European Parliament Clashes Over Software Patents 213
D4C5CE writes "The European Parliament's Daily Notebook reports on the turbulent final plenary debate this morning regarding a draft Directive
to legalize Software Patents (which are currently unlawful under Art.52 (2) (c) of the European Patent Convention). The Notebook quotes some truly bizarre views and arguments (which no doubt you'll take the time to point out to Members of the European Parliament before tomorrow's
vote), with some MEPs even claiming to feel harassed because they are suddenly also being lobbied by numerous concerned citizens, rather than solely by industry representatives as usual."
Open letter from SuSE (Score:5, Informative)
SuSE wrote an open letter [www.suse.de] [german] today. Translation is here [google.com].
They are of course against software patents...
Malcolm Harbour MEP (Score:5, Informative)
Needless to say, this guy has a page to himself [ffii.org] on the FFII site.
My impression from this (admittedly brief) note is that even the most aged and out-of-touch members of the (British) House of Lords would have managed a more coherent debate on this. Still, it's not gone all the megacorps' way.
Re:The citizens are coming after them with pitchfo (Score:3, Informative)
Total nonsense. All MEPs get lobbied by the public, stop trying to make them out as ivory tower-dwelling bureaucrats. Only Arlene MacArthy, the sponsor of this whole mess, complained of harassment. Seeing as she has been the focus of this whole mess and been unnecessarily painted as a heartless crone, it's not surprising some compaigners have gone over the top. Other representatives, especially my MEPs receive regular feedback from their constituents and at least listen to what they have to say.
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... (Score:3, Informative)
wtf?
most votes would be deemed illeagal under such a low turnout.
and yeah i do live in eu, and yeah the partys(that i vote regularly) representive isn't in favor of software patents.
it certainly isn't "easy" to get elected as there are no shortage of candidates(if not for any other reason then because they get nice pay).
Re:Heaven forefend! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Boo hoo hoo (Score:5, Informative)
It was the European People's Party (aka, "Christian Democrats") that had some WAY over-zealous advocates harassing MPEs. Yes, that's an accurate word, "harassing." I believe it's accurate because of you read the article (and the poster clearly didn't), the EPP rep. APOLOGIZED for the extreme behavior of its zealots.
He apologized because they were out of control. Showing up at an MPEs residence and hurling insults at them on their front door step in the name of OSS (or whatever) isn't "lobbying." It's harassment. Plain and simple.
And they were bullied. Hurling invectives in the name of OSS is still rude and over the top. Contrary to what
Mod down (Score:5, Informative)
Are you a troll or what? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... (Score:3, Informative)
wtf?
most votes would be deemed illeagal under such a low turnout.
and yeah i do live in eu, and yeah the partys(that i vote regularly) representive isn't in favor of software patents."
Which EU *Member State* do you live in? If I am to believe what the Financial Times reports, the turnout for EU Parliament elections in the U.K. are frequently at or below the 10% threshhold. I would also imagine that in other EU Member States that have a low regard for the Eurocracy also poll quite low as well (Sweden perhaps?)...
While it is completely off-topic, I would have to agree that had the EC and the Central Bank came down hard on France and Germany for breaking their currency treaty requirements, the Swedish voters would've endorsed adopting the Euro... As it stands, the Euro is in danger of becoming funny money in the long term if France and Germany are not forced to meet their treaty obligations...
As for the other thing you said:
"it certainly isn't "easy" to get elected as there are no shortage of candidates(if not for any other reason then because they get nice pay)."
So in essence, critics of the California Recall should look to European elections before claiming it has no legitimacy due to the large number of candidates for the same elected position. I personally think we'd be better off in a parliamentry system myself...
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously, the writer has an agenda, which is clear based on the link for the software patents. By knowingly mis-representing and mis-stating the complaint of the MEP, he only serves to call into question his own ethics. Ya, the story submitter seems like just the type who might actually bully an MEP, because he knows he's right. Slashdot lives down to its reputation once again.
And yeah, software patents seems like a bad idea (at least as implemented in the USA). That doesn't excuse the deliberate misrepresentation of facts (or, obviously, actual harrasment) by its opponents.
Re:Heaven forefend! (Score:5, Informative)
Correct.
Unfortunately, that's rather misleading. The European Commission are essentially appointed (though by elected governments, one hopes) whereas the European Parliament consists of directly elected MEPs. Unfortunately, we have here a rather bizarre system where the EC probably holds more real power than the EP. There are other players involved here as well, but when it comes down to it, hearing a commissioner state that some of the EP's amendments are "not acceptable to the Commission" is a fairly chilling warning that they're going to over-rule them.
Of course, given the frequently misunderstandings about what is and is not being proposed here, and the fact that idiots trying to be clever appear to be alienating the very elected representatives who needed to be convinced, this could all be for the best anyway.
Re:Canada and software patents (Score:3, Informative)
Now... that having been said I have approached my legal counsel on this issue - directly - and I have not at this point received a direct answer.
It is possible that the reason is because a court may have to make a ruling on this issue.
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... (Score:5, Informative)
Why dont you just inform yoursel before just writing some wild guesses and thus givin a wrong impression? A simple Google search ("europarl European Elections") gives you as 4th link the UK office of the european parlament with information on the election turnout (http://www.europarl.org.uk/guide/textonly/Gelect
To quote some numbers:
UK turnout has been between 24% and 36% in the last 5 elections, which is not at or below the 10% threshhold.
Sweden had a turnout of 41.6% and 38.3% in the 2 elections it took part.
Denmark had between 46.1% and 52.9%.
Belgium had aturnout alway >=90%.
EU average had been between 49.4% and 63%.
Unfortunately there is a negative trend, so in 20 years your statement might become true (which is especially sad because the EU parlament becomes more and more important...)
if France and Germany are not forced to meet their treaty obligations...
As a German I can say that at least the fact that Germany is breaking the stability pact for the second year in a row is not due to unwillingness, but due to inaptitude
Could it be Entropic ? (Score:4, Informative)
Now here's the beef : Microsoft acquired Entropic in 1999 [microsoft.com].
So unless the SME mentionned by McCarthy was another one (which I doubt), she's probably been telling us another whopper of a lie.
Re:you gotta love the European Parliament... (Score:2, Informative)
That's because in Belgium voting isn't a right but a duty. If you don't turn up during elections you can get fined (although judges have been very easy going on people who don't turn up to vote during the last couple of elections).
The idea is to protect the weaker groups in society as they usually are the first to forsake their voting rights. By forcing them to vote, you make sure that politicians will take them into account in their programs instead of just listening to more militant groups in society.
Re:Mirror anyone? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Could be worse... (Score:2, Informative)
You were more correct initially.
The current law is EPC and national laws that are based on the EPC. The European Patent Office is not related to the EU.
All EU states are EPC contracting states but not all EPC states are EU states, e.g. Switzerland and Turkey.
The EU cannot change the statutory definition of what is patentable because this would conflict with the member states obligations under the EPC or creating a situation where nation patents are granted on a different basis to European patents, which would not make things clearer. However, it can change the law in EU states that relate to enforcement and can exclude some acts from the definition of infringement, e.g. acts for ensuring interoperability as proposed and private non-commercial use in UK law.
Theoretically, the EPC member states are meant to harmonise their interpretation of Art. 52(2) EPC. However, in the absence of EPO Board of Appeal decisions being binding precedent, there is a tendency for different countries to interpret Art. 52(2) EPC differently. The UK is a real culprit in this respect and has some decisions that are out of step with the EPO Boards of Appeal but binding on the UK patent office and lower UK courts.
The EU legislation is aimed at harmonising the interpretation of Art. 52(2) EPC and equivalent national law provisions in respect of computer-implementing inventions in the patent offices and courts of the EU states.
The basis of the standardisation is the interpretation established by the Boards of Appeal of the EPO.
The distinction is subtle. The aim is not to get everyone singing from the same song sheet, they do that already, but to get everyone singing in tune. Tbis is all explained here [eu.int]
.Re:So much for protests (Score:1, Informative)