Dutch Say No to Software Patent Directive 363
Rik writes "Thursday night the Dutch parliament has decided that the Dutch government should not vote for the EU Software Patent Directive at the European Council of Ministers next week. The decision of the Dutch parliament strengthens attempts of MEPs of the European Parliament to send the Software Directive back to the drawing board."
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:2, Interesting)
And I will set up a donate with PayPal link for those who want to support me.
"...Now how do i glue the GPL onto a nuclear bomb..."
Re:I hate EU (Score:1, Interesting)
GREAT!!! but what would happen if....? (Score:2, Interesting)
But my doubt is: what would happen IF Polish minister Marcinski had not vetoed the patent bill in December? Was it really so close? I mean - was the majority in the EU parlament for the software patents or against them in December 2004? Why only one veto?
best regards - michal
Would someone explain me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, the Dutch Parliament, which I assume speaks for the Dutch people, decided against software patents. OK, so why should they end up with software patents after all is said and done if the Dutch Parliament voted against them? Do the individual governments of the member states not retain their sovereignty in the EU? I realize that for the EU to function as, well, the European Union, it has to have some political will. How far does this politcal will extend?
Just asking.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Interesting)
Patent's don't protect your work, copyrights do that.
Patents are a licence to rip off other people's work, granted by the state as an incentive for you to publish your work. There were perfectly good reasons for this at the time the system developed, but few if any of the reasons still exist.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, there are more problems with these. While you do point out acurately, that holding companies are abusing these, there is another more common abuse.
A person will obtain a patent and then start a small company(1-5 ppl). However, a large company who watches it sees the potential and simply decides to do the same, but without paying for the patent. The small guy can not afford to take on a big company.
Now, one of the better examples to most here is MS vs. all the small companies that they do this to. What they are counting on, is stalling it in the courts and then paying just a fraction of what it has earned them. In the mean time, they have wiped out the company or buy them at a fraction of what they would have at the height of the company.
But they are no worse (and in fact, better) than many other medium to small. My father has a patent for a archery product. When a larger company decided that they liked it, they started manufactuering their own. When he spoke up and threatened lawsuit, the larger company simply went to all the stores where it was sold at, and stopped them from distributing his product. Since they were not a convicted monopoly, they are not watched by the feds. But they damage is there. And this goes on all the time
Basically, the patent does not protect the little guys. The high costs of the legal system prevents any real action. But it does allow a large company to harass the little guy.
Copyright won't protect you. (Score:1, Interesting)
Name one process software can do that can't be duplicated entirely with hardware. There isn't one.
Now explain why the existence of software suddenly throws doubt upon the wisdom of allowing process (method) claims to be patented.
Change the rules to exclude software from being patented and the same thing can be made to look like hardware. Inventions in some technologies (such as many types of embedded systems, communications/multiplexing, data coding, and on) have reached the point where it's common to see the statement that the invention could be made of software, firmware, hardware, or some combination of one or more of these things.
The most prolific slashdotters on this topic will throw up their hands and compose a bold new manifesto with some self-serving stuff about how it's slowing everyone down from becoming a keyboard peripheral device as soon as possible. Blaaah!
Re:I hate EU (Score:2, Interesting)
And before calling me names : I am French but I now live in Switzerland which is far more evolved than France.
For example, provided enough people sign a petition about a given matter, there WILL be a referendum.
Majority has to be gained by both the population AND the cantons which makes it even more secure for lowly populated areas to get their voices heard.
A reformed patent system (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:2, Interesting)
Patents are a means to an end, not en end in itself.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I hate EU (Score:1, Interesting)
Brilliant. A new word!
(or just bad spelling?)
Anyway I like it.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not, if it's broken? Replace it with something else perhaps? An Australian govt. research project came to the conclusion that not having patents would be useful to innovation and the only reason they kept it was because of international treaty.
Or how about the Journal of Economic Growth, 2004, vol. 9, issue 1, pages 81-123:
"Furthermore, patents affect the allocation of R&D resources across industries, and patents can distort resources away from industries where they are most productive."
I think the debate should be started to see whether patents are a useful mechanism or not.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you give us a link which backs up this assertion? (Preferably with good quality facts).
All I have ever seen is this mantra repeated ad nauseam whilst I have read many articles which, with economic data, show that patents stifle innovation and distort the market.
Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally I'm a Marxist, and hence consider the state a means of oppression which it must be the goal to dismantle as far as possible, to the point where all legislative and executive power has been devolved to communes and the state is left as a purely administrative arm of government subservient to communes.
(For the basis for that view, I'd suggest one of the few works of Lenin I have respect for - State and the Revolution - that gives a fairly easy to read analysis of the Marxist view of the state)
I've been part of political debates where extreme liberals trying hard to distance themselves from the left afterwards were furious at me because I dared agree with almost everything they had to say about the reduction of government...
But I am definitively a socialist.
Socialism and big government are not connected at the hip. European style social democracy which was a result of a reformist and bourgeois movement among "socialist" parties mainly among the wealthier segments of the European working classes starting in the 20's and 30's is consistently pro-big government.
Re:Article is misleading (Score:3, Interesting)
I parted
Anyone reading transcript from JURI meeting regarding returning swpat to first reading had to notice that MEPs were infurriated by blatant disregard to democratic procedures by Council and Presidency. Implemented technics included (but were not limited to) such tricks like moving directive as an A-item to Agriculture and Fishery commision, in last weeks of the year when all professionals went home for Christmas, and permanent representatives who were supposed to do actual voting were even personally blackmailed to not oppose last-minute addition of an A-item. All this at the time were eyes and attention of Europe were turned to Ukraine and its Orange Revolution.
So, if Council disregards JURI recommendation, European Parliament may be infurriated enough to secure 75% majority to ammend the swpat directive in second reading. After all, no one likes to be made irrelevant, especially elected officials...
Robert
PS This isn't even bringing the directive through the backdoor anymore. This is fucking planting by the policeman in owner's presence and disregarding video footage of said planting by the judge.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:2, Interesting)
That metric doesn't make sense to me. Do you think a very small pharmaceutical industry that only works on a few "easy" diseases, but puts 50% back into R&D is clearly better? I think a better metric is the total R&D spending with patents vs. without. Of course any estimate of this now is just a guess because we do have patents, but I really can't see how anyone would invest without some kind of exclusivity period. By far and away the major expense of finding a drug is figuring out which one works and proving it. Who would ever invest the money to do this if the results became available for all to use?
Th patent system works so well that huge government intervention and expenditure is needed to keep R & D spend going. The best examples are again with pharmaceuticals. In the US the FDA gives pharma companies extra incetives like those of orphan drugs, in the UK they get tax breaks.
Those subsidies are due to the realization that drugs are very expensive to bring to market, so expensive that there are diseases which affect too few people to ever make finding a treatment economically viable. I can't see how eliminating patents would do anything except increase the number of diseases that are "orphaned".
Globally a huge amount of R & D is carried out or funded by univerisites and Wellcome Trust
Actually this work is fairly orthogonal to what the drug companies do, with the universities tending much more toward the R and the companies much more toward the D. Although it is beginning to change somewhat, there has been quite a reluctance in the academic community to acknowledge importance of D like activities. If you don't believe me, submit a grant that proposes medium scale synthesis, pharmacology, toxicology, or other vital components of develoment and see how the study sections trash it.
VVD = traditional values? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I hate EU (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A reformed patent system (Score:5, Interesting)
The new system would protect the invention for 3 weeks, or until it gives $2000 (whichever comes first).
And why exactly is that a problem? Why does such an idea deserve $18 billion?