Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents Government Politics

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Patents Won't Stay Dead

Comments Filter:
  • by Harodotus ( 680139 ) * on Friday March 04, 2005 @02:09PM (#11845829) Homepage
    Is it just me or does it sound like Microsoft and other litigious American software giants has bought the influence of this European commission? I can only hope that the many countries involved will stand up and fight to at least hold debate on a matter that might ruin most small and mid sized European software companies.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04, 2005 @02:10PM (#11845837)
    ... for a second reading, can't they kill the measure then even if the Ministers approve it?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04, 2005 @02:12PM (#11845856)
    I just can't imagine a world of software where the guy that thinks up an idea has sole possession of said idea, there won't be any room for improvement or growth of software.

    At least in Europe ;-) I don't think India is part of the EU...yet.
  • I don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Auckerman ( 223266 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @02:13PM (#11845876)
    Why do Europeans allow a non-elected commission to determine economic policy? It makes no sense to me that a state would agree to hand out such important matters that, in my mind anyhow, require representation to do. Personally, I don't give crap about software patents, I'm more amazed the EU is run like this.
  • by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Friday March 04, 2005 @02:16PM (#11845913) Homepage Journal
    I suspect it's a matter of who has greater willpower, very much like the periodic brawls in the US between the White House and Congress. The Parliament can (and should) reject it, and keep rejecting it every time the EC kicks it back to them, but will they have the political will to do so? Cf. "Social Security" and "judicial appointments."
  • by slipnslidemaster ( 516759 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @02:19PM (#11845931)


    Ultimately the same mindset that is representative of their heritage.

    How many EU countries still have monarchs? How many more EU countries right up until approximately 200 years ago had autocratic monarchies? They have been bred for 1000 years to let other people tell them what is good for them or not. It's going to take a while for the "people" to adjust their culture.
  • EU Questions... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Shadow Wrought ( 586631 ) <shadow.wrought@g ... minus herbivore> on Friday March 04, 2005 @02:19PM (#11845935) Homepage Journal
    I'm not up on my EU procedures. Assuming it is approved by the ministers, does it still need Parliamentary approval? If so, and assuming it receives such, is there some type of court to which an appeal can be brought? Does the EU have any type of Judicial redress?
  • by CharonX ( 522492 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @02:20PM (#11845938) Journal
    According to this article [heise.de] in the German IT magazine Heise.de (use the fish [altavista.com]), the danish parliament has giving their minister for economy, Bendt Bendtsen, binding orders to request a complete restart of the whole negotiations.
    The parliament of the Netherlands have giving their representative orders to support any demands for new negotiations.
    Finally, the German representative would face sever pressure (he'd probably have to resign) should he ignore the German parliants demands for new negotiations.
    As for many of the "new" EU members, they will probably not support a decision that might severly restrict their fledgeling IT economy - no matter how much Microsoft and the other "big players" try to lobby.
    So, all in all, its as good as dead - at least for now.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04, 2005 @02:22PM (#11845961)
    We've been standing up and fighting for months, but the way the EU is set up it's very hard to do anything about it.

    In particular, the measure has been repeatedly voted against by the European Parliament, which is comprised of elected representatives from every region of every European country. It has been voted against by the Council of Ministers, which is comprised of important members of the Government of each member state. But with the bizzare way in which the EU works, the wishes of both the people and of the member governments can be overridden by unelected beaurocrats, some of whom were appointed years ago by politicians who are no longer in power.
  • by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @02:23PM (#11845977) Homepage Journal
    If the EU Parliament can make a stink about this autocratic move by the EU Council, and stop the power grab, it will be a larger victory for European democracy. This kind of abuse will happen all the time in Europe, making a sham of democracy as corporations and other interests make end runs around a subordinate democratic government. But if they can drive a stake through its heart now, democracy can rule a functionary state body instead. Europe has had centuries of warmup for a continental democracy experiment, including staging a mixed bag of results across the Atlantic. Now, as it is formally getting underway at home, is the time to ensure the balances are correct.
  • Re:Well, no shit. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by snwcrash ( 520762 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @02:24PM (#11845991)
    That's a little extreme. Corporations are not obligated to commit ethical violations just because it might net them more money. Most shareholders would probably not put up with unethical behaviour just for increased value of the stock.

    The people pushing patents believe in their black, black hearts that this is ethical. That Intellectual Property is just that. I've been in a patent discussion with our lawyers and it's amazing that they actually believe the IP argument. They just don't understand how software works, they like thinking of it as a CD or a web page, since those are concepts that they understand.
  • My mail to the EC (Score:3, Interesting)

    by theolein ( 316044 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @02:27PM (#11846021) Journal
    I live in Switzerland, which is not part of the EU, thank God, and given the EC blatant disregard for the EU parlimentary request to restart the process of software patents, I will make very sure, by the democratic means of public initiative, aka privately initiated referendums, which we have in Switzerland, that Switzerland will never join that bastion of corruption.

    I do not want my country ruled by a cabal of easily bought unelected scum in Brussels, and, given the way things are going, I think there are many current EU members, such as the UK and Denmark that are wondering how they can get out of it as fast as possible.
  • by EsbenMoseHansen ( 731150 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @02:28PM (#11846031) Homepage

    Has there ever been some study or likewise that support patents, in the sense that they show an increase in innovation in areas that are patent regulated?

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @02:38PM (#11846123)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:Well, no shit. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FuzzyDaddy ( 584528 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @02:43PM (#11846165) Journal
    Don't dress up greed as a moral obligation. It's not in theory or in practice. Corporate officers have very little to fear from not meeting their clear and well defined obligations (Andrew Fastow is serving how much time for losing how many thousands of people their retirement?), much less the fiduciary responsibility requirements.

    The requirements of fiduciary responsibility are usually negative, not positive. You can't do something that's clearly BAD for the company (remember the flap about the network whose manaagement wanted to run an anti-Kerry show? He backed down because it was clearly not in the best fiduciary interest of the company.) However, as for taking a particular positive action (should we develop X or Y? Should we lobby the EU for software patents?), there is no consequence as a breach of "fiduciary responsibility" for taking one action or another. You might get fired for incompetence, but not sued.

    Clearly greed is a human motivation, and serves a purpose - medieval scholars wrote "Blessed is the inclination to evil, without which a man would not plant a vineyard, take a wife, or establish a house." But we all know it can be destructive to society as a whole when applied on a huge scale.

    Fiduciary responsibility does not, in a practical sense, mandate immoral behavior. Dressing it up as some sort of moral obligation is the worst sort of cynicism. It's a call to inaction - "These huge powerful companies HAVE to act this way - no sense in trying to make it turn out any differently." What a bleak world that would be to live in.

  • by mormop ( 415983 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @03:05PM (#11846409)
    Funnily enough, nor do I.

    For the first time ever, Microsoft has real competition and two of the main players are based in Europe, e.g. SuSE and Mandrake. I fully expected Microsoft et al to pressure the EU but didn't expect Europe to basically decapitate the very industry that could have made it a real force to be reckoned with.

    A couple of years ago, there was an EU purge on corruption within the commission itself and a minister was appointed to ensure that it did not recur. Sadly, either the bastards asleep or has other reasons for not acting.

    I used to be all for Europe but UKIP now looks like an attractive option as the old corrupt gravy train image seems just as real now as it did 10 years ago.

    As for Arlene McCarty, if only reward was based on integrity she'd be f*****g penniless
  • by Herschel Cohen ( 568 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @03:12PM (#11846495) Journal
    If so, why not appoint a new commission and negate their actions on patents?
  • Question.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @03:23PM (#11846611)
    Does this have anything to do with Microsoft allegedly threatening to sack 600 people in Danmark if Danmark didn't approve of software patents?

    Because if there is one thing parliaments _really_ hate, it is that kind of thing...

  • by Anonymous Writer ( 746272 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @03:58PM (#11847043)

    It would be impossible to do such a study, because there's no available control group.

    I can recall in the 80's that Taiwan was producing Apple II clones that weren't legal in the US but proliferated in Southeast Asia. I wonder if the semiconductor industry in Taiwan is now more developed and influential than it was back then because of profits gained from ignoring intellectual property restrictions and manufacturing computer clones. Economies with overly restrictive patent laws may end up crippling themselves while those that ignore them become more dominant.

  • by Onno Hovers ( 219380 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @04:39PM (#11847573)
    The cynic in me tells me that the "Software implemented inventions" item will probably be removed from the agenda next monday. It does not matter. It was a big mistake on the part of the pro-patent lobby to push so hard for the adoption of the directive when there was no majority. It put the pro-patent lobby in the position that they had to lobby against democracy. This destroyed any chance of a patent-friendly directive.

    Commissioner McGreevy had effectively lost when the EU parliament voted for the restart with a very large majority. Sure, the commission could refuse the restart, and it foolishly did so. The council might even have adapted the directive. But there was no way this would get through a second reading. Denmark saved McGreevy and the rest of the commission from a devastating showdown with the EU parliament. The commission should be grateful.

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Working...