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."
Interesting. (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting. So now when citizens try to express their views on upcoming legislation to elected officials, it's "harassment". Only industry reps should be allowed this privilege?
Read the text! (Score:4, Interesting)
Most of the speakers emphasised that this was not about legalising software patents, and the impression from the linked article is that over half of the speakers understood what the debate was about and were against software patents.
Surely this is a good sign from the European Parliament?
Boo hoo hoo (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently they're not used to actually representing their constituents, as opposed to just their industry lobbyists.
EU == US? (Score:4, Interesting)
Heavens to Murgatroid! The Humanity! I'd expect this sort of contempt from a US Representative but not from such a democratic body as the EU Parliament.
At least one MEP seems to understand (Score:5, Interesting)
"Neil MacCORMICK (Greens/EFA, Scotland) warned against possible "leakage" from genuine protection of computer implemented inventions to companies being able to patent computer software. He stated that the present system, where genuine inventions are patentable and software is protected by copyright worked well. The responsibility, he underlined, lay with the Commission to find a balance between over and under protection for inventions."
This is exactly the problem with the directive to begin with. What exactly is the point of "legalizing software patents" if software itself cannot be patented?
I am not asking for software to be patentable, far from it, but I fail to see the need for this entire exercise if the end result will be patent rules that are substantially similar to the current rules with more complicated language.
It is good to see that at least one MEP understands that no matter how persuasive the language, patent applicants will attempt to find ways to patent the supposedly unpatentable. "Systems" and "processes" in a patent will cover such obvious ideas as one click purchasing and on-line auctions. If anything, this entire directive has done nothing but muddy the waters about what is and what is not patentable, something patent inspectors and the public do not want or need.
Re:Could be worse... (Score:4, Interesting)
An example: some inserted text reads:
Remembering that "Computer-implemented inventions" are quite clearly already patentable under current law, this passage only restricts their applicability. The amendment itself is full of such restrictions, and doesn't add any new ways of patenting computer programs that I can see. "The open-source community" is mentioned specifically in a part of the amendment. There is even a new passage making it legal to implement patented methods for the sole purpose of software interoperability, and protecting reverse engineering! Where exactly is the problem with this legislation? You might disagree with the fact that it is possible to patent "computer-implemented inventions" at all, but you can already do that now. This amendment only makes it harder. If you want to strike this concept out of current law, you should lobby for a different amendment and leave this one alone.Learn to read, micheal (Score:-1, Interesting)
Nowhere in that article does it say this. micheal is once again voicing his loud uninformed knee-jerk opinions. If you read the article, the quote in question is:
Arlene McCarthy regrettably added that in all the years that she had been an MEP, she had not been treated in such an aggressive manner. She said she and her staff had been bullied and harassed.
However, this MEP is AGAINST software patents, and if you read the summary of her statements, she mentions that she has been lobbied aggressively by the corporate sector, not private citizens. If you think for a second, you'll realize that means that companies have been lobbying to her to support patents, and the harassment is likely from that sector.
Try reading the articles before posting jaded editorials.
In other, related news... (Score:2, Interesting)
I just got an e-mail from an entity that was responsible for part of the presentation taliking of a last minute change: instead of presentation there will be a debate, and the people invited to debate are, instead of free software advocates were experimented proprietary software advocates.
watched it live (Score:5, Interesting)
I watched the discussion on software patents this morning. I have to say that without knowing the real backgrounds you could really fall for the arguments of the proponents. No, they do not want laws like the US, they want to restrict software patents. I don't know how they can keep straight faces saying that. Luckily, some other speakers did not fail to mention that software patents are actually against the law and the new proposal would legalize those patents. Restrictions to the new law (like those discussed on Slashdot yesterday) are not needed. Simply do not pass the new law and enforce the existing ones.
The so-called harrassments by citizens also were described quite differently depending on the side the speaker was on. The speakers for patents pretended to be offended by such wild actions.
The speakers against rather described them as reasonable concerns by middle sized businesses who fear for their survival.
"Linus aeh Linux" was also mentioned. But one speaker talked about "Unix, which is free"?! Hmmm, let's not let Darl hear about this.
Re:Could be worse... (Score:5, Interesting)
Especially read 4. How CEC/JURI ensure Unlimited Patentability: Some Sample Provisions from their Directive Proposal for a translation into real English: For a patent laywer, the term "computer-implemented inventions" means that everything that potentially runs on a computer (like, Software) can now be patented! Compare this to the existing law, which explicitly forbids pure software patents, yet the EPO (European Patent Office) granted ~30,000 software patents, from one-click shopping over email archiving to progress bars (so much for the "don't extend current practice" bit).
What it would mean for Linux et al. if this practice will be officially sanctioned we all know...
Re:Interesting. (Score:2, Interesting)
Joachim WUERMELING (D), [...] He regretted the sometimes personal and irrational lobbying that had taken place. [...]
Just for the record: I am an EU citizen, I wrote an Email to Mr. Wuermeling, and he took the time to reply personally, explaining his position and adressing my concerns.
So him feeling "harrassed" doesn't seem to hit the nail here.
Also, after being against this EU derective for long time, I had to change my viewpoint somewhat.
This directive will not allow to patent business processes and pure software. Conversely it will stop the current EU-Patent-wild-growth (the EPA in Munich has alreday granted 30000 software related patents).
Yes, there may be legal loop-holes, and these have to plugged over time.
Most definitly the brain-dead US approach is not adopted.
Re:Could be worse... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:For one thing it's not a non issue to them (Score:4, Interesting)
But you never win in big leaps. At least normal people don't. And they're at their best when being pushed around. Frankly, that's where my hope is. Not at short term all-or-nothing thinking.
I'm talking about that there are turning points (which are always small otherwise it would be shove rather than turn) and that they shouldn't be overlooked nor deemed insignificant. Especially when the alternative is what?
I am *very* well aware of what's at stake but are you pulling out a gun yet? Neither am I so we're gonna have to make do with what we *can* do. And certainly the OSS voice is being considered a force to reckon with by now.
Sure many still don't have a clue. And diversity within the OSS community all to often leads to unneeded flamefests. No one's perfect. And expectations should be accordingly. A people thing will have a people signature. Nothing wrong with that.
For one thing, the OSS community should preach Humanity. That includes not being able to turn around a massive and increasingly repressive force easily. That includes a community developer fucking off because he's having a hard time privately, it includes people making human errors. It's not "get victory fast" by nature and that should be accepted both personally and more generally IMHO.
[OT] source of the evil (Score:1, Interesting)
You can't go against a person, which consists of several thousand people. An single persons don't do that much evil, because they can be made responsible then.
Imagine if SCO wouldn't be a juristical person, so Darl McBride had to sue in persona. It wouldn't be Microsoft, it would be our beloved Mr Gates personally.
A company could fire 1000 people but imagine one single person had to take the responsibility for this.
Fixing this would mean numerous changes in the law and the society, so it is totally out of reach.
Re:Heaven forefend! (Score:5, Interesting)
The Commission is the executive of the EU. It carries out and polices EU law. It also proposes EU legislation, but since it cannot itself pass the legislation this does not make it a legislative body. Indeed, in most democracies the bulk of legislation is proposed by the executive (including the US and UK).
The Council of Ministers and the Parliament together form the legislature. Every piece of new EU legislation proposed by the Commission must be ratified by the Council of Ministers to take effect. In many areas, the approval of the Parliament is also required. Just as in the US and UK, the legislature can amend or throw out proposed legislation.
Finally, the European Court of Justice is (predictably) the judiciary of the EU. It has the power to strike down EU legislation for being incompatible with the Treaties that created the EU, as well as ensuring that the Commission, Council of Ministers, Parliament, Member States and individuals follow EC law.
While the EU is often condemned as being undemocratic, its legislature is in essence much like the US congress. The Parliament, like the House of Representatives, is elected by the people on on a demographic basis (more populous regions get more MEPs). The Council of Ministers, like the US senate, is made up of an equal number of representatives from each member state. While members are not elected directly to the council, they are drawn from the democratically-elected governments of the member states and so are ultimately subject to democratic control.
The big gap in EU democracy is in the unelected nature of the executive, the commission. But it's unfair to blame that on the EU itself -- it was the member states who vetoed the idea of a popularly elected President of the commission at the EU constitutional convention. Why? precidely because an elected President would give the EU Commission democratic legitimacy, and therefore suck power away from individual governments. It's the same story again and again -- national governments deliberately deny the EU proper democratic accountability precisely in order that they can then denounce EU policies they disagree with as being undemocratic and so retain their own grip on power.