EU Patents Won't Stay Dead 410
sconeu writes "Apparently the EC is ignoring the restart directive, and has placed software patents as an A-Item on the Council of Minister's agenda with an aim for approval on Monday." From the article: "The directive is pitched as offering greater protection for software developers. Opponents, including many in the European parliament, fear it will simply provide big players, including America's powerful and litigious software giants, with a very large stick to batter upstart developers and the Open Source movement." Update: 03/04 22:04 GMT by Z : And just as quick as you please Denmark stops things in their tracks. Denmark's objection means that there will have to be further debate before the patents get the stamp.
Re:We have a bigger problem (Score:3, Informative)
1. To hit heavily and repeatedly with violent blows.
2. To subject to repeated beatings or physical abuse.
3. To damage, as by heavy wear.
You're not as clever as you think you are.
Re:I don't understand (Score:4, Informative)
Denmark and Poland Will Deal the Death Blow (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't understand (Score:5, Informative)
The Euuropean union is a young and a very fastmoving project. I believe very few europeans know what the parlament actully do and what the commission do. I'm a swede and very seldom we get to vote, there is close to zero follow-up on the people we vote on in the media and frankly we don't know what they do. I don't think democracy is one of the strengths of the EU right now. Maybe in the future.
Hmm... (Score:1, Informative)
When you look at www.ffii.org, you'll see all kinds of news like "[2005-03-04] FFII: Danish Parliament obliges Minister to renegotiate software patents in Council", "[2005-03-04] Polish Informatisation minister: we cannot fight alone", "[2005-03-03] FFII: JURI schedules software patents discussion on Monday", etc, etc.
http://www.ffii.org/
I expect it to be rejected actually.
The danes blocked it again... (Score:5, Informative)
The Dutch governement had earlier said it was hoping on a redraft opf the bill, but would not block the vote, something the German Governement had also done.
In the meantime the Dutch VVD also brought in a motion to try to get an amendment to bring "community patents into the bill, which then would have to be completely redrafted.
Source: www.webwereld.nl
I dont know about you folks, but I'm thinking: "It ain't over 'till the Fat Lady sings"
And I somewhat like the idea of a commons of patents.
Re:EU Questions... (Score:3, Informative)
However, since they require a absolute majority to implement changes to it would be much harder to stop it.
Should it manage to get through, the best bet would be for the parliament to reject it in full, however, this would also require an absolute majority.
reaction from the EU parlement to the latest (Score:3, Informative)
Update: Denmark will stop it! (Score:5, Informative)
so the law can't be nodded through.
According to their parliaments some other ministers are instructed (more or less bindingly) to support another country's approach to restart the whole process:
Poland, Netherlands, Spain (had already voted against it in the last session), maybe Germany (but represented by some stubbor a..hat, so..)
Also it is likely that some countries that were neutral during the last voting (like Austria, Belgium, Italy) will support a complete restart.
Some possible good news (Score:4, Informative)
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at the BSA web page [bsa.org], you will see that the members of this alliance are primarily US businesses: they list Microsoft, IBM, Intel etc etc as their members.
So in this case the original poster is correct: this law seems to have been "bought" by US businesses.
Re:I don't understand (Score:4, Informative)
The only problem I have with them is basically that they cost money. I'm sure we could switch to becoming a republic and save a bit of money that way, and not have monarchs represent our country on e.g. visiting Africa to show our stance about poor children, smashing a bottle to introduce a ship, eating some food at a Nobel dinner or whatever. Seems a bit like a waste to me.
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:3, Informative)
I know the word has probably been sullied beyond repair, but true patriots simply have a love for the values of a community that's quite large, and not only doesn't preclude harsh criticism of the nation when it does wrong, it requires it. Possibly it's misguided, assuming a nation can ever really be a community, but in some instances, it's warranted.
I think the word you're looking for is jingoism
Re:Well (Score:2, Informative)
What the hell are you talking about?
Copyright is for the protection of the expression, patent is for the idea behind the expression.
And those 15 line patents are exactly what I was talking about when I meant misuse of patents.
For instance, my advisor has a patent on 3D compression using what is called a Topological Surgery approach, which provided the foundation of the current MPEG-4 standard for 3D compression. It's a method for achieving a goal, and am fairly certain that he's one of the VERY few people who could have come up with something like that.
That's an idea behind achieving an expression, and he rightfully holds the patent to it.
The spirit of software patents? Some things were excluded from patent protection for a good reason, math, literature and computer software included!
BZZT! A lot of stuff that folks come up with involves a lot of time and effort. Remember that for patents you need to have a valid UTILITY value. They most certainly would let you patent a mathematical method IF you can provide a utility value. Same for the idea behind a software.
It is for the same reason that you cannot patent a literary work but copyright the same. Am sure if you came up with a literary idea that has utility value, you'd be granted a patent for it.
I think you're confusing patents and copyrights.
Here they are... (Score:5, Informative)
Since telling it nicely doesn't work, and telling it with lots of money is out of the question, we should find other ways to uhm...convince them. The first step is to peel them out of this anonymus term "European Commission", so they can't hide in it.
Re:Actually, they are as good as dead (Score:2, Informative)
Software is not patentable in Europe (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Well (Score:2, Informative)
Unlike in hardware, it's impossible for me to program without infringing on any number of (thank god US only) patents.
Hence the net effect of allowing software patents is to make independant programming illegal.
Some have blogs (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I don't understand (Score:2, Informative)
The commission might not be directly elected, but this is not very uncommon in democracies. It is rather the American model of popular vote for the head of state AND government which is different - note, I'm not implying it's necessarily worse in any way - just that it isn't the usual way of doing it, even in the West.
The commission
1. Can be sacked by the parliament. Happened once in the nineties - so it isn't just something on paper.
2. Was voted in by parliament - if they hadn't approved the commission in its entirety, the old one would have continued until a new solution would have been reached.
finally:
3. The old comission DID continue very recently because enough of the parliament got angry at the new justice commissioner - forcing the commission head to get a new, much more liberal one.
Governments in general aren't elected, parliaments are. And the EU parliament has power over the commission - the reason the commission can abuse its power in this case is that it is supported by the council of ministers, whose members are mostly MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT in their home countries (since they're members of their home governments).
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:4, Informative)
A lot of us are fighting hard against it! (Score:2, Informative)
I see many posts about Europeans not being interested in politics and the European parliament in Brussels being corrupt.
I 'd like to remind everyone out there of the many Europeans who are very active in protesting against patents like the people of NoSoftwarePatents [nosoftwarepatents.com] and the Federation for a Free Information Infrastructure [ffii.org], encouraging people around Europe to get a hold of their MEPs and making them aware of the importance of the matter.
Hey a lot of us went to Brussels (with bananas!) [ffii.org] to protest February 17, there where busses organised even from Paris.
We write, fax and mail our politicians, even send them fresh fruit to show how much we care about this!
Re:documentation pro patents? (Score:3, Informative)
India not yet a done deal afaik (Score:2, Informative)
Commission colluded with Microsoft, says MEP (Score:5, Informative)
Another interesting tidbit from the article:
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:5, Informative)
However, the working party that reworked the directive for the Council removed the bulk of the parliament's amendments, while promising that they had put in additional protections against software patents, when in fact the protections were meaningless.
It was this theoretically neutered directive that the Council agreed to in May 2004 by a slim majority. Now that members have realised what they've done (agree a directive that allows patents), some are now trying to prevent this directive from being rubber-stamped as an A-list item, as you mentioned, despite the pressure of the Commission to force through the may 2004 version. I believe this is the 'common position' stage, step 9.
If it goes onto its second reading, the EP can still amend or block the directive, but it's a lot harder to do so, given the absolute majority required.
Here's hoping sufficient people in the Council can block the directive as an A-list item, and either force a restart or at least knock it back to a B-list item again for further discussion.
I did complain to mine (Score:4, Informative)
I havent heard anything back from UKIP, which surprises me -I thought they'd be "the EU is evil, here is why".
The lib dem MP gave some patronising guff about technical innovation and "balancing the needs of large enterprises and small businesses", nothing about consumers, OSS developers, etc.
But he did say they had voted to send it back, and were miffed at the response. They werent letting it lie, as it was a sign of a broader power struggle between governments (council of ministers) and the EU parliament itself.
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:4, Informative)
Heres a (very detailed) link [ffii.org] to the differences between the the parliament's and council's versions.
This [softwarepatents.co.uk] is a better diagram of our current status. So all is not yet lost, even if the council does pass the may 2004 agreed version (their amended version of the parliament amended version), as it will have to go a second reading in the parliament, because of their changes. However, it's much harder for the parliament to introduce new amendments at the 2nd reading, making it basically a vote to kill the directive entirely, or pass the council version. Plus of course, it puts us one step closer to software patentability. Here [wikipedia.org] is a link detailing the process. Note the hefty requirements the parliament have to meet in order to modify or kill the bill at it's second reading - and even if *that* succeeds, the council still has to agree to those changes.
After the Council of the European Union has sent its common position to the European Parliament, a time period of 3 months starts to run. If the Parliament does nothing within this time frame, the common position enters into force as directive.
The Parliament can extend this time by one month if it decides so.
If the European Parliament does not agree, is has to adopt changes to the common position or reject the common position, the latter would end the codecision procedure at this point.
To change or reject the text in 2nd reading, the parliament needs an absolute majority of the 732 Members for a yes on an amendment - for each change.
Of course, if the council have a complete change of heart, and pass the parliament sept 2003 version, it goes into law - but we're ok, as that version blocks software patents. But that would require reopening discussion, which the Commission has so far put pressure on to block, both in the council, and as a total restart.
Re:US influence peddling goes world-wide (Score:5, Informative)
No, they appear to be on step 9 or 10.
(I believe that) the Parliament didn't make any modifications to the directive at the time of the first reading
The Parliment did amend the directive. In fact Parliment did an excellent job. We WANT that version passed. The Council simply threw out essentially all of the of Parliments amendments. In fact they proceeded to re-amend it to be even more extreme and further from the Parliments position. They then had the gall to call it a "common position", to claim it was some sort of compromise and concilliation with Parliment. This is where we are now, they are attempting to officially sign off on this "common position" and pass it back to parliment.
I hate missleading names. It really shouldn't be titled a "common position" at all. The Council is certainly supposed to draft it in an effort to resolve differences with Parliment, but as this case shows there is no reason to expect it actually *is* any sort of common position.
-
And here are their emails (Score:2, Informative)
Re:documentation pro patents? (Score:3, Informative)
How about every single person responsible for the creation and development of computer science?
How about Alan Turing, Alonzo Church, Grace Hopper, John McCarthy, Edsger W. Dijkstra, everyone at Bell Labs from Claude Shannon to Ken Richie, everyone at Xerox PARC during their important period, and (for at least most of his career) Donald Knuth?
Because computer programming was a field in which invention was not patentable anywhere in the world until 1981, and even after that point much or most of the important work was done in areas where patents were no goal or not sought. And I assure you, computer programming is not a field which began in 1981. In fact one could make an excellent argument practically all of the important work in computer science took place before 1981.
Re:And here are their emails (Score:2, Informative)
Jose Manuel Barroso: sg-web-president@cec.eu.int
Margot Wallstroem: margot.wallstrom@cec.eu.int
Guenter Verheugen: guenter.verheugen@cec.eu.int
Jacques Barrot: cab-archive-barrot@cec.eu.int
Siim Kallas: CAB-KALLAS-WEB-FEEDBACK@cec.eu.int
Franco Frattini: Cabinet-Frattini@cec.eu.int
Viviane Reding: Viviane.reding@cec.eu.int
Stavros Dimas: stavros.dimas@cec.eu.int
Joaquín Almunia: CAB-ALMUNIA-INFO@cec.eu.int
Danuta Huebner: Cabinet-Huebner@cec.eu.int
Joe Borg: joe.borg@cec.eu.int
Dalia Grybauskait: cab-grybauskaite-commissaire@cec.eu.int
Janez Potocnik: Janez.Potocnik@cec.eu.int
Jan Figel': CAB-FIGEL@cec.eu.int
Markos Kyprianou: sanco-mailbox@cec.eu.int
Olli Rehn: olli.rehn@cec.eu.int
Louis MICHEL: Louis.Michel@cec.eu.int
László Kovács: Laszlo.Kovacs@cec.eu.int
Neelie Kroes: Neelie.Kroes@cec.eu.int
Mariann Fischer Boel: Mariann.Fischer-Boel@cec.eu.int
Benita Ferrero Waldner: benita.ferrero-waldner@cec.eu.int
Charlie McCreevy: Charlie.Mc-Creevy@cec.eu.int
Vladimír Spidla: vladimir.spidla@cec.eu.int
Peter Mandelson: Peter.Mandelson@cec.eu.int
Andris Piebalgs: cab-archive-piebalgs@cec.eu.int