The UKPO clearly state that the purpose of the exercise from their perspective was to "find a definition that fits the current [case] law" - sounds a lot like "decide what you want and make the facts conform afterwards".
2. The UKPO at least admit that none of the definitions - including the one in the Directive that the Council want to force through - actually fit even that limited remit.
This was inevitable and everyone on the FFII lists knew this in advance - nobody actually WANTS what the UKPO want. We need a change in the law and that can only come from supporting the European Parliament amendments and pushing for a complete restart of the entire directive.
Write again to that MP and point out that the government's own statements on software patents are NOT compatible with the results of the UKPO's own workshops. The government does need to reconsider and it does need to support the Parliament amendments. The UK government is under the impression that the directive maintains the status quo and they must now see that the workshops have blown that away. The UK government has said that it does NOT want to allow more than what is currently practiced by the UKPO and the UKPO themselves recognise that the current definition does NOT match that practice.
The Directive, as it currently stands, is MORE PERMISSIVE than the current law. The UKPO have NOT accepted this as their position on the directive, it is merely the opinion of those at the workshops. We need to drive home the message that the UKPO's own workshops showed that their recommendation, as embodied within the Directive, does NOT maintain the status quo - in direct contravention of everything the UKPO has published on the Directive. The Directive, if passed in the version proposed by the EU Council, WILL move the balance in FAVOUR of more software patents AND give ALL existing software patents the full force of European law. Additionally, a whole raft of NEW areas will also become patentable. "technical contribution" is a smoke-screen - it means absolutely nothing.
Getting replies from even supportive MEP's takes time - but MEP's won't be making this decision.
The people to contact now are MPs and ministers (and heads of party etc.) in your local European government and get them to issue public statements. We have to show that adopting an A-item (i.e., a non-discussion point) on 7 March at the Competition Council is not an option.
The Swedish liberals are asking for a B-item in the Council http://wiki.ffii.org/Selib0502En. We need to get a similar request from the Liberal Democrats or possibly even some Labour or Conservative MPs in the UK. If you live outside the UK (but within Europe) other European politicians should also be persuaded to allow discussion on the directive.
I don't believe that the European Commission negated any sort of democracy.
The Commission is intent on ignoring the democratic will of the parliament.
However, a democracy cannot be negated; the fact is, a democracy is a form of government where the people as a whole have the final say.
In this case, the elected representatives of the people are being ignored and unelected ministers will have the final say - that's negating the democratic process.
The European Commission is not directly elected - it is not accountable to the people, that's the job of our MEP - member of the European Parliament. The MEP's have spoken and have requested the restart - the Commission is dictating their will against the express desires of the elected parliament.
The reported reason was that if they do restart, they must produce a new text on which several other Directorate Generals (DG), such as Information Society and Competition, must agree as well. These other DG's would reportedly never support an extreme text such as the one currently on the table in the Council, or even the original Commission proposal from 2002. They would insist on a more balanced approach, which is apparently not desired by DG MARKT - Directorate General for the Internal Market.
In the mean time, highly placed government sources have also confirmed to the FFII that the directive will once more appear as an A-item on 7 March, this time on the agenda of the responsible Competition Council formation. All hope for a democratic and balanced resolution now rests on the shoulders of the ministers and officials who will attend that Council meeting. Turning the directive back into a B-item, i.e. a discussion point, seems to be the only proper way out now.
The article quotes Trustworthy Computing attestation as being vital to making sure that online voting software has not been altered on disk since installation.
Haven't they heard of signatures? Sign the files and verify?
The key point is that Trustworthy Computing only trusts the chip, NOT the person. Anyone with physical access to the machine will be trusted because the intervening security is so useless.
To verify a person, you MUST have some kind of trusted input from the user, not a chip accessible to all users.
Again, in the online gambling area, the article pretends that the chip can validate the software from the casino - something that Linux users have been doing with all packages. gpg --verify Simple. Verification doesn't need a password so it is easily automated.
The trusted chip cannot verify the person at the keyboard without a secondary layer.
Trusted Computing has nothing to do with trusting users - it is solely about the vendor trusting your machine by preventing free use.
> But according to eEye it affects all versions > of NT, 2000 prior to SP3, and 98. Is eEye > wrong or is Microsoft lying?
The eEye advisory only lists: Systems Affected: Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 (all versions) Microsoft Windows 2000 (SP3 and earlier) Microsoft Windows XP (all versions)
http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Advisories/AD2 00 40210.html No mention of Win98.
I can't see any mention of Win98 for this advisory (or others that I looked at on eEye) although there are mentions of applications from Office97.
Slashdot Mirror
I was at one of the UKPO workshops and we were promised a full report. The UKPO has now put the report on the workshops on the web as a PDF.m p/full_report.pdf
http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/issues/euroco
The UKPO clearly state that the purpose of the exercise from their perspective was to "find a definition that fits the current [case] law" -
sounds a lot like "decide what you want and make the facts conform afterwards".
2. The UKPO at least admit that none of the definitions - including the one in the Directive that the Council want to force through - actually fit even that limited remit.
This was inevitable and everyone on the FFII lists knew this in advance - nobody actually WANTS what the UKPO want. We need a change in the law and that can only come from supporting the European Parliament amendments and pushing for a complete restart of the entire directive.
Write again to that MP and point out that the government's own statements on software patents are NOT compatible with the results of the UKPO's own workshops. The government does need to reconsider and it does need to support the Parliament amendments. The UK government is under the impression that the directive maintains the status quo and they must now see that the workshops have blown that away. The UK government has said that it does NOT want to allow more than what is currently practiced by the UKPO and the UKPO themselves recognise that the current definition does NOT match that practice.
The Directive, as it currently stands, is MORE PERMISSIVE than the current law. The UKPO have NOT accepted this as their position on the directive, it is merely the opinion of those at the workshops. We need to drive home the message that the UKPO's own workshops showed that their recommendation, as embodied within the Directive, does NOT maintain the status quo - in direct
contravention of everything the UKPO has published on the Directive. The Directive, if passed in the version proposed by the EU Council, WILL move the
balance in FAVOUR of more software patents AND give ALL existing software patents the full force of European law. Additionally, a whole raft of NEW areas will also become patentable. "technical contribution" is a smoke-screen - it means absolutely nothing.
Can someone who is informed about these matters please indicate how concerned citizens can help in getting the directive turned back into a B-item?
t 16120-ad02.en04.pdf
The FFII are the main source of this kind of information. Consider joining the FFII and subscribing to a mailing list for your European government.
The most important point is convincing people in all areas that more discussion is needed. Read the unilateral statement from Poland regarding the Council text: http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st16/s
Getting replies from even supportive MEP's takes time - but MEP's won't be making this decision.
The people to contact now are MPs and ministers (and heads of party etc.) in your local European government and get them to issue public statements. We have to show that adopting an A-item (i.e., a non-discussion point) on 7 March at the Competition Council is not an option.
The Swedish liberals are asking for a B-item in the Council
http://wiki.ffii.org/Selib0502En.
We need to get a similar request from the Liberal Democrats or possibly even some Labour or Conservative MPs in the UK. If you live outside the UK (but within Europe) other European politicians should also be persuaded to allow discussion on the directive.
I don't believe that the European Commission negated any sort of democracy.
The Commission is intent on ignoring the democratic will of the parliament.
However, a democracy cannot be negated; the fact is, a democracy is a form of government where the people as a whole have the final say.
In this case, the elected representatives of the people are being ignored and unelected ministers will have the final say - that's negating the democratic process.
The European Commission is not directly elected - it is not accountable to the people, that's the job of our MEP - member of the European Parliament. The MEP's have spoken and have requested the restart - the Commission is dictating their will against the express desires of the elected parliament.
The reported reason was that if they do restart, they must produce a new text on which several other Directorate Generals (DG), such as Information Society and Competition, must agree as well. These other DG's would reportedly never support an extreme text such as the one currently on the table in the Council, or even the original Commission proposal from 2002. They would insist on a more balanced approach, which is apparently not desired by DG MARKT - Directorate General for the Internal Market.
In the mean time, highly placed government sources have also confirmed to the FFII that the directive will once more appear as an A-item on 7 March, this time on the agenda of the responsible Competition Council formation. All hope for a democratic and balanced resolution now rests on the shoulders of the ministers and officials who will attend that Council meeting. Turning the directive back into a B-item, i.e. a discussion point, seems to be the only proper way out now.
http://wiki.ffii.org/Com050228En
Any celebrations about the directive being thrown out were premature - the BBC site for one got carried away:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4274811.stm
The European Parliament has thrown out a bill that would have allowed software to be patented.
We wish! The headline was more accurate than the sub-text:
EU software patent law faces axe
Faces, but the axe isn't falling yet.
The article quotes Trustworthy Computing attestation as being vital to making sure that online voting software has not been altered on disk since installation.
Haven't they heard of signatures? Sign the files and verify?
The key point is that Trustworthy Computing only trusts the chip, NOT the person. Anyone with physical access to the machine will be trusted because the intervening security is so useless.
To verify a person, you MUST have some kind of trusted input from the user, not a chip accessible to all users.
Again, in the online gambling area, the article pretends that the chip can validate the software from the casino - something that Linux users have been doing with all packages. gpg --verify
Simple. Verification doesn't need a password so it is easily automated.
The trusted chip cannot verify the person at the keyboard without a secondary layer.
Trusted Computing has nothing to do with trusting users - it is solely about the vendor trusting your machine by preventing free use.
> But according to eEye it affects all versions
2 00 40210.html
> of NT, 2000 prior to SP3, and 98. Is eEye
> wrong or is Microsoft lying?
The eEye advisory only lists:
Systems Affected:
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 (all versions)
Microsoft Windows 2000 (SP3 and earlier)
Microsoft Windows XP (all versions)
http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Advisories/AD
No mention of Win98.
I can't see any mention of Win98 for this advisory (or others that I looked at on eEye) although there are mentions of applications from Office97.
Where did you see Win98 being listed as affected?