Slashdot Mirror
EU Software Patent Argument to Reopen?
pryonic writes "The Register is reporting that the EU software debate may be reopened by the Internal Markets Commissioner Charlie McCreevy. He has unveiled a public consultation on 'future action in patent policy to create an EU-wide patent system can take account of stakeholders needs.'" More from the article: "Both individuals and businesses are invited to contribute to the consultation which will run until 31 March. In launching the initiative McCreevy said that the European Commission wants to make the single market for patents 'a reality.' He urged individuals and businesses to give their views on how that could be achieved." Groklaw has
commentary on this development as well.
You MUST STOP SOFTWARE PATENTS NOW. We could not in the US and look at the mess we are in.... Do whatever it takes to talk with your representatives, MPs, etc. Get a good, solid dialog going and put this to bed.
The goal of creating a single patent system for europe is not a bad thing in itself. But they should start with the lowest dominator instead of trying to make "everything" patentable.
Lets hope they've learned something from the previous attempt and they will go for a clear patent systems that only allows "real" inventions.
But I honestly dont think that the big money will accept a more strict patent system. So we need to keep the politicans aware of what the citizens think!
200GB/2TB $7.95 Coupon: SAVE90DOLLAR
>omg patents are so bad (+2, Insightful) >>omg yea, the system is broken (+2, Insightful) >>> yea how you can patent a process.. this is riduclous (+5, Informative) >>>> but we need patents to continue innovation (+3, Interesting) >>>>> No you don't! In my business, , and then (+5, Informative) >>>> i have patented complaining about patents, you owe me money (+5, Funny) >>> It's all president's Bush's fault. (+5, flaimbait) >>>> I hate microsoft (+5, Off-topic)
me = owned... sigh.. not my day... back to programming for me. I'm outcasting myself. Break tags are too advanced for me... Too bad I can't mod myself down so I don't have to endure the mockery...
Is it any surprise that the issue hasn't gone away? Look at the two major supporters for software patents...Microsoft and Sun. They are just using their power and influence to dictate policies that favor them. What I found amusing is this... "The bill had been supported by the European pro-patent lobby, which included corporations such as Microsoft and Sun, who claimed that the directive would encourage investment in research and development in Europe." Sure it would encourage investment....from large companies like MS and Sun. They of course will reap most of the benefits aswell. Software patents are a bad idea and stifle creativity.
http://religiousfreaks.com/A bigger menace to society than even software patents is the slashdot effect. One freaking minute after the story is posted, Groklaw is down.
Isn't there a way to actually solve this kind of stuff, e.g., the decision has been made that there will be no software patents, so please quit trying at least for a generation?
From what I see the people who will benefit from this stupidity just keep lobbying until they get what they want, no matter how many times they heard a "no" along the way.
Here's a novel idea. Instead of all the countries in the EU changing their patent law to include software patents, why doesn't the US prohibit software patents? Seems a better way of making a single market to me.
:v)
Vik
"create an EU-wide patent system can take account of stakeholders needs."
Why do I have a strong suspicion that the biggest stakeholder, the public, won't matter when it comes to decision?
Background: McCreevy was previously Finance Minister in the Irish Government, but fell out of favour with his patrons for his arrogant ways, annoying manner, utter highhandedness and complete inability to listen to his constituents. He's an ardent free-marketeer / economic liberal. He's an annoying man.
<McCreevy>
Nooooo... no no no. Nooo... no...
Well... actually...
Fine. Yes. Yes we are. We really can't hear anything over BigCorp's money. Sweet, sweet money.
</McCreevy>
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
"What's next? we must sow your mouth shut?"
Don't be pig-headed...
"They are just using their power and influence to dictate policies that favor them."
Yeah, and lions eat antelopes. Not sure what your point is here, other than businesses will protect their interests. Not too insightful, seeing as it's been that way forever.
"Sure it would encourage investment....from large companies like MS and Sun. They of course will reap most of the benefits aswell. Software patents are a bad idea and stifle creativity."
Listen, I understand your point, but you haven't made it here. All you've done is try to vilify MS and Sun, and that may get you karma, it doesn't explain why you think
"Software patents are a bad idea and stifle creativity."
The case is easy to make. Try doing it without the karma whoring.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
ITYM sew. Then again, maybe something involving a female pig would be good too.
'future action in patent policy to create an EU-wide patent system can take account of stakeholders needs.'
What? I don't seem to understand this quote.
I guess that correct grammar has already been patented by the Grammar Nazis.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
EU to the people: We're going to keep pushing patents until we get what we want.
(And you know what, I've seen enough of this crap to believe they're going to get it.)
There's too much money and power at stake. Could you imagine how much money IBM would have right now if they could have patented software from the get-go?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'll bet $500 that McCreevy will be dead by the end of this year.
What's next? we must sow your mouth shut?
;)
then you can say, "what a pig!"
Are you F#%!@&g deaf?
We the small businesses and individuals of the EC do not want your F#%!@&g patents.
What's next? we must sow your mouth shut?
How about getting the guy fired? Aren't such people accountable to the public in some way or other?
Any relation? I wonder if he owns a camera...
If DuPont can get away with patenting a living organism, I don't think there is much anyone can do to stop the EC Patent situation.
You would require quite a bit of support, very high numbers. I don't think there are enough people who see the importance of this, trying to impress upon the masses this is a task in itself.
You'd need a recognizable spokesman, political backing, money and lots of air time.
If at first you don't succeed, try and try again...over and over, sometimes using illegal and/or dirty tricks to achieve your goal.
No. EC is built according to the french civil service model: "We know better and we are not accountable to anyone".
IIRC, For the time being there is no procedure to impeach or remove one specific commissioner via any of the elected bodies.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
How much does it actually cost to buy politicians?
If enough people donated small amounts of money. Could we not buy politicians just as the big software/media companies do?
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
If IBM could have patented software from the get-go, I'm sure they would dominate the market. However, it would be a much smaller market. See quotes against software patentability.
In Europe?
You must be kidding.
Most laws and rules survive generations here.
All corrupt politicians cost us very dearly.
b.t.w. I'd rather had -1, Hostile than -1, Troll as it was meant as hostile (metafore) as can, not that I am good with needle and thread...
no doubt under the inflewence of the likes of intel, and microsoft who in recent advertising campaigns over here claim to be "20 years investing in ireland". But he is basically an idiot like the rest of Fianna Fail who are involved in numerous "brown envelope" scandals.
I guess Fianna Fail Failed us again!
If these clowns won't listen, then it's time to play dirty. What the opponents of this need to do is to frame software patents as a power grab by U.S. corporations over the European market, a way for them to ensure that European innovation is stifled so that Europe will always be beholden to U.S. interests. Then portray these EU bureaucrats as stooges of the giant American corporations.
What this will do is put these guys on the defensive. It changes the issue at hand from, "We need software patents," to, "Wait! I'm not a stooge of the Americans! You aren't listening to my argument!" This may sound like a trivial thing, but it isn't. It changes the entire dynamic from that of these guys pushing ahead with their agenda to them having to explain why they aren't pawns of a foreign country. The ordinary person on the street may not understand what a software patent is, but if you tell them it's being forced on them at the behest of foreign governments and corporations, they won't like it. And before someone chimes in saying that we shouldn't have to play politics this way, that the arguments against software patents are good enough to stand on their own, let me just say this. You're right, but being right won't necessarily win a fight. You also have to be practical, and you have to use every tool at your disposal. There are many times that the side with the right argument loses because it isn't willing to get in there and fight tooth and nail for what it believes in.
Oh, BTW, in case you're wondering, no, I'm not anti-American. In fact, I am an American, but I happen to believe that our patent system is completely corrupt, and I shudder to think that it's being foisted onto any other parts of the world.
Both individuals and businesses are invited to contribute to the consultation which will run until 31 March. In launching the initiative McCreevy said that the European Commission wants to make the single market for patents 'a reality.'
So... In which hole do you want to take it? You know, we'll stick it in you somewhere anyway. Your mother wants us to. Really.
I think he meant "shareholders".
These people make me sick: They keep pushing law after law on member states, well aware that the citizen don't want them. It happened that finally countries where there once was a large majority in favor of the EU construction, (The Netherlands, France) rejected the proposed EU constitution. And now they do bussiness as usual. We have an election year in 2007 and if this kind of crap does not stop, I will seriously consider voting for some politician seeking to LEAVE THE E.U.no matter what his other proposals are.
Enough is enough, our french politicians are not very democratic in my view, but these are even worse, and I no longer want to have them ruling my country.
One of those Europeans...
No.
But there is quite possible to arrange public outrage to remove some very doubtful persons. As far as have I seen it, it works quite well. And as we know, EC should be accepted by EP, which showed big ressistance in creation of last EC.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Not true. The Barroso commission was rejected by the parliament and had to have its composition (slightly) modified.
Before that, the Santer commission was "fired" by same parliament. Strictly speaking, the parliament has no legal way to remove the commission, but it has been able to force its president to resign. Should he have refused, the parliament could have played down each and every proposal: Evidently an inacceptable stalemate.
Not to say democratic powers are sufficient here, but some counter-powers do exist.
One of those Europeans...
And then watch the big software companies set up puppet institutions to manage these donations. Then these aggressor companies will initiate new irritating initiatives just so you get irritated and donate to their puppet organizations. What a nice new revenue source! Of course they can't just take the money, but there are still valuable ways to milk this scheme: for instance they will set up nonprofit orgs that take in all these donations, and do surveys and statistical market research studies the big companies don't want to pay for in the first place with their own money - why not let the benevolent donators pay for it, then publish the results in some obscure paper the original company can 'pretend' to read it! When you donate, how do you know who you're giving your money to? At least with Unicef or PBS you're not donating 'against' an institution, but against poverty, natural disasters, uneducation, against things that don't have a face, things that can't get upset and exact revenge. For instance poverty won't say it's revenge time, but a company or a person may.
"BM shall be responsible for obtaining any patent or copyright licences necessary for the performance of a Purchase Order and of remaking all other arrangements required to indemnify the Purchaser from any liability for patent or copyright infringement in said countries."
: boa.nc3a.nato.int/boa/8685/contract.htm
Source: http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:fTIeNxwY2FYJ
(This document is not for your eyes only, however as of now it is available in google's cache)
So. IBM involvement indicates that patents (that they do not hold) are very bad for their shareholder value since they must obtain any relevant patent that they don't have to fulfill their obligations to our de-facto world government military dictatorship.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
I am an MS employee (although my posting is DEFINITELY my own opinion and has no relation to anything that might be the position of my employer).
I am against software patents, such as they exist today in the US.
I am _for_ government granting artificial protections to people/organizations that create IP, because i beleive that authors, software developers, and musicians deserve to have some say in how money is made from their intellectual property, and it seems necessary to make the model work (at least for pharmecutical companies). These protections should last for a limited time and focus on letting the inventor recoup their development costs, plus a nice profit, and then after the granted time period, the general public freely benefits from the work. I beleive this is called copyright, but its been badly perverted in the US.
It is my claim that Microsoft is not esecially obnoxious w.r.t. software patents. Consideration of history will show that we get sued, via software patents, alot more than we sue others. Our acquisition of patents and patening as much as we can is only reasonable, given the litiguous, absurd software patening environment we're in.
I would expect that we're in favor of software patent stuff in europe because it helps to level the playing field cross-market.
I would _like_ it to be the case that there are no software patents anywhere. We've lost a lot of money due to absurd patent lawsuits (Eolas, for instance).
The final thing to consider is how patents affect F/OSS. This is a hard one for me to have a coherent opinion on. Everybody, no matter where they work, wrote and continues to write software in their free time at home. Nothing is more fundamental than the individual right of creating things.
On the other hand, its frustrating for me to see F/OSS software that is just outright cloning other, commercially developed software. It's frustrating because the work to do design, UI research, feature consideration/development, etc etc was done by a company, and took time and money. Writing the code is a small part of the job of shipping software, and when you're cloning commercial software for F/OSS projects, you only do the coding work, and you're "using" the rest of it without the original people being compensated in any way.
I wrestle with these two opposing positions - i want people to be able to write whatever software they want. I don't want people to be able to clone the work of others (with less effort) and give it away for free [especially for the stated motive of trying to "ruin" the original creator - which is often the case with F/OSS and Microsoft]
I lean in favor of the individual, and my response to corporate anti-cloning interests is along the lines of "i guess you'll just have to out-innovate the cloners instead of resting on your laurels" (which is another concept that originally showed up in Copyright)
I think many people are worried (rightly so) that Microsoft will use software patents to block F/OSS cloning of microsoft products/technologies. I am not sure what all the motivations are, but there are a lot of contributing issues. Yes, we want people to buy our stuff instead of using freeware clones. Yes, we are _required_ to persue possible patent infringers for our patents to remain valid. Yes, there is a software patent industry, that for better or worse, we _have_ to participate in. There are other reasons probalby, and i dont know what mix of them causes what action by us for what project/person "out there".
I've never talked to a single engineer - here or at any place - that is happy with the US software patent landscape. These are all people that get paid to write code, and have healthy at-home projects going.
I think everyone that writes software struggles with "how do i keep my job?" vs "how do i retain the freedom to create whatever i want to?"
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
If people want to try to kill software patents, don't try to discourage them! Given how poorly software patents did last round, it is certainly possible that software patents will be abolished across the EU.
http://outcampaign.org/
The EU will continue to bring up the issue of software patents again and again until it's finally put through. We can say no 100 times but say yes once and it's done.
It's the same with the constitution, they'll continue to try and put it through for the next decade, the population will say no again and again, until they say yes, and then it's done.
This is how the EU does things.
It's also why I'm moving to Australia in 3 months. It's a joke.
What about this, grant software patents BUT they cannot be applyed to OSS.
IMHO ...
Americans can get involved here by organizing a patent protest in the Capital Mall. Get as many programmers together as possible with as many exhibits of how software patents have harmed innovation as possible. Have a march, get the public's attention.
Maybe, just maybe, it will get the attention of someone in power in the US (to fix the issue) and/or someone in power in the EU (to warn them of what could happen).
The biggest problem would be actually getting people there. I, for example, would love to go to such a demonstration, but practically probably could not.
Barroso decided to play it safe and did not put his commission for voting and delayed the vote for one month until the Italian commissioner was replaced.
This is also the only moment when the parliament gets to decide anything. It can either approve the whole commission or turn it down. Once it has elected it, the parliament has no means to fire it. Same for a single commissioner.
This is in fact the french model for civil service. They are (sometimes) accountable to an elected body only for initial approval and never after that.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Maybe instead of having to fight back these software patent proposals every year, an EU delegate should propose amending the EU charter to specifically BAN software patents? Seems the pro-patent folks can't take "nay" for an answer.
Maybe there's some subtext that I'm missing, but the article seems unduely alarmist. There's nothing in the EU press release or consultation document to indicate that this has anything to do with Software or computer implemented inventions. The question presented seems to be whether there should be European patents at all.
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. BB
Hmm, the European Community WAS built according to the French civil service model, in the beginning (a veery long time ago).
Various British politicians, aided and abetted by idiotic Commission presidents like the infamous Prodi, have managed to change it fully according to the British imperial civil service model, i.e. British EC servants, by now in all nooks and crannies of the EC, run the show, write the speeches, make policies, negotiate, convince, talk to the press.
For those few privileged who have watched "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister": replace Sir Humphrey with a tired looking, easy to remote-control, Irishwoman and the PM with the Commission President and you have a very clear picture of who runs the Commission these days.
Most commissioners, especially the new commissioners from the accession Member States (Hungary, Poland, etc.) are still trying to understand what exactly is the place they are in and what they are supposed to do with the wad of money (between 17000 and 22000 US $ net per month, plus fringe benefits) they got showered with, on top of the usual diplomatic privileges.
Otherwise they give meaningless speeches, written by careful British ghost writers, to uninterested audiences, attending because of the cocktail afterwards, and receive foreign jerks/dictators coming to Brussels begging for cash, so that, under the cover of development aid, they may buy the newest luxury Mercedes model, with EC funds of course.
I should know, as I am a non-British EC civil servant, who used to believe in a United Europe, fighting by now a losing battle...
That is why I have to sign as AC.
Software patents are there to defend short term profits of some big corporations, simple as that.
/. in months, seriously.
The fact that those corporations are mostly based in the US is not surprising but purely incidental.
So this is not really an America vs Europe thing, and there is no secret plan with the government or the CIA to Americanize the world, it's just the corporations wanting to extend their power to europe after succeeding in the US.
And, btw, i am not American, and the grandparent's post is the best one i've seen in
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
Ireland set itself as a corporate tax haven, so US companies all declare their tax their to avoid higher corporation tax. Coupled to that they get a hefty EU subsidy as an 'underdeveloped' country.
So they all set up subsidiaries in Ireland, and report their earnings from software sales their Irish subsidiary instead of Europe or USA.
It's all you-scratch-my-back I'll-scratch-yours with McCreevy, he'll happily sell EU down the road if it protects Irelands favorable tax status.
Before he had the backing of major EU and USA companies, now nobody wants them, even Microsoft Patent lawyers was complaining about obvious software patents choking his workload and forcing endless rewrites.
All thats left now are a few individuals in a few companies, and they're isolated.
I have to asl the obvious...
What part of NO do they don't understand?
Is it even slightly suprising?
We'll "ask" you this question till you give us the correct answer.
And after the vote it was all "the people are unhappy with their national governments, not the eu", yes.. that's right, the people are too stupid to know how to vote or what they are voting for, maybe we shouldn't have any right to vote at all, after all, we are just little people who don't know any better.
Just what really is the game plan with the whole eu thing now anyway? I'm sure it started out with the best intentions, but like, they say that about the road to hell too.
I think you meant "sew". If you put this guys mouth on a female pig you'd have a chimera, something Europe is definately not fond of...
Let's face it, the real problem with software patents is patent-encumbered standards.
The single-click patent is just plain stupid, but it doesn't allow Amazon to lock up the entire web.
The vfat long-names patent is just plain stupid, and it alows Microsoft to limit the ability of other company's products to interoperate with Windows.
These days, IBM does not have the market power to create de-facto standards and then use patents to exclude others from developing to those standards. Unfortunately for us all, Microsoft does (Sun, probably not). Now maybe antitrust law should prevent that, but I would get my hopes up.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I'm sure many of us in the UK have written to our MPs and MEPs, among other things, but I'm not aware of any specific UK organisation coordinating ventures to stop these patent shenanigans.
Do any other UK slashdotters feel like getting in touch to see what could be achieved collectively? You know: email, website, forum, PR activites, that sort of thing. There's such a lot of strong opinion about this; maybe a concerted campaign could achieve more than individual efforts?
Having followed the discussion on swpats for some time now, I have not seen a single good suggestion for the text of proper legislation that would exclude just that what apparently causes all the fuss. Of course one could argue that drafting legislation is not our ("the people's"), task, but rather that of our legislators.
However, I get the impression that it is fundamentally impossible to avoid software (whatever that may be) from being patented and at the same time allow patents for "real" inventions. So that would mean that the only solution would be to abolish patents altogether, and that appears to be a bridge too far.
Who has a good suggestion for a text in (European) patent law that would do a proper job?
Unfortunately your premise presupposes a certain amount of discression on the part of the general public.
e.g. Shortly after the whole electric power debacle in California the geniouses in the Canadian province of Ontario decided that privitizing the power plants there would be a great idea. Some highly qualified people involved in the decision making process and subsequent fallout occuring in California were so kind as to fly to Ontario and speak to anyone who would listen. Some of these had been pro-privitization lobbyists before the whole Enron fallout.
Of course recent real life examples were of no consideration to the superior intellect of the constituents of Ontario. who after all are so much more aware than their American counterparts. Imagine the surprise when privitization resulted in immediate price hikes and supply/demand problems. There was a collective gut check but it was too late.
Let's face it, the majority of people in the western world are willfully incompetent, bumbling morons who long ago sacrificed their minds to the lordship of info-tainment television, in short, people who have no business making decisions of consequence.
Scout Leader: Boys I think it's safe to climb down from the trees now.
Boy Scout #1: But sir, the bear just ate the last kid to climb down, and he's still growling!
Boy Scout #2: Yeah, that's like the fifth kid he's eaten!
Scout Leader: Then he's probably full!
Boy Scout #1: Good point sir, shall I climb down?
This is retarded, but I'll bite:
I will give you, however, that the Great Depression is a rather good argument against laissez-faire capitalism, although you hardly touch on it. I would argue that the Great Depression was not caused by market failure or some fundamental flaw in capitalism, but in the general naivete of the public at the time. People believed that stock prices had reached a "permenantly high plauteu", which fueled the purchase of stocks on credit (often, an investor had to pay only 10% of a stock's value up front). If people had the same knowledge of capitalism then as we do now, no-one would beleive that stocks can somehow remain at permanently elevated prices, and therefore, no one would provide the insane amounts of credit that caused loan defaults and bank failures when the market faltered.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Hey, this method how I got a pony for Christmas. (Well, it would have been if I'd actually wanted a pony)
More seriously, can we even begin to calculate the time and resources that have already been diverted into reacting to nuisance policy initiatives instead of developing better software?
Does the EU have an ultimate authority who has a genuinely final say on such issues?
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
EU will have software patent legislation no matter what, just like GWB had his war.
You can try to educate people who are ignorant. These guys are not even remotely ignorant.
They are cold, rational, calculating individuals who exactly know what they want and they will get it no matter whan you, me and Poland says or votes.
I bet a 1,000 dollars (USD) that before this year is out, the legislation would be active in EU.
Am not claiming it would be voted, passed, etc., Am just saying it would be there, hook or crook.
Welcome to 1984-Corporate Style.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Then you no longer have to worry about adding <br> everywhere.
(Despite the name, the only difference between "Plain Old Text" and "HTML Formatted" is that "Plain Old Text" inserts <br>s everywhere there's a newline.
It takes other HTML just fine.
For example, I am posting this reply using "Plain Old Text", and it contains <blockquote>, <i>, <a>, and <tt> tags, as well as <, >, and & character references.)
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
As 'everybody knows' :) there are different phases in the codecion procedure that is used to make new European laws. The parliament rejected the commission patent project a first time and emitted a bunch of amendments. BUT the commission neglected totally the amendments submitted by the parliament. So this negative second vote is a response to the total contempt with which the Parliament was treated by the Commission and the Council.
Thus it does not really means that the majority of the parliament is totally against patenting, it just means they do not want the first proposal of the commission. So I do not think that the battle is over, but I did not expected the patent lobby where retaking the battle that fast.
Let me also bring to attention that the rejection of an European law on patents did never meant that patenting would be forbidden by the member states, the rejection meant that there would be no European harmony in the patents law. So the 'against patent' war was not won, we needed a law prohibiting member states to patent software.
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.
Actually the EU Parliament has the power to dissolve the Commission by adopting a motion of censure against the Commission.
By the way, European patent office has already approved 35.000+ software patents from US and Japan alone (ffii.org/2004), however since
there is no directive for SW-patents at the moment, they cannot be enforced. Let the directive be approved, American and Japanese companies would drop a lawsuit pile the size of the Moon onto European IT business. Should McCreevy get what he wants, IMHO he should tried for treason. I have NEVER understood why software should be both patentable and protected by copyright.
The Register article has it wrong. As is very clearly documented Sun, together with Red Hat and others, lobbied against software patents in Europe, as I just documented in my blog. I know, because I was the person acting on Sun's behalf.
We had such a proposal based on Hartmut Pilch's 10 core clarifications. Also the Europarl proposal of Michel Rocard aimed at the right direction. Yes, we are involved in legal drafting.
---
If software patents get introduced via that compat path it will be very indirect. And we will make sure through the political process that safeguards are provided.