EU Software Patents Dead Again 325
Joe Blakesley writes "Heise is reporting (in German) that the JURI (legal division of the European Parliament who tend to be more pro-EPO) have voted to invoke Rule 55 for a total restart of the software patents process (going back through the anti-swpat Parliament with a totally new directive) following attempts by the EC to get their directive through by the back door. This is an important victory for democracy and it means we can no longer say that the JURI is out. Also see Groklaw's story."
Rule 55 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe a victory for Democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Even if it was, why is that a bad thing?
Re:Maybe a victory for Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
I think European National sovereignty has a bigger problem then this. The fact that there is no nation that is recognised as "Europe" would probably be a big problem. There are numerous nations in Europe that have sovereignty, but that isn't the same thing as European National sovereignty
It will come (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Opportunity for informed debate (Score:5, Insightful)
There's s/t else politicians care about (Score:5, Insightful)
I jumped party line the last European Parliament election to hand pick a MEP that was solidly behind FFII's line. And I let all of the involved people, including the MEP and my previous MEP, know it.
Did they care? Did they respond? Yes, they responded to my e-mail. That was a sign in itself.
Politicians ultimately need votes. Regardless of business interests, compromises, if they don't get votes they're out of a job. Let them know what counts. It works.
Just because the Brits object, it's not wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU is not a democratic organisation. When people elect people who elect people, democracy is not the correct term. The obvious problem is that the first stage can promise X and then turn around and do Y to elect the second stage. This is the problem that people have with the EU. With the advent of the 'net, we have the ability for true democracy within our society. I'd like to take it.
At the end of the day, there is a decision to be made - is it better to be part of an organisation that is moving and shaping the world in the local neighbourhood, or is it better to be apart ? Britain for one cannot afford splendid isolation any more. It's as simple as that. That doesn't make the EU a great choice. It's just the lesser of two evils.
In Europe, the traditional view of Brits is that of 'little Englanders' obsessed with their petty social rights and demands on society. It's far more complex. Most Brits are far less patriotic than portrayed (for example, I'd like to see a world government), but we just don't think the setup of the EU is a good framework to build on for that ultimate journey.
Under no circumstances ought the EU parliament and the EU council of ministers be so disparate in their opinion that the issue of software patents (or any issue, actually) should divide them so. The EU government (as a whole) is there to represent the people - it's a shame that the council of ministers is far too busy representing (paying) businesses to pay attention to the people whom those businesses ultimately depend on.
Yes, this is politically biased, and I apologise. I'm just sick of being told I'm "anti-democracy" because I disagree with the non-democratic (ironic, huh?) process that the EU takes on these things. I'm especially sick of being told it's "because I'm British". For crying out loud, address the ISSUES, not my nationality.
Simon
Re:Nothing is dead, it's on hold for years again (Score:2, Insightful)
That's like everything. Any law can be changed, created or whatever in 5 years time.
Re:Maybe a victory for Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you actually need to be told why this is a victory for democracy? Ok: because the majority of people (at least the people affected by it, the rest don't even know what it is) are against software patents. The only people who want software patents are rich organisations that can afford to use them to choke their competition. QED.
Or perhaps you hink democracy means "people with money rule"?
And a unified European government is not a bad thing (I want one), but software patents are.
Re:Nothing is dead, it's on hold for years again (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Nothing is dead, it's on hold for years again (Score:5, Insightful)
Help us EU-1-Europa, You're our only hope! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm wondering what this says about the EU itself. (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, I'm not in Europe but from everything I've heard the governments, the EU reps and the people of Europe all approach the EU as if it is an arbitration body between governments, yet it's now making decisions-- such as the patentability or nonpatentability of software-- which very much directly effect the people of Europe on a day to day basis and should not be made by a body which does not unambiguously feel it is directly responsible to the people.
Things in the EU are still taking shape of course but, well, that just means that this is the best time to address these things. I don't think it's a bad thing for the EU to centralize power but if it's done, it needs to be done in a very deliberate and careful way.
Am I making sense?
Hasta la vista, baby (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Opportunity for informed debate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It will come (Score:3, Insightful)
But according to the national laws in many member countries, software is not patentable (at all). If the current directive would pass, every country would have to change their national laws to accommodate the directive. That is why the patent lobby want it so much, because in the current situation, their patents are just papers, but if the directive would pass, they would suddenly become valuable assets.
Re:great victory (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I don't like most music that's been produced this way, I don't oppose to the method (apart from the extreme copyright protection). It's the consumers 'fault' that they buy it.
I think the same thing should be possible in technology/research etc. Patents can allow companies specializing in research only and sell patents as their product. IMHO it's not neccesary that the company should actually produce the stuff themselves. If it's not possible to sell patents when a company goes bankrupt, investors would be much less willing to invest in a research-only company.
So although I see your point, I think the flexibility of patent ownership isn't neccesarily bad. However it is true that a shopping-cart patent does much more harm when it can be sold this easily. But that is more a problem of patents that shouldn't have been granted.
Re:It will come (Score:3, Insightful)
I refuse to believe that Europeans would be so stupid as to make a law that would require sending money to the US for something as trivial as selling an item with one mouse click.
Re:Reassuring (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I wouldn't hold your breath. It's certainly not impossible that the US patent system will be changed, but I don't see it happenning in the near future.
We'll have to first wait and see how the whole thing in Europe turns out. It's still possible that they say that any software algorithms can be patented. I think that is now quite unlikely. Another possibility is that they say no software patents at all - my favourite, but we may not see it happen. The third option would be that they come up with some definition of what is patentable, and we see some restricted form of software patents.
I think that third option is what a lot of them will be aiming for, but I think they will have a hard time getting enough people to agree on what should be patentable, in which case I think we're more likely to end up with no software patents at all, as a number of countries are very much against a free-for-all - Poland and Denmark have been mentioned already; the German parliament agreed that SW patents are not good (that's all 4 major parties, and they almost never all agree with each other), and there may be hope for the UK too. Certainly, the UK patent office is very aware of the problems that patent abuse can cause, as reported here [bbc.co.uk], and maybe, just maybe, the governement will listen.
If the EU actually does rule against software patents, it will be a very compelling reason for IT companies to do development in the EU rather than in the US, and that is something that may trigger the US to review their system, but that will all take time.
Patents are supposed to encourage people to invent and disclose, so that everyone can benefit. If that is not happenning, then patents are not working and the goal is not being reached. Many are using patents as a form of protectionism, and this abuse is something that the EU now has a chance to address. I really hope they do.
-- Steve
Re:Just because the Brits object, it's not wrong! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not with Labour doing all it can to tear down the centuries of 'gentlemen's agreements' which have kept our rather weak parliamentary system functioning at some sort of acceptable level.
We're heading more and more towards a presidential Executive, without the proper Legislature checks & balances. The simple fact that the Executive gets to decide the Legislature's timetable makes a mockery of the whole process.
Without the EU, there'd be no Poland to stop our executive getting exactly what it wanted.
Not being a Nationalist doesn't immediately mean I'm pro-Europe. I simply distrust politicians - the whole damn lot of them, national or supranational. Apparently the only way of curtailing their desires is to stick several dozen of them from many nations in a room and get them to argue eachother down. Eventually, whatever crazy scheme's got neutered to the point of being useless.
Of course, that leads to inefficiency and waste. But it's the best I can see at the moment, given the absolute waste of space our 'mother-of-all-Parliaments' has become.
Re:I'm wondering what this says about the EU itsel (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a situation similar to the situation in the US between the Articles of Confederation and up until the US Constitution was ratified.
The EU Council isn't directly responsible to the people of the EU, they are responsible to the national parliament of the member state the respective councillors represent, and those parliaments are responsible to their respective peoples. The EU Parliament is, on the other hand, directly responsible to their respective constituencies. However the parliament only has power to make binding decisions in the areas where the member states have been able to agree to giving up sovereignty to the EU in, which in effect means mostly related to the the affairs of the EU itself.
The Council is a result of the fact that the EU can't directly make law. The EU can makes laws for the EU (as in the organiation, not the group of countries), and treaties regulate how EU law is made into national law in the member states.
This is a compromise because granting the EU Parliament legislative power would mean that the member states would be giving up sovereignty over their legislation, which would be a tough sell in most EU countries.
While EU law is in practice always made into law in the EU member states, there is nothing in principle stopping a national parliament from refusing to accept a new EU law. The EU would take the state to court to enforce the relevant treaties, but it can't force the law into effect - the very act of issuing a directive doesn't automatically create law that is enforcable in the member states.
It's a situation that can create quite weird results, but the parliament has gradually been getting more power as time goes by and the member states manage to agree on giving up power to the EU organs.
A point I haven't seen made... (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is a thought experiment:
1. Company X is based in a country which doesn't have laws regarding sw patents. They develop a product Q which has some novel software concepts. They cannot patent it because their patent office won't move on sw patents.
2. Company Y is based in a country which has laws permitting sw patents. They see product Q and think that some concept in it is pretty cool and so they patent such a concept. Brain dead examiner rubber-stamps patent.
3. Company X can no longer sell product Q in any region where sw patents are recognised (due to Berne convention)
The only real solution to this is to have some countries to have a law which explicitly makes sw patents invalid AND is a signatory of the Berne convention. Then they can be safe to exercise their innovation.
Right now, it is exceedingly unfair to permit software patents because the USA has such a headstart in that arena, anyone coming afterwards is automatically disadvantaged.
The major benefit of a law which renders sw patents dead is that other signatories of the Berne convention would eventually have to follow suit or risk some kind of international trade war... and as trigger-happy some people are, I think invading Belgium would not help the pro-sw-patents argument much.
Re:great victory (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A point I haven't seen made... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't doubt that they would get their patent rubber-stamped (that's not hard at all). But wouldn't the patent be invalid and easily defeated, because of prior art (i.e. product Q) - especially if someone tries to charge company X for product Q, which is older than the patent itself?
Re:A point I haven't seen made... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A point I haven't seen made... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Braindead" is the key point here. Patents cannot be granted if there's any known prior art anywhere. I believe it also means that such braindead patents are not enforceable.
By the way, does anyone here remember the original intent of patents? It was to encourage the disclosure of inventions -- otherwise companies would just have kept their secrets to themselves.
This means that features visible in the end product are not suitable for patenting; they are disclosed anyway. It is usually some 'hidden' method involved in the making of the product, that is patented.
Therefore, to breach the patent would basically require seeing the source code, which means either
So, again, why do we need software patents?
Re:Opportunity for informed debate (Score:3, Insightful)
And why shouldn't they?
The term "intellectual property" is rather misleading: there are superficial similarities between patents, copyright and trademarks, to give the most common examples, but their significance is rather different.
In particular, while software patents are one of those ideas that sounded promising but has been shown not to work well in practice, copyright has been quite the opposite. This kind of intellectual property has many of the same advantages to society as physical property (an equally artificial concept if you consider it for a moment). Despite the often made but really pretty shallow arguments against copyright, it has proven to be a valuable tool in balancing modern economies where information is valuable.
Eventually SWpat will come to Europe (Score:4, Insightful)
Cop: You know, being a criminal doesn't pay. They have to get lucky every time, and all we have to do is get lucky once.
This is why the SWpat people will win eventually, because the !SWpat people have to get lucky every time in stopping this, and the SWpat people only have to get lucky once and sneak it through the system in some obfuscated form.
What persistence can get you. (Score:3, Insightful)
I applaud those who organized this effort for having the courage of their convictions to pursue better policy. You offer us who are burdened with software patents something to aspire to.
Re:Opportunity for informed debate (Score:2, Insightful)
The broader question is: why should they get special protection, especially when it involves the ability to use government force to override the rights that people have with their own real, physical private property.
If you subscribe to the notion that the "intellectual property" laws exist to enhance innovation & cultural growth for the society as a whole, then I'd argue that society could get a more reliable result with less violation of personal rights by allocating some of its tax money to pay for basic research & subsidizing artistic endeavors which, when completed, would be freely available to all enterprising members of society.