I promise this is my last next-to-top-level posting on this thread:-)
Here's the EU situation. They want to clarify and sort of supersede the European Patent Convention of 1974.
The initiative at the level of the European Union started in 1999 when the European Commission started to look into this.
On 02/20/02, the European Commission formally proposed a "Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions", totally pro-swpat.
On 09/24/03, the European Parliament said No but in a very smart way. Instead of just turning it down, they simply amended it to the effect that it was turned around by 180 degrees. They turned a pro-swpat directive into an anti-swpat directive.
It then went to the EU Council, which is the representation of the EU member states. That's where the responsibility of the government of a country like Germany comes in. On May 18 of this year, the EU Council reached a "political agreement" on a pro-swpat directive. Basically they dropped the essential amendments of the EU Parliament, went back to the text of the Commission, and even went beyond by particularly allowing "program claims". So the EU Council came up with the most terrible legislation of swpats that anyone in the EU has proposed to date.
Now, the press reported on that May 18 thing as though it were a final decision. It's not final at all. It was not a formal vote on May 18, just a tentative vote. The formal decision is now expected to occur on September 24, and in the meantime, the Dutch parliament has made a resolution that the government of the Netherlands should abstain. On May 18, they were in support of swpats, so technically there is no more majority right now but the EU Council procedure is such that the May 18 thing might be passed without a vote (just by no one protesting... they call that an "A item", adopted without debate). Every country that supported swpats on May 18 could still change its mind, including Germany. It's just that they usually don't do that because it would violate an unwritten code of diplomacy. The whole idea behind this "A item" thing is that they want the civil servants of the national governments to work out as many things as possible so that the ministers, who the Council is formally composed of, don't have to deal with each and every issue. The EU passes thousands of laws and regulations every year and the fewest are sorted out by the ministers.
Even if the EU Council were to pass its May 18 pro-swpat directive, that legislation would still not take effect. It would go back to the EU Parliament, and then there is so much that can happen in procedural terms that I'd better stop it for now and let's talk about this if and when we get there:-)
In reading some of the replies here, I see that many people figured this out and some were confused due to the fact that indirect reports on something can easily be misunderstood.
The FFII (www.ffii.org, just that the website is inaccessible while I am writing this) identified more than 50 conflicts of the Linux "base client" of the city of Munich (from their migration feasibility study) with software patents that had been granted or are about to be granted by the European Patent Office.
For some background information: The European Patent Convention of 1974 does not allow software patents. It excludes program logic from patentability. The European Patent Office has been granting software patents anyway (in fact, about 30,000 already), and now the European Union wants to take a decision on the patentability of program logic. That decision could go in any of three directions:
legalize software patents all the way (that's what some of the EU institutions want, and it's the will of the governments of Germany, UK, France, Sweden and other countries)
abolish software patents entirely (that's what the European Parliament voted for in September of 2003, and that would be best)
continue with status quo (which means that the situation remains unclarified for now... that would not be ideal but still infinitely better than legalizing software patents in the EU)
What the Greens want is for governments such as the German one to consider the implications of software patents to their own IT strategies. It's not just that the city of Munich migrates to Linux. There is a "Migration Guide" book that was published by the German Federal Ministry of the Interior, and in that migration guide they tell, in no uncertain terms, every public administration in Germany that they should migrate to open source as fast and as much as they can. That type of recommendation is reduced to absurdity by simultaneously supporting software patents, which in the opinion of Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox and many other developers are the ultimate threat to Linux.
The European governments have a simple decision at hand: Do we want a competitive environment in which open source and small and medium-sized enterprises can present every purchaser of software (governmental agencies, enterprises, private households) with alternatives? Or do we want an oligopolistic market in which only a few powerhouses cross-license thousands or tens of thousands of patents at a time, and can at their choosing leverage those patents against their competition?
It's another question whether open source is more endangered by software patents than closed source. For the most part, everything that is bad about software patents simply applies to open source as well, just that FOSS is particularly successful at breaking into monopolistic and oligopolistic markets (as the Linux migration project of Munich shows). What comes on top of all of this is that access to source code makes it easier to identify and substantiate patent infringement assertions. In my opinion, that open-source-specific aspect is not nearly as important as the fact that FOSS is a strong competitor to various patent powerhouses.
Generally, software patents simply make software development hugely more expensive. Without software patents, you need to know how to program, you purchase a computer for maybe $1,000, and you can contribute to an open source project. With software patents, you need to play that absurd cross-licensing game, and you can't do that without thousands or tens of thousands of patents, which in turn means that unless you're a multi-billion $ organization, patents are only a risk to you and no protection at all.
The TechWeb article is basically correct except that I'm independent and not a general spokesperson for the Green Party other than working with them (and others) on software patent issues.
Here's the text of the original announcement:
EU Software Patents Jeopardise Munich's Linux Migration
MUNICH, Germany, July 30/PRNewswire/ -- When the city administration of Munich decided to migrate its IT infrastructure to the Linux operating system, it made headline news around the world. That project is now being threatened by a proposed European Union directive on software patents. The directive is pushed for by the governments of Germany, the UK, France, and other countries on the EU Council.
Software patents are considered the greatest danger to the usage and development of Linux and other Free Software. A cursory search revealed that the Linux "base client", which the city of Munich plans to install on the desktop computers of approximately 14,000 employees, is in conflict with more than 50 European software patents.
Today Jens Muehlhaus, an alderman from the Green Party, filed two motions in which he calls on the mayor of Munich, the Social Democrat Christian Ude, to contact the federal government of Germany on this matter and to analyse how the EU software patent directive affects Munich's Linux project. The politician, a supporter of open source, warns that patent infringement assertions could take entire departments of the city administration out of operation. Mr. Muehlhaus expresses concern over the future ability of open source software to meet the needs of the city administration if software patents massively hinder its development. Related caveats have been voiced by the SME association CEA-PME and by Deutsche Bank Research.
A week earlier, the chief information officer of Munich, Wilhelm Hoegner, said it is "indispensable" to check on the consequences of the software patent directive to open source software. Any such oversight would be a "catastrophe for Munich's Linux migration project, and for open source in general".
Florian Mueller, an active participant in the software patent debate, sees the EU Council on the wrong track: "Open source is a historic opportunity for Europe to save costs and create jobs. Schroeder, Blair and Chirac should demonstrate leadership and stop their civil servants from sacrificing the open source opportunity to the insatiable patent bureaucracy, lest some large corporations will shut down open source and many SMEs." Mr. Mueller is a software entrepreneur, and an adviser to Europe's largest open source software company MySQL.
I noticed the same but there's no reason to be worried. I do know that they're working on some new website design and maybe they're switching to a new website this weekend. Even if not, they'll be back soon anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I promise this is my last next-to-top-level posting on this thread :-)
:-)
Here's the EU situation. They want to clarify and sort of supersede the European Patent Convention of 1974.
The initiative at the level of the European Union started in 1999 when the European Commission started to look into this.
On 02/20/02, the European Commission formally proposed a "Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions", totally pro-swpat.
On 09/24/03, the European Parliament said No but in a very smart way. Instead of just turning it down, they simply amended it to the effect that it was turned around by 180 degrees. They turned a pro-swpat directive into an anti-swpat directive.
It then went to the EU Council, which is the representation of the EU member states. That's where the responsibility of the government of a country like Germany comes in. On May 18 of this year, the EU Council reached a "political agreement" on a pro-swpat directive. Basically they dropped the essential amendments of the EU Parliament, went back to the text of the Commission, and even went beyond by particularly allowing "program claims". So the EU Council came up with the most terrible legislation of swpats that anyone in the EU has proposed to date.
Now, the press reported on that May 18 thing as though it were a final decision. It's not final at all. It was not a formal vote on May 18, just a tentative vote. The formal decision is now expected to occur on September 24, and in the meantime, the Dutch parliament has made a resolution that the government of the Netherlands should abstain. On May 18, they were in support of swpats, so technically there is no more majority right now but the EU Council procedure is such that the May 18 thing might be passed without a vote (just by no one protesting... they call that an "A item", adopted without debate). Every country that supported swpats on May 18 could still change its mind, including Germany. It's just that they usually don't do that because it would violate an unwritten code of diplomacy. The whole idea behind this "A item" thing is that they want the civil servants of the national governments to work out as many things as possible so that the ministers, who the Council is formally composed of, don't have to deal with each and every issue. The EU passes thousands of laws and regulations every year and the fewest are sorted out by the ministers.
Even if the EU Council were to pass its May 18 pro-swpat directive, that legislation would still not take effect. It would go back to the EU Parliament, and then there is so much that can happen in procedural terms that I'd better stop it for now and let's talk about this if and when we get there
The FFII (www.ffii.org, just that the website is inaccessible while I am writing this) identified more than 50 conflicts of the Linux "base client" of the city of Munich (from their migration feasibility study) with software patents that had been granted or are about to be granted by the European Patent Office.
For some background information: The European Patent Convention of 1974 does not allow software patents. It excludes program logic from patentability. The European Patent Office has been granting software patents anyway (in fact, about 30,000 already), and now the European Union wants to take a decision on the patentability of program logic. That decision could go in any of three directions:
legalize software patents all the way (that's what some of the EU institutions want, and it's the will of the governments of Germany, UK, France, Sweden and other countries)
abolish software patents entirely (that's what the European Parliament voted for in September of 2003, and that would be best)
continue with status quo (which means that the situation remains unclarified for now... that would not be ideal but still infinitely better than legalizing software patents in the EU)
What the Greens want is for governments such as the German one to consider the implications of software patents to their own IT strategies. It's not just that the city of Munich migrates to Linux. There is a "Migration Guide" book that was published by the German Federal Ministry of the Interior, and in that migration guide they tell, in no uncertain terms, every public administration in Germany that they should migrate to open source as fast and as much as they can. That type of recommendation is reduced to absurdity by simultaneously supporting software patents, which in the opinion of Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox and many other developers are the ultimate threat to Linux.
The European governments have a simple decision at hand: Do we want a competitive environment in which open source and small and medium-sized enterprises can present every purchaser of software (governmental agencies, enterprises, private households) with alternatives? Or do we want an oligopolistic market in which only a few powerhouses cross-license thousands or tens of thousands of patents at a time, and can at their choosing leverage those patents against their competition?
It's another question whether open source is more endangered by software patents than closed source. For the most part, everything that is bad about software patents simply applies to open source as well, just that FOSS is particularly successful at breaking into monopolistic and oligopolistic markets (as the Linux migration project of Munich shows). What comes on top of all of this is that access to source code makes it easier to identify and substantiate patent infringement assertions. In my opinion, that open-source-specific aspect is not nearly as important as the fact that FOSS is a strong competitor to various patent powerhouses.
Generally, software patents simply make software development hugely more expensive. Without software patents, you need to know how to program, you purchase a computer for maybe $1,000, and you can contribute to an open source project. With software patents, you need to play that absurd cross-licensing game, and you can't do that without thousands or tens of thousands of patents, which in turn means that unless you're a multi-billion $ organization, patents are only a risk to you and no protection at all.
The TechWeb article is basically correct except that I'm independent and not a general spokesperson for the Green Party other than working with them (and others) on software patent issues.
/PRNewswire/ -- When the city administration of Munich decided to migrate its IT infrastructure to the Linux operating system, it made headline news around the world. That project is now being threatened by a proposed European Union directive on software patents. The directive is pushed for by the governments of Germany, the UK, France, and other countries on the EU Council.
Here's the text of the original announcement:
EU Software Patents Jeopardise Munich's Linux Migration
MUNICH, Germany, July 30
Software patents are considered the greatest danger to the usage and development of Linux and other Free Software. A cursory search revealed that the Linux "base client", which the city of Munich plans to install on the desktop computers of approximately 14,000 employees, is in conflict with more than 50 European software patents.
Today Jens Muehlhaus, an alderman from the Green Party, filed two motions in which he calls on the mayor of Munich, the Social Democrat Christian Ude, to contact the federal government of Germany on this matter and to analyse how the EU software patent directive affects Munich's Linux project. The politician, a supporter of open source, warns that patent infringement assertions could take entire departments of the city administration out of operation. Mr. Muehlhaus expresses concern over the future ability of open source software to meet the needs of the city administration if software patents massively hinder its development. Related caveats have been voiced by the SME association CEA-PME and by Deutsche Bank Research.
A week earlier, the chief information officer of Munich, Wilhelm Hoegner, said it is "indispensable" to check on the consequences of the software patent directive to open source software. Any such oversight would be a "catastrophe for Munich's Linux migration project, and for open source in general".
Florian Mueller, an active participant in the software patent debate, sees the EU Council on the wrong track: "Open source is a historic opportunity for Europe to save costs and create jobs. Schroeder, Blair and Chirac should demonstrate leadership and stop their civil servants from sacrificing the open source opportunity to the insatiable patent bureaucracy, lest some large corporations will shut down open source and many SMEs." Mr. Mueller is a software entrepreneur, and an adviser to Europe's largest open source software company MySQL.
I noticed the same but there's no reason to be worried. I do know that they're working on some new website design and maybe they're switching to a new website this weekend. Even if not, they'll be back soon anyway.