Protests Delay European Software Patent Vote 316
vinsci writes "According to CNET News, 'The European Parliament has delayed voting on a controversial software-patents directive, following protests and criticism by computer scientists and economists.' ZDNet UK adds: 'Warnings that a controversial directive could devastate European software businesses have struck a chord with MEPs. The European Parliament has delayed voting on a controversial software-patents directive... the vote, originally planned for Monday, will now take place at a plenary session starting on 22 September.' Wired also has a story on the protests."
Yay for Europe! (Score:4, Insightful)
Its not just EU (Score:5, Insightful)
Devastating (Score:0, Insightful)
Can anyone cite an example where an economy has been "devastated" by these patents? I surely can't.
second time it is postponed (Score:4, Insightful)
Good for Europe (Score:2, Insightful)
tell the US they can take their idiot software patents and shove them where the sun don't shine. Because one dufus judge ruled that a business process could be patented, the Patent Office has rubber stamped anything that comes in the door. If I were Europe, I just simply wouldn't honor what monkeys with rubber stamps do.
rd
Re:Devastating (Score:1, Insightful)
Even devastation begins to look "normal" if you've lived with it long enough, as the USA has.
Please help. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you.
Re:Devastating (Score:5, Insightful)
The US will put massive pressure on MEPs (Score:5, Insightful)
Let us hope that the EU can stick to their principles and stand up to US hegemony on this issue. It's not unrealistic to think that a software-patent-free-Europe could have dramatically stronger growth in software than it would have otherwise. Software patents will force force Europe into second-class status for decades.
The open source movement, and GNU/Linux in particular, has shown that software is fundementally different than 'things' -- people will create it on a large scale just for the pleasure of doing so.
thad
Re:Still... (Score:4, Insightful)
Thats politics!
Re:Yay for Europe! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Proportional patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Still... (Score:4, Insightful)
To me it sounds like some of the people who might have voted yes on this issue may have realized how stupid they were being, and hopefully will re-examine the facts and have a change of hart.
Remember, politicians by and large won't understand the issue themselves, it's way out of their field, and it needs to be explained. For many years lobbiests for major corporations have been explaining the yes side, now some economists are explaining the no side and people are realizing the major problems with software patents.
Non-exclusive software patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Scenario 1: Europe allows software patents.
Jan 1990-Jan 2004: Various people around the world use a borderline-patentable idea because it is obvious, but don't try to patent it.
Jan 2004: EuroSoft* file to patent the idea in Europe.
May 2004: AmeriSoft* file to patent the idea in the US.
Jan 2006: EuroSoft's patent is approved, and used to oppress the masses, including AmeriSoft. AmeriSoft's patent is either refused or is toothless because of this.
* All companies in these scenarios are fictional. Any resemblence with real companies of the same name, trading or defunct, is purely coincidental, and their fault for choosing such an obvious company name.
Scenario 2 - Europe does not allow software patents.
Jan 1990-Jan 2004: Various people around the world use a borderline-patentable idea because it is obvious, but don't try to patent it.
Jan 2004: EuroSoft considers patenting the idea, but would have to do so in the U.S. This would be much harder for them, and it is a long shot anyway that the patent office will be stupid enough to grant it, so they don't.
May 2004: AmeriSoft file to patent the idea in the US.
May 2006: AmeriSoft's patent is approved, and used to oppress the masses, including EuroSoft.
From our point of view, there isn't much difference between these scenarios, but clearly the European Parliment will prefer scenario 1.
I think what we need is special cheap non-exclusive patents. (Perhaps the name needs working on, as it is somewhat oxymoronic as it stands.) It would not allow the "patent" owner to prevent anyone else using the idea, but would provide assured protection against anyone who filed for a patent on the same idea at a later date.
Scenario 3:
Jan 1990-Jan 2004: Various people around the world use a borderline-patentable idea because it is obvious, but don't try to patent it.
Jan 2004: EuroSoft* file a non-exclusive patent on the idea in Europe.
May 2004: AmeriSoft* file to patent the idea in the US.
May 2006: AmeriSoft is unable to oppress EuroSoft because of the patent. Anyone else is able to claim to be using EuroSoft's patent on the idea, not AmeriSoft.
This could all be achieved without government intervention just by publishing in a Journal of No-Longer-Patentable Ideas. (Or web-site. Are there such sites? Easy Karma to the person to post links to some.) As IANAL, I don't know if there would be any benefit in official government recognition via the patent office.
Possibly there could be some allowance for the patents to be used defensively only - i.e. you can only prevent someone using your patent if they are trying to prevent you using one of theirs. I can see a Family Economy-Size Can-o-Worms down this path, but it may still be better than the Barrel-o-Worms we're dealing with now.
Re:Proportional patents? (Score:3, Insightful)
An interesting opportunity for Europe (Score:4, Insightful)
The American system of patents and copyrights creates a few winners at the expense of a great many losers. Give "the other guys" a place to set up shop, and things get interesting. Toss in the ability of the Internet, where you can exist administratively in one country and do the actual work anywhere you want, and things get very interesting.
Effort to discover != Effort to implement (Score:2, Insightful)
Economic advantage to Europe? (Score:4, Insightful)
If so, Europe shouldn't introduce software patents as Europe would get a competitive advantage over the US.
Major european companies would still need to build a dossier of software patents by applying for software patents in the US. These would be needed for trading with US companies - "We will charge you $1 royalties on ours, if you charge us $1 for royalties on yours". Also they are needed for the threat of legal attack, as a protective shield against attack (patent or otherwise)!
In Soviet America... (Score:3, Insightful)
The first thing I thought when I saw that headline was "wow - that's like America thinks it is".
I wrote to my senators once each regarding issues. I sat and took the time to do research and provide references to my findings, wrote it up in a very professional manner, proofed it, etc. before sending it. On one of them I got an autoresponse that basically said "If you're a contributor trying to set a meeting time call this number, if you're anyone else, go away". I never got ANY response from the other. I notice several people so far have mentioned they wrote to their MEPs about this issue and it sounds like they may have actually been heard.
Hmmmm..... must be nice to live in a country where your representatives represent you at least occasionally...
Re:Devastating (Score:4, Insightful)
but thas because software patents benefit large corporations
what they damage is the actual quality of software
If we have software patents thrown out here in europe then we should start to enjoy a higher quality of software
because software sold in europe wont have to abide by software patents so developers can use all the software methods they know of to make the best possible software without any worry of being sued or anything
while in american you will still have software restricted because companies have to abide by patents in the design of it
Im not a business man so im not sure if european software companies will make more money than american ones
but on the consumer end it will be alot better in europe because out software will be free of patent restrictions
Quick intro to the situation: (Score:5, Insightful)
The next stage in the legistlative process is the plenary vote. This is the Big Vote where all 625 MEPs get to vote. In addition to Yes/No, the MEPs are also presented with a list of possible amendments. For this proposal to become acceptable, a vast array of amendments would be necessary (it's rotten to the core).
So 70 amendments were tabled and many protests happened. MEPs were inundated with post and email about this proposal. So much contraversy arised that the European Commission decided that the proposal was obviously not ready for a final vote. So the proposal has been handed back to JURI, and a more agreeable proposal has to be returned.
So now we have to contact just the MEPs on the JURI committee, and tell them how we want them to vote. "Vote No" is not an option, MEPs don't vote No without a very good reason. Proposals are expensive, translation to 12 languages etc., MEPs view rejection as a big waste of EP resources.
Most MEPs know that this proposal will be bad for our economy but they do not understand the whole situation, so we must tell them. (us knowing the whole situation is a prerequisite for this)
Our MEPs are asking us to tell them how to vote(!) and how to change/amend the proposal. We can win this one, but europeans aren't used to fighting our governments, were much more used to laughing at the US government.
So we were caught off gaurd. We've done extremely well, I think we can win this, but people have to continue to put in their free time and learn how to deal with this.
For complete beginners, it's probably too late to become effective (we have 3 weeks). For half-way-there's, keep workin'. (mail me if you need to clarify something, my email address is not hard to google for.
Re:Yay for Europe! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wait a mo.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the correct wording for that would be "It not only helps keep europe a saner place, maybe it someday also helps our american friend's GOVERNMENT realize what they could achieve if they woudl stop being nationalist pricks.
There, now it's right
And the people are letting this happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
1: Decide to take vote at xx date, lobby heavily to get politicians behind bill
2: Mass outcry, politicans decide to not pass the bill or to wait for a vote, as it'd be political suicide to do otherwise.
3: Mass outcry dies down, corperations keep the politicans pockets lined waiting for the proper time to reintroduce the bill (when the protesters have something else to go after in otherwords. Divide, conquer, etc).
Rinse, repeat.
What should be done here is the protesters start protesting the mans power and start questioning their loyalty to the people, in other words, politically assassinate the bastards. They'll eventually get it passed if they keep on trying to pass it. Just as carp and a number of other provisions are continuously barragged at congress year after year, month after month which ties them up for doing anything other than actual leadership, just making deals and selling our rights away.
My Letter to Arlene Mccarthy (Score:3, Insightful)
From: Robert M. Stockmann
To: arlene.mccarthy@easynet.co.uk
Subject: Re : "Small fry patently need protection" (fwd)
Dear Miss McCarthy,
Here i write again to you, 1.5 months later. Sofar i haven't received
a response to the below email message yet. Today the EUROPEAN Law on
Software Patents is to be passed. Well i can only say one thing here
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED, AND NOT ONLY BY ME
If you as Labour MEP member just implement rulings and laws which are
not supported by a majority of the people, things might turn real bad
for you. Maybe not today but in the future.
you wrote
"Numerous people from small to medium-sized enterprises have written to me
in support of my proposal. "
Well i have worked for several smaller and medium-sized software and
programming companies. NONE OF THESE HAD LAYWERS ON THEIR PAYROLL.
Getting Patents on Software is something only BIG CORPORATIONS will be
able to achieve.
Today , Monday 1 September 2003, I ask you again to reconsider your
proposal, and admit that SOFTWARE PATENTS only SUSTAIN the POWER of
BIG SOFTWARE CORPORATIONS. Oh i forgot: In the current ICT World allmost
all software is created by SOFTWARE CORPORATIONS from the USA. I sure
hope you realize we are talking about SOFTWARE PATENTS regulations inside
the EU.
Do you realize there are no NO BIG SOFTWARE CORPORATIONS inside the EU?
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:00:49 +0200 (CEST)
From: Robert M. Stockmann
To: arlene.mccarthy@easynet.co.uk
Subject: Re : "Small fry patently need protection"
Dear Miss McCarthy,
In your article in the Guardian "Small fry patently need protection"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,
you write this
"Numerous people from small to medium-sized enterprises have written to me
in support of my proposal. "
Well show us the letters I would say.
Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net
Microbloat Rules (Score:5, Insightful)
And don't forget we have a sleazy outfit suing businesses too small to fight back basically for using FRAMES on their web sites. There is plenty of similar nonsense going on.
How could this not be affecting innovation and holding back the US software industry? Isn't this at least partly why M$'s toy software is now running virtually all US businesses, and not at a bargain price, might I add? Re the economy, there are other forces at work here, but the M$ monopoly absolutely is not helping things.
What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yay for Europe! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Really that bad (Score:4, Insightful)
McCarthy allows technical buissness models.
Now what? Since EPO says that all their patents are techical and McCarthy-bill sais that it's OK I don't think we've solved anything.
But I could be way off here.
Self perpetuating belief (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that Americans seem to have actually abandoned the belief that democracy can work.
Most of the effort seems to go on "minimising" government or using the constitution to stop the government from doing bad things rather than getting the government to want the right things in the first place..
Frankly I find that a bit scary.
</huge generalisation>
Re:It's much more complex (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing says that the inventor has to starve to death, or even has to be desperately poor.
So it's not necessarily bad for trade secrets to exist. In fact, it is arguably better. Take Coca-Cola(TM), for example. Coca-Cola(TM) provides one standard by which other drinks can measure themselves. That is not to say that other drinks are inferior -- but Coca-Cola(TM) is something you can compare it against. Nor are other drinks damaged by the fact that Coca-Cola(TM) is in private hands.
That said, lots of competitors have sprung up, and some have made a superior drink (IBC root beer, for example). You may not get more development out of the intellectual dead-end that Coke represents, but in providing a standard, the public domain does get something out of it.
My next problem with your post is that you ask for benefits for free (no cost) and open source software, by pointing out that it is to society's benefit to get something without cost. However, that is not what Free Software is about. RedHat and Suse could be utterly destroyed by this: ultimately, the inventor has to eat, and if he is too worried about where his next meal is coming from [or where his kid's next meal is coming from], he isn't going to be inventing. To only give anti-patent, anti-big-company protection to cost-free software is therefore a way to ensure the demise of free and open source software. The special thing about free and open source software is not that it is provided without charge. It is that you can modify it and redistribute it without royalties or hassle.
Ultimately, patents are a bad thing for all involved except those who already have power, money, and the will to step on others. The difference between the hardware and software patent is that with software, it becomes really obvious. With hardware, it's easier to wear the blinders.
Re:Self perpetuating belief (Score:3, Insightful)
You, like those of us in the UK, are living in an oligopoly with a carefully engineered public front which gives the illusion of democracy. You can choose between a number of representatives or parties, but the representatives you can pick from are chosen for you (or the bar to entry to real independants is so high that it is virtually impossible ot be elected). Even when you do get the candidate you want, they are almost always subject to the party rules first with what you want some way down the list. And you can be certain that your voice is nowhere near as important as, say, the voice of the CEO of the local multinational who happens to have a nice brown envelope full of green objects to hand.
This is not democracy.
Re:My MEP is all for it...and apparently full of i (Score:2, Insightful)
I've met Glenys Kinnock a couple of times and she is, personally, a pretty sharp cookie but technology issues aren't her primary focus as a legislator and this reply has all the hallmarks of a formula reply - chances are she has a bundle of these handed to her for signature by a staffer once a week or so.
Its probably worthwhile trying again with a reasoned rebuttal to the points in the letter - provided its understood that at this point you are hoping to catch the ear of whichever member of her staff is fielding letters on this issue.
The realities of life as an MEP are such that she can't be fully up to speed on all issues that come up to vote and so will trust to parliament's division of labour and accept the rapporteur's position unless given a reason to take an interest. The objective here is to get the issue onto her radar screen so that she engages with the arguments herself and one of the ways to do that is to create a noticeable trend of cogently argued letters in her postbag. Once you have her attention, I think you have a solid chance of persuading her of the merits of the anti case - as I said before she's a bright woman.
Regards
Luke
Re:My Letter to Arlene Mccarthy (Score:2, Insightful)
People if you are going to contact a legislator on this issue you've got to make it count! Use short, punchy sentences written in grammatically correct, properly spelled English (or French or whatever). Explain what you are opposed to and why you are opposed. Outline what you want the legislator to do about it. Use simple examples to support your arguments and avoid rambling, off-topic digressions. Do not pepper your letter with dark mutterings about the Gnomes of Zurich, UN black helicopters, corrupt politicians or sleazy lawyers. Be polite and thank them for their time. Remember to include a return address.
Once you've finished save the file and then go and do something else for bit - walk the dog, go for a run, relax with friends in the pub - whatever. Once you've cooled off come back, read your draft and correct the spelling mistakes that leap off the screen at you. Try and get someone (preferably a non-geek) to look at the letter. Listen to their comments. Perhaps redraft a couple of sections in response to what they say.
Finally, when you are happy with your final version, print it off onto a decent weight of paper, sign it and send it to your intended recipient via snail-mail.
Regards
Luke
Re:Software cannot be patented in Canada already (Score:3, Insightful)
A really simple,foolproof solution (Score:1, Insightful)
1: trivial ideas are being patented
2: non-trivial but otherwise obvious ideas are being patented, ideas that will be independently discovered over and over again in a world full of programmers.
3: patents last too long
3 definitely needs changes in patent law.
1&2 simply need existing novelty and obviousness rules applied properly (perhaps adding a requirement to consider the number of likely inventors in the market to the obviousness rule).
But as long as patent offices are run as businesses there's no incentive for them to do the job properly and I'd expect a lot of resistance in the US to any attempt to force them to do it right. You lot don't seem to like regulation of business even when its in your best interests.
Re:Yay for Europe! (Score:1, Insightful)