Slashdot Mirror
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."
A list of all MEPs with their phone numbers at Brussels and Strasbourg.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
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.
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...
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
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.
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.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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.
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 :)
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.