Paragraphs, Sentences, Words, Letters... Remember, you allowed description already when you allowed software patents.
4. One could argue that some programing techniques are patentable. Yes, but this are still paper techniques that are not related with their software implementation. For example OOP is nothing but a mere extension to language. I can say for sure it is patent material. But this is not software solution. It is a mere language convience optimization and as long as it is patented like that I don't mind. It is not bound to one language and one implementation. You make compiler XYZ, you license this patent and start doing your OOP implementation. But as soon as you patent the software implementation of it, you introduced whole lot of a new restrictions and stupid missrepresentations. You just bound this invention to one implementor and one implementation which controls complete segment. But here is where my OOP example (if software patent is used in this case) breaks apart.
Why?
One could say that this was no different than Amazon One-Click patent or Mobile Information (the one where you ask for SMS informations, yes, that edit box and Sign In is a patent claim). I think that we both agree that it is very different case and while one is patent material, both others are not. But as long as legal language is used both are nothing but mere extension solutions to solve a complex task which are correctly represented in a computer description (which is patentable as soon as you allow software patents) and as such all three make wonderfull patent material.
Second example, complex network protocol for lets say multimedia streaming while doing bank accounting. As long as description is patentable, this is a decent patent material. But in reality (and in the world you would like to live in), there are 3 complex segments in this job (all 3 already exist and all that this applicant did was put in one big process that simultaneously does all 3 tasks). Network protocol, multimedia streaming and bank accounting. If you don't allow description patents, patent claim would be forced to make a claim for each segment, not for a complex one. And here is where it gets interesting. Most of it is definitely not a patent material. But saying some form of new RSA encryption would be possible if you would be able to show th

Just the logo

[nnappe]

I think it would be enough to change the logo and add a link to eff, like what they do at christmas and certain aniversaries.

Latest IHT article on EU software patents

[WillAffleckUW]

is at International Herald Tribune EU software patent article.