EU Parliament to Vote on New Patent Rules 252
peter_sd writes "The Register has an article discussing the implications to the open source community and small software businesses of the new software patent law to be voted on tomorrow by the EU parliament. According to the article, it is very likely the new patent law will be accepted despite its grave consequences."
We (probably) lost this round (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope they don't pass the rules (Score:3, Insightful)
Spreading FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good for them (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Vote postponed, time to get organised (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the article went on to say that despite it being against the people's wishes, it was going to pass. It's what the US wants, and it's what the corps want. It doesn't matter what the people think.
Does anybody have a link to that article?
creative commons (Score:5, Insightful)
There's little, however, that can be done (in today's corporatist environment) to prevent the granting of idiotic patents. That pretty much means there's nothing to be done about companies "buying markets" unless (or until) there exists an organization that would have an economic interest in defending against such practices.
No, in theory that could be the creative commons itself - i.e. acting as an IP defense fund in the interest of registrants and using the income from settlements and judgements to fund more actions. The problem there is, of course, that if it actually became successful at this then it's quite easy to see how people would then become critical of the org itself, bitching that it was an organization of judicial elite exploiting "free knowledge" to line it's own pockets. Whether or not there was any validity to thius would, of course, depending on the leadership of the organization. But it is a start, and there does exist a good bit of potential there - both for good, and for abuse.
Re:What we need... (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need is a good site for registering "prior art". Where peoplee in the open source communities (and everyone else with an interest) can submit their ideas along with proof of a working implementation to prevent patents to be applied.
It would double as an open idea bazaar, where people can submit and draw from ideas of others.
Anyone think this could work?
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:Good for them (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry if we upset your little picture of the world, but the biggest argument against software patents isn't that we're not allowed to sleep on your couch or to steal your ideas.
If you're clever enough to come up with a new business process (as opposed to manufacturing processes, which patenting was invented for), then you have the right (until your competitors analyse the situation and fight you for market share) to grab as much land as you can.
Patents are intended to protect inventions - as a mathematician, I can prove (beyond all reasonable doubt) that all computer programs follow from all others, therefore all are obvious. Patents are therefore not applicable to software.
Except that it's not FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
It is, dare I say, ironic that Microsoft hasn't engaged in that activity, but there are plenty of other big companies that have and still are trying to shut down open source projects using patent laws. I'm not even going to bother quoting any, there's so many instances.
The claim that "with patent law allowed, the floodgates would be opened and Linux distributors swamped and bankrupted by court claims - with Microsoft leading the charge." is baseless.
You neatly chopped off the start of that quote, "The fear is that with patent law allowed...". They're not claiming anything, they're just giving a likely scenario. The aggressive anti-Linux retoric of the heads of Microsoft and their dubious involvement in the SCO vs Linux nonsense is enough to give weight to that outcome being likely.
Re:Vote postponed, time to get organised (Score:5, Insightful)
However, for it to actually make the slightest bit of difference the points raised in the parent article must be noted.
Abusing the MEPs is not a good use of time. Neither is trying to sway them using the David-and-Goliath argument.
In a perfect world, RMS would keep his mouth shut. The man does far more damage to the cause than he does good. If someone's willing to lock him in a sound-proof room 'til after the vote, it might be a good idea.
Given that Finland is an EU member, and Linus is a Finn (assuming he hasn't become a US citizen), he would be a very good person to get to speak to MEPs. As a constituent, he has a legitimate voice. As a highly visible, respected figure within the community that will be most affected by this law change, his opinions will carry weight. He is also known as something of a moderate (contrast his relatively muted statements with the vitriol of RMS, for example), and politicians are more likely to listen to moderates than extremists unless the extremist position is amenable to their own.
That's because we were incompetent (Score:5, Insightful)
As the Register article points out, one of the reasons we're going to lose is that we didn't even try to convince them. We shouted, we hurled abuse, we held huge meetings and didn't invite the other side, but we didn't actually contact them with an explanation of why the proposed change was bad. ("Open letters" don't do shit, no matter how well-written they are.)
Thank you, EU. (Score:0, Insightful)
Now if only India, Asia, South America, and Africa would do the same.
=============
It's like protective tarrifs. "If you keep shooting off your own feet we'll have to retaliate by shooting off ours. So there!"
Re:Vote postponed, time to get organised (Score:5, Insightful)
Knocking RMS is quite popular among armchair generals but he is an inspiration to the people getting real work done on software freedom issues.
His software patents speech makes the issues very easy to understand:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stall
He has also brought the issues to the mass media through an article he and Nick Hill wrote for The Guardian (UK newspaper):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,38
RMS has mobilized large numbers of people in the EU to fight this directive. Without his work, I and many others would not be working on this issue at all.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Re:The Register Proves again: apathy sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
Um... hello? "Ironic" and "apathetic" people don't vote. It's the "hard core fanatics" who are die-hard party loyalists that keep these people in office to begin with.
What we need is less of either of these kinds of people and more truly informed and concerned voters.
You won't win. (Score:5, Insightful)
The current SCO/IBM trials should be a stark warning for how well this will work. You will have lost with the first patent you fail to get. Your enemies will be taking your money to pay their lawyers to steal more or your ideas. That is what SCO is doing, now isn't it? It's not like they developed anything, ever. Is this what you want? In the end, you will be no better than your enemies or you will not exist.
Self preservation is not an ideological argument. If the EU does this, large US companies will crush EU software developers, free software will die and all EU governments will end up running M$. These beurcrats need to do a typical M$ install and push that "I submit" button a few times. There's no two ways about it, dipshits like Bezos will flood their system with junk just like they do the US system. This EU deal with the devil will leave the EU burnt.
Yes, you misunderstood (Score:1, Insightful)
Although it will of course amaze you, not everyone that has an idea gets it by "stealing" it from others. Yes, it happens, stunning isn't it!
It's not as if having an idea makes it impossible for someone else to have the same idea independently, yet that view is what patents enshrine. The reality of the matter is that we all live in a very active sea of ideas, and the collosal majority of patent applicants gain their inspiration from a common public pool. To then shut out others from germinating the same seeds is simply not right. Except in very rare cases, those ideas are just not theirs alone to gain from.
EU credibility on the line (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Vote postponed, time to get organised (Score:5, Insightful)
He doesn't assume his audience is familiar with everything geeks are, so he builds his case from scratch. He has very good arguments. He gives pertinent real world cases. He explores hypothetical, but very realistic cases to illustrate the possible dangers.
All in all, he's a very good speaker, and I don't get where the idea he's a raving lunatic comes from. Maybe it's because he hammers too much on the GNU/Linux thing, which, I agree is a bit silly. (Personally, I say something to the effect of "systems based on the linux kernel" which avoids the whole issue.)
But I do think he's a good speaker, and he spends a lot of effort to get important points across.
Linus is great, but not interested in the politics of open source, and rightly so. Stallman is, and has a good grasp of all the issues involved, and contrary to what alot of people seem to think he is not a scary zealot at all when you see him in real life.
The legalist approach of GPL is doomed. (Score:1, Insightful)
The Laws will always be owned by the rich and powerful. The way of sharing, free software is alien to them. This way has grown too strong for their liking. They are pybassing the copyright law so far misused for our benefit.
We can't fight on their terms. We can't make free software something it isn't, to make it understandable for them. Open source is a scam. It does lip service, but it is irrelevant, it does no good against attacks like the patent law. At best they are at loss; at worst they abandon free software altogether.
The best options available are resistance and finding ways of making them irrelevant.
I, for one, have hope at peer to peer software. They can never drain that swamp, short of shutting down the Internet. They are a behemoth, able to smash large things, but a multitude of small things can evade it, even bring it down. The swamp is what we must defend and extend. GPL is just a fortress for them to storm. GPL relies on the law, it is vulnerable to it. They own the law.
I will continue to release software under the GPL as thus far. But if they come after me with their petty patent law, you will know where to find further releases.
Re:Help from the other side of the pond? (Score:4, Insightful)
I had a chance to hear some of the American side of the story from Radia Perlman and from what little I've read it seems the RSA patent here in the US hindered adopting standards which used it - something that didn't happen in Europe. Wouldn't this real world situation make for a good argument against software patents?
Re:creative commons (Score:4, Insightful)
I cannot agree that the inaction of those who are in a postition to actually do something (most likely because they are polititians who have been bought out by big corporations) means that nothing can be done. Plenty can be done. It's a simple matter that those who can will not.
Why I question this (Score:5, Insightful)
(0) They require CVS. That's awkward. Lots of people have ideas who don't use CVS.
(1) It's website is, by the URL, non-GNU. My worst nightmare would be submitting to this site, and later finding that they patented it. Microsoft would love to buy a site like this. How do I know this won't happen? They don't describe their process; they just say "oh, it's here." That bothers me. Can the FSF verify this site?
(2) the PADB should be sending its ideas to the appropriate developers for possible development. Specifically, coders should be able to sign up for the class of coding they they do, and submitters should be able to direct information to them. But there's a name for this: a journal. At the very least, all ideas in the DB should *also* be published on the web. I should be able to go to a website, and either browse or search.
---Now, what I think the PADB should be doing instead:---
(3) Time-stamping is easy: simply submit a copy of your information to the Library of Congress (US) or any other national library.
(4) Both (2) and (3) can probably be accomplished by publishing a journal would do the trick. Typically, as people subscribe to journals, they also pay a small amount -- or advertisers pay.
(5) As available, the PADB should also research true prior art, to break patents that are strangling free software. Those should be published as well, with a reference.
(6) I have no idea whether this site will do this or not, but the site should keep a database of the inventors. Probably the inventors have more ideas, or have done more work than is published. Therefore, they are an ideal consultant.
Re:Vote postponed, time to get organised (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to say he cant be goaded, but that's not very relevant to a non-geek audience.
I'd by far prefer RMS talking about these issues rather than Linus Torvalds. Linus is a tech guy from beginning to end, and I havent seen many comments from him wrt patents and copyright that amount to much more than 'lets bury our heads in the sand and hope it goes away'. You'd even be hard pressed to get him to make a comment on legal issues surrounding the Linux kernel itself. I'm not sure you can call "unwilling to comment" a "moderate" position.
RMS by contrast has been immersed in free software philosophy and the politics and legal aspects of it for a long time now. He's used to making speeches to non-geeks about these issues.
Re:Good for them (Score:2, Insightful)
BEEP! Wrong. MEPs ( Members of the European Pariliment) are elected. I think that the election is every 4 or 5 years.
These memember states are elected and influenced by lobbiest. The senators in EU parliment know they can not be unelected so they do not give a shit.
BEEP! Wrong again. What you are thinking of is the European Commission - similar to the US Administration who are also unelected.
There are several check's and balances in the EU including EU Parliment, EU Commission, EU Court of Justice, National Parliments, EU Court of Auditors, EU Court of Human Rights, and EU Council of Ministers.
I think the EU could be vulnerable to corruption without checks or ballences.
You are quite naive if you think that any political process is immune to corruption.
Hitler came to power because Germany had a lose set before ww2. He only won 26% of the vote and was appointed by conservative leaders to overthrow the left.
Oh gawd! I won't even try to correct this many mistakes/miscomprehensions/rose-spectactled view of the world.
It's only a hiccup guys (Score:3, Insightful)
Predictions of the demise of computing, or even the demise of European computing, seem a little premature, IMO. Whenever this sort of thing is discussed on /., people respond as if we are talking about the law of the Medes and the Persians, ie once it's passed it can't be modified or recinded. A brief look at EU legislation in any other area shows that this is not the case.
Take farming legislation. At one point, the EU was paying farmers to remove hedges from between fields to allow US-scale farming technology. Lots of people said it was a dumb idea, the EU persisted, the topsoil blew away, and now the EU is paying farmers to put the hedges back. Probably not the best environmental scenario imaginable, but it could have been a lot worse.
On the 35-hour week, one of the cornerstones of EU employment law, countries like the UK never bothered to enforce it, and countries like France who did are now backpeddling like mad before unemployment rises any further.
The EU is not the Beast, it's just not clever enough. It doesn't have much of an ideology, despite France's best efforts to give it one. It's the world's biggest fudge factory. The people who draft the legislation like regulation, but if it hurts national interests those people get stomped on.
IF software patents are approved, and IF they are enforced at national level (in Italy?? Greece???), and IF large companies set out to destroy small companies, the legislation will be changed. The first time a non-French company threatens French jobs through patents enforcement, I would expect the French government to take unilateral action, backed by the majority of their population and the Germans, and simply refuse to budge until the EU caves in, much as they did over BSE (the UK had the law squarely on their side, but what difference did it make?) I saw an article in a national French newspaper six months ago about a powerful French lobby demanding that French computer games be classified as 'art', like films, so that the government can limit and tax US imports, subsidise French computer games, enforce quotas in shops and cybercafes...
So if you guys the other side of the Pond want to see this law withdrawn, lobby a big American company to threaten a French one, and Chirac will do the rest :-)
The same is true for patents in the US, except that the rebound would be faster and harder. Politicians are stupid, but they aren't that stupid.
#include <std_problem_with_RMS_post.h> (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with RMS is that he's a wildcard.
He is capable, as you say, of putting together a very coherent argument to support his beliefs, and of presenting it very professionally. This is good.
However, he is also capable of launching into spontaneous rants that are totally one-sided. He will completely ignore the good points of things he disagrees with, while outright exaggerating the damage done by something, or the negative effects he thinks it will have. His extreme views as expressed in these rants are often incompatible with any realistic outcome. Such rants very much do more harm than good, yet he has indulged in them on numerous occasions, both in print and with a live audience.
Someone so unpredictable is simply not a good figurehead for a political movement hoping to see something changed. The first rant would convince the politicians that he was an extremist whose views were unrealistic and whose goals were unattainable, and thus someone who contributes nothing useful to a constructive debate.