Slashdot Log In
EU Patents Won't Stay Dead
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Mar 04, 2005 01:07 PM
from the like-legislative-zombies dept.
from the like-legislative-zombies dept.
sconeu writes "Apparently the EC is ignoring the restart directive, and has placed software patents as an A-Item on the Council of Minister's agenda with an aim for approval on Monday." From the article: "The directive is pitched as offering greater protection for software developers. Opponents, including many in the European parliament, fear it will simply provide big players, including America's powerful and litigious software giants, with a very large stick to batter upstart developers and the Open Source movement." Update: 03/04 22:04 GMT by Z : And just as quick as you please Denmark stops things in their tracks. Denmark's objection means that there will have to be further debate before the patents get the stamp.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:4, Interesting)
In particular, the measure has been repeatedly voted against by the European Parliament, which is comprised of elected representatives from every region of every European country. It has been voted against by the Council of Ministers, which is comprised of important members of the Government of each member state. But with the bizzare way in which the EU works, the wishes of both the people and of the member governments can be overridden by unelected beaurocrats, some of whom were appointed years ago by politicians who are no longer in power.
Parent
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:5, Insightful)
Decisions made by the Council must be unanimous. The Software Patents directive has been placed on the agenda as an A-list item (one that is passed without discussion unless a council member vetos it). Previously it has been prevented from passing by Poland, twice, and Denmark, once (I think).
It is the Council that will pass the Software Patents directive on Monday, unless another Council member vetos it: stage 5 of the flowchart at http://europa.eu.int/comm/codecision/stepbystep/d
The flowchart says "approves all the EP's ammendments" but (I believe that) the Parliament didn't make any modifications to the directive at the time of the first reading, because it predates any of our lobbying to make them aware of how bad the directive will be for the European software industry.
Parent
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:5, Informative)
However, the working party that reworked the directive for the Council removed the bulk of the parliament's amendments, while promising that they had put in additional protections against software patents, when in fact the protections were meaningless.
It was this theoretically neutered directive that the Council agreed to in May 2004 by a slim majority. Now that members have realised what they've done (agree a directive that allows patents), some are now trying to prevent this directive from being rubber-stamped as an A-list item, as you mentioned, despite the pressure of the Commission to force through the may 2004 version. I believe this is the 'common position' stage, step 9.
If it goes onto its second reading, the EP can still amend or block the directive, but it's a lot harder to do so, given the absolute majority required.
Here's hoping sufficient people in the Council can block the directive as an A-list item, and either force a restart or at least knock it back to a B-list item again for further discussion.
Parent
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:4, Informative)
Heres a (very detailed) link [ffii.org] to the differences between the the parliament's and council's versions.
This [softwarepatents.co.uk] is a better diagram of our current status. So all is not yet lost, even if the council does pass the may 2004 agreed version (their amended version of the parliament amended version), as it will have to go a second reading in the parliament, because of their changes. However, it's much harder for the parliament to introduce new amendments at the 2nd reading, making it basically a vote to kill the directive entirely, or pass the council version. Plus of course, it puts us one step closer to software patentability. Here [wikipedia.org] is a link detailing the process. Note the hefty requirements the parliament have to meet in order to modify or kill the bill at it's second reading - and even if *that* succeeds, the council still has to agree to those changes.
After the Council of the European Union has sent its common position to the European Parliament, a time period of 3 months starts to run. If the Parliament does nothing within this time frame, the common position enters into force as directive.
The Parliament can extend this time by one month if it decides so.
If the European Parliament does not agree, is has to adopt changes to the common position or reject the common position, the latter would end the codecision procedure at this point.
To change or reject the text in 2nd reading, the parliament needs an absolute majority of the 732 Members for a yes on an amendment - for each change.
Of course, if the council have a complete change of heart, and pass the parliament sept 2003 version, it goes into law - but we're ok, as that version blocks software patents. But that would require reopening discussion, which the Commission has so far put pressure on to block, both in the council, and as a total restart.
Parent
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:5, Informative)
No, they appear to be on step 9 or 10.
(I believe that) the Parliament didn't make any modifications to the directive at the time of the first reading
The Parliment did amend the directive. In fact Parliment did an excellent job. We WANT that version passed. The Council simply threw out essentially all of the of Parliments amendments. In fact they proceeded to re-amend it to be even more extreme and further from the Parliments position. They then had the gall to call it a "common position", to claim it was some sort of compromise and concilliation with Parliment. This is where we are now, they are attempting to officially sign off on this "common position" and pass it back to parliment.
I hate missleading names. It really shouldn't be titled a "common position" at all. The Council is certainly supposed to draft it in an effort to resolve differences with Parliment, but as this case shows there is no reason to expect it actually *is* any sort of common position.
-
Parent
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Here they are... (Score:5, Informative)
Since telling it nicely doesn't work, and telling it with lots of money is out of the question, we should find other ways to uhm...convince them. The first step is to peel them out of this anonymus term "European Commission", so they can't hide in it.
Parent
Re:Here they are... (Score:4, Insightful)
What is Ireland's stake in this? It used to be one of the poorest EU members, but the IT industry is booming over there. A particular type of IT, that is:
"U.S. investment in Ireland stands at $55.4 billion--more than four times the amount invested in China, according to James Kenny, a Chicago builder who became U.S. ambassador to Ireland last year.
American businesses have created more than 90,000 jobs in Ireland, but more telling, said Kenny, is the increasing value of those jobs. When Microsoft began manufacturing software in Ireland 20 years ago, the average salary at the plant was about $20,000; today that facility has grown into Microsoft's European Operations Center, with 1,100 employees and an average salary of about $65,000." (Chicago Tribune, numbers are stale)
The position of Poland is even more remarkable when you realize that Poland itself is also a potential cheap "European Operations Center" for non-European companies like Micro$oft. I think Poland either doesn't understand yet how modern democracy works, or they are pissed with the US because they feel they didn't get paid well for the services rendered to the US in the 'coalition' that attacked Iraq.
Parent
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:5, Insightful)
Patriotism has no substance and is always pure rhetoric and therefore invalid, move beyond it.
Parent
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:3, Informative)
I know the word has probably been sullied beyond repair, but true patriots simply have a love for the values of a community that's quite large, and not only doesn't preclude harsh criticism of the nation when it does wrong, it requires it. Possibly it's misguided, assuming a nation can ever really be a community, but in some instances, it's warranted.
I think the word you're looking for is jingoism
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:5, Insightful)
So the thread title isn't that far off. Even though the US people don't think of corporations first when they see "US", the rest of the world pretty much does (that or the wrong end of an M16).
Parent
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:5, Funny)
The whole planet has been doing so for a while. It may not have been aired on Fox News though, so it might be news to you.
Parent
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, a shame that these so called "representatives" aren't even elected, so they don't even answer to the citizens of the countries they "represent". Don't you find it odd that the elected portion of the EU repeatedly turned down software patents while these "representatives" are going full steam ahead?
the groupthink here won't allow me to expound on that, so I won't bother.
To counter groupthink, you'd have to first think, but most of the people who blindly defend software patents fail to do that.
What do you think will happen if this EU directive passes, and countries that previously did not accept software patents are forced to accept patents from those countries that do? You ARE aware that software patents are allowed in some countries, and that the EU is acting in its capacity to "smooth out" legal differences to facilitate trade right? Just wanted to make sure you're not spouting off bullshit about things you have no clue about. So what happens when your 5-year-old product meets the 2-year-old patent that suddenly materializes from another country where they didn't care about your software as prior art?
Before you bitch and whine about groupthink, note that this post has nothing to do with goodness or badness of patents, or abuse of the patent system or anything, it simply points out that the change in patent law will allow companies in countries with patents to wake up one day and crush everyone else.
Parent
I did complain to mine (Score:4, Informative)
I havent heard anything back from UKIP, which surprises me -I thought they'd be "the EU is evil, here is why".
The lib dem MP gave some patronising guff about technical innovation and "balancing the needs of large enterprises and small businesses", nothing about consumers, OSS developers, etc.
But he did say they had voted to send it back, and were miffed at the response. They werent letting it lie, as it was a sign of a broader power struggle between governments (council of ministers) and the EU parliament itself.
Parent
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU is NOT a fucked up idea, the current organisation is. Of course, the US are not exactly pleased by the increasing power of the EU, but hey...
By the way, software patents are GOOD. They DO protect the small developer. As a small developer who has a couple of software patents that I have successfully licensed, I can PERSONALLY vouch for them. Of course, the slashbots don't want to hear this. The current issue with patents isn't the fact that there are software patents, but maybe the fact that there are cases where they have been granted without a good reason. Saying that "patents are bad" is just silly.Bullshit. Even "normal" patents have bad side effects for the famous "little guy", and we're here talking about SOFTWARE patents, patents on ideas. That's the dumbest thing ever. I doubt that you're saying the truth with your "I can vouch for them" (ie, as an AC I think you're just pulling shit out of your ass), but even if that's the case, you should realize that your situation is the exception, not the norm, and by far. Software patents are used by big company to stiffle innovation. Ask bill gates, he wrote it black on white.
Parent
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at the BSA web page [bsa.org], you will see that the members of this alliance are primarily US businesses: they list Microsoft, IBM, Intel etc etc as their members.
So in this case the original poster is correct: this law seems to have been "bought" by US businesses.
Parent
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
The European computer patent measure seems to be aimed at stifling competition rather than encourage innovation - that is why it's not a good idea.
Unfortunate, the US patent system has the idea right but it's been misused into oblivion (with wonderful contributions from those granting patents, too) - but it was never created for the reasons that the European Computer Implemented Inventions Directive is being created for.
Damn unfortunate.
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need to give people the power to stop OTHER people from innovating in order to encourage THEM to innovate.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea behind patents is -
Help you capitalize on your idea
Give you a lead over others so that you are the only one who can legally use it for a while
Put the idea for all others to see and extend on
The idea is not to STOP others, but give you a lead over others since you invented it in the first place. Remember, that is not a bad idea in itself because if you are a 16 year old kid in a basement who comes up with your own idea, it can genuin
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
If the idea behind patents is clumsy and vague enough that it can't be implemented without the patent office in question granting these disastrous "bad" patents, then wouldn't this essentially indicate some kind of flaw in the idea itself? Because frankly, every patent system in the world so far that allows software patents has granted these bad patents in great number.
It's kind of like, oh I don't know, communism. If Leninism is a good idea so long as you can get an incorrupt and wholly selfless state, but you can't ever get an incorrupt and wholly selfless state, maybe Leninism itself is just not such a good idea.
The patent concept is inherently inappropriate for computer programs. It cannot be implemented in a reasonable fashion, and attempts to implement it through bureaucracy are doomed to spectacular failure.
Parent
documentation pro patents? (Score:3, Interesting)
Has there ever been some study or likewise that support patents, in the sense that they show an increase in innovation in areas that are patent regulated?
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the good old "guns don't kill people, people do". It's neither here nor there -- the system is being systemically abused, so much so that the original idea(l)s don't really matter a lot. I'm also not quite sure where you got the idea that EU system was designed to stifle innovation -- I seriously doubt that was the expressed intent. Rather, there was lots of talk about harmonization, and levelling the playin gfield. not that I care much about the official reasonings, but since you imply they differ between US and European systems (which I don't think is the case).
What you are basically saying that EU patent system extension would be just ok, if the rhetorics being used were more noble. I think talk is cheap, and the end result would be the same no matter how eloquently the background ideals were expressed.
Further, I think that there is plenty wrong with patents, as far as they extend to software and business methods. For one they are useless (copyrights are enough); and for another they are dangerous (abuse by companies specializing in enforcing patents instead of building anything based on designs being patented).
I can accept time-limited patents for mechanical inventions, and (grudgingly) for chemical compounds (or, preferably, only for methods for creating specific compounds); but that's because they already exist, and there are some reasonably arguments for them. For software, I'd much rather not have any patentability whatsoever. And I'm confident that this would be to my best interest, even as the "small guy", coming up with innovative software algorithms and designs. I don't need abuse-ridden system to ostensibly "protect" me.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
> something that you need to make money out of, patents genuinely help you.
Copyright helps me, having to do a patent search for every 15 lines of code helps nobody!
> that does not mean the spirit of software patents is wrong.
The spirit of software patents? Some things were excluded from patent protection for a good reason, math, literature and computer software included!
Parent
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
But when you try to sell that program, along comes a big business that says "we want to buy your one idea for a small sum of money - oh, and by the way your program contravenes 73 of our patents on trivial obvious programming ideas. So either you take our offer, or else we sue you into oblivion".
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're not the first person to think of the idea, then you're fucked. It doesn't matter that you thought of the idea yourself, that you got no help from anyone, that you didn't know the idea had been invented and that it had been patented, you're lawsuit bait, and you're going to have to either stop selling whatever it was you were selling, change it radically at much expense to you (which might not be enough), or pay someone else for the privilege of using the work you did.
Patents suck. Patents exist only to create incentive to invent new things, but they come with a price in that they punish those who invent things that have already been invented - which means if something is an obvious solution to a problem, one group can hurt many innocent inventors. In software, there already are incentives to create new things, so there's no need for patents. None whatsoever. You ONLY get the bad side. We need software patents outlawed. We need those who approve of them out of power. Out of power in the US. Out of power in the EU. We need those who lobby for them excerting undue influence on politicians to get them passed jailed. And we need those who register software patents and try to enforce them pilloried and bankrupted as the fucked up opportunists they are.
Parent
I don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I don't understand (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:I don't understand (Score:5, Informative)
The Euuropean union is a young and a very fastmoving project. I believe very few europeans know what the parlament actully do and what the commission do. I'm a swede and very seldom we get to vote, there is close to zero follow-up on the people we vote on in the media and frankly we don't know what they do. I don't think democracy is one of the strengths of the EU right now. Maybe in the future.
Parent
Re:I don't understand (Score:4, Informative)
The only problem I have with them is basically that they cost money. I'm sure we could switch to becoming a republic and save a bit of money that way, and not have monarchs represent our country on e.g. visiting Africa to show our stance about poor children, smashing a bottle to introduce a ship, eating some food at a Nobel dinner or whatever. Seems a bit like a waste to me.
Parent
Ask yourself two things (Score:3, Insightful)
Who has enough money to be able to spend it to get this through because Linux is starting to gain popularity?
I won't answer either but we all know the answer.
Protects small developers? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does the patenting of the components and standard processes of computing protect the small developers if the small developers are no longer allowed to freely develop?
Denmark and Poland Will Deal the Death Blow (Score:5, Informative)
EU Questions... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:EU Questions... (Score:3, Informative)
However, since they require a absolute majority to implement changes to it would be much harder to stop it.
Should it manage to get through, the best bet would be for the parliament to reject it in full, however, this would also require an absolute majority.
Actually, they are as good as dead (Score:5, Interesting)
The parliament of the Netherlands have giving their representative orders to support any demands for new negotiations.
Finally, the German representative would face sever pressure (he'd probably have to resign) should he ignore the German parliants demands for new negotiations.
As for many of the "new" EU members, they will probably not support a decision that might severly restrict their fledgeling IT economy - no matter how much Microsoft and the other "big players" try to lobby.
So, all in all, its as good as dead - at least for now.
The danes blocked it again... (Score:5, Informative)
The Dutch governement had earlier said it was hoping on a redraft opf the bill, but would not block the vote, something the German Governement had also done.
In the meantime the Dutch VVD also brought in a motion to try to get an amendment to bring "community patents into the bill, which then would have to be completely redrafted.
Source: www.webwereld.nl
I dont know about you folks, but I'm thinking: "It ain't over 'till the Fat Lady sings"
And I somewhat like the idea of a commons of patents.
This is how it always goes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anytime you put a bad law or tax or whatever up for a vote.
It gets voted down. So the powers that be hold another vote. Repeat until the TPTB gets what it wants. No rule in place to keep you from asking over and over, like a nagging kid wanting candy.
Same thing in my home town over a property tax for schools. Put it up for a vote, and it's a no. Do it again. And again. And finally it goes through. And the school board starts doing backflips. Whee! A mandate from the masses!
Any truly fair system would hold a single vote, on a single topic - and then no more. Not forever, but for say...at least 7 years or so.
Take the high ground immediately. (Score:3, Interesting)
reaction from the EU parlement to the latest (Score:3, Informative)
Update: Denmark will stop it! (Score:5, Informative)
so the law can't be nodded through.
According to their parliaments some other ministers are instructed (more or less bindingly) to support another country's approach to restart the whole process:
Poland, Netherlands, Spain (had already voted against it in the last session), maybe Germany (but represented by some stubbor a..hat, so..)
Also it is likely that some countries that were neutral during the last voting (like Austria, Belgium, Italy) will support a complete restart.
My mail to the EC (Score:3, Interesting)
I do not want my country ruled by a cabal of easily bought unelected scum in Brussels, and, given the way things are going, I think there are many current EU members, such as the UK and Denmark that are wondering how they can get out of it as fast as possible.
Some possible good news (Score:4, Informative)
Political disinterest (Score:5, Insightful)
And it is now SO LOW that corruption rises steeply. This is corruption, isn't it? Not calling it corruption would euphemise it.
Maybe, people still care a bit about what the media say. The media don't say anything about 'smaller political issues', only the important ones.
But the media also decide what "important issues" are. For example they redefine that corruption is about privately using frequent-flyer-miles (not ok, of course, but corruption?), about contacts of politicians into red-light districts (wtf?!)
They let politicians talk about "high-tech", "information economy" etc.pp. But if important laws are proposed in this area, they do not notice or they do not want to notice.
If the Minister for Economic Affairs overrides decisions of the cartel office for apparently no good reason (as it happened here in germany), it's pictured as "saving the economy". Arrrrrrgh!
If they push this through, "we" should not stop trying to prevent software patents. We should lobby for the abolition of software patents then. But this will be hard.
Sometimes, I have the vision for 2020-2030 of some grey-haired FLOSS developers drinking tea together and being nostalgic about the wild times where software development wasn't illegal and fundamental rights were still respected.
But I can not, in any way, accept such a development.
Somehow this reminds me of..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anything and everything just seems to be getting more and more messed up in the world of politics today. My only question is what will be the 21st century equivalent of the guillotine? Laser guns? Oh please, please let it be laser guns!!! =D
Commission colluded with Microsoft, says MEP (Score:5, Informative)
Another interesting tidbit from the article:
Re:We have a bigger problem (Score:3, Informative)
1. To hit heavily and repeatedly with violent blows.
2. To subject to repeated beatings or physical abuse.
3. To damage, as by heavy wear.
You're not as clever as you think you are.
Re:If it is going back to parliment anyway... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:To which extent? (Score:4, Insightful)
But those over 30000 illegally issued software patents give us an idea of the future.
They include basic user interface widgets like tabs (EP689133).
FFII has a list of the last 100 software patents they found [ffii.org].
Parent