Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents IT

EU Software Patent Directive Adopted 455

sebFlyte writes "FTA: "An EU Council spokeswoman said on Monday morning that the Computer Implemented Inventions Directive had been adopted." Apparently it's due to 'institutional reasons' that they're ignoring the outcry from developers and several nation states ..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Software Patent Directive Adopted

Comments Filter:
  • by castlec ( 546341 ) <`castlec' `at' `yahoo.com'> on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:05AM (#11864381)
    we'll have to write good, patent infringing software. software that is so good it causes the downfall of a company and benefits the world while doing it. all of this, while trying to remain anonymous. i take this time to wish everyone good luck.
  • Time for a lobby (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SeanJones ( 858119 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:06AM (#11864388)
    This is now in the hands of our beloved European Parliament. I understand that most of the MEPs have long since been lobbied to the brink of resignation on this issue, but let's make them work for their croissants and travel expenses. The linkk below is to a list of UK MEP's email addresses: http://vox.org.uk/MEPMail.htm Sean
  • ffii article (Score:2, Interesting)

    by FoeNyx ( 676253 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:12AM (#11864428) Journal
    I love this part of the ffii article [ffii.org] :
    " Luxembourg negated the Council's own Rules of Procedure, which state that a B-item (which is at the same time a request to remove an A item) can only be rejected by the a majority of the Council, and not just by the Presidency. (art 3.8) "
  • Re:ffii article (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:13AM (#11864437)
    So?

    The other nations surely knew that it wasn't right, but they still didn't say a word.
  • Re:see you (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JohnFred ( 16955 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:14AM (#11864442) Homepage
    It's not at all obvious. The Parliament is supposed to gain more power on paper, but there are several complicating factors, like the new President, Foreign Ministry, and streamlined Council. The BBC have attempted to summarise [bbc.co.uk] it..
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:18AM (#11864460)
    http://wiki.ffii.org/Cons050307En :-(
  • by born_to_live_forever ( 228372 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:22AM (#11864495) Homepage

    I've been fundamentally opposed to the EEC/EU for as long as I've been an adult voter. I first voted "No" to a proposal to expand EEC powers in 1986, and I've consistently followed this path, ever since.

    In recent years, however, I had been considering a number of arguments in favour of the EU, and I was actually leaning towards voting in favour of the new constitutional treaty, at the upcoming referendum (in my native Denmark).

    Not any longer.

    If I had any doubts about voting "No" at the upcoming referendum, this situation has removed them. The process has revealed a complete disinterest in democracy at the highest levels of the EU - and a servility towards "business interests" (for which read: certain major corporations and their vested interests in maintaining their monopolistic powers) that borders on the shameful.

    The autumn, I will go to the polls and vote "No". I urge any Europeans with similar concerns to adopt the same position.

  • by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:24AM (#11864509) Journal
    I.e. all hands on deck for a topic that is not likely to attract votes from ordinary EU citizens.

    It all depends. On the surface, this is about patents, but (assuming we're not being misled) this is about democracy, and the EU Parliament being made irrelevent.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:32AM (#11864562)
    I've not read the constitution, but how would it affect the decision making process? Here the problem is the will of the European Parliament (democratically elected) being overridden by the European Commission (appointed by national governments). The constitution may give more power to the Parliament and therefore be a good thing from the s/w patent point of view.
  • How traditional... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:34AM (#11864572)
    Repeatedly ask the same question till you get the "correct" answer

    and if you get bored doing that demonstrate that you didn't give a damn anyway. :(

    I don't fathom how I can possibly write any software that doesn't infringe "something", all the more amusing if I sat in a room for some time and worked out an "obvious" way to solve some problem.

    I think it's fair to say that China is going to kick us all inside out with technological advancement now. Well, serves us right in some way I guess :(
  • What can be done? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:40AM (#11864614)
    Is there anything that we can do to stop European software patents now? As a UK software developer, I'm quite ashamed that I haven't done my bit to prevent this.

    What do you consider to be the most effective course of action?
  • Re:no suprise there. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Handpaper ( 566373 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:41AM (#11864624)
    It is sad that it happened in the face of huge opposition

    So (nearly) did a blanket 100PS power limit on every motorcycle manufactured in or imported into the EC. This was former Commissioner Martin Bangemann's pet project, and it took intensive lobbying from among others, the Motorcycle Action Group [mag-uk.org] and Triumph Motorcycles [triumph.co.uk] to slow it down, but it only died when Bangemann himself ceased to be a Commissioner.
    This was a virtally unresearched, transparently anti-competitive (Bangemann was trying to protect BMW [bmw.com], who, up until about five years ago, had a similar self-imposed limit) piece of legislation, supported by almost no-one else and more than once rejected by the European Parliament, yet it still took the downfall of its sponsor to kill it.

    Moral?
    EU Commissioners have far too much power, far too little responsibility, and are too difficult to get rid of.

    Incidentally, I'm uncertain whether BMW themselves actually had anything to do with this mess, but shortly afterward, they lifted their self-imposed limit and now make some very nice [bmwmotorcycles.com] bikes.

  • by kidtux ( 700283 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:42AM (#11864632) Homepage Journal
    I was reading an interesting article in a recent issue of eWeek that pointed out the fact that if Open Source development is slowed in Europe, it's entirely plausible that developing nations could surpass the technological innovation in Europe simply because with open standards its possible to move a lot faster. We shouldn't have to push the FUD angle, but it's an interesting point the eWeek article makes.
  • by Carewolf ( 581105 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:42AM (#11864636) Homepage
    Yes the Danish representetive Bendt Bendsen is pro-swpat. He followed his mandate as little as possible. The presidency would have know that, he was willing to stop with any possible excuse and gave him one.

  • by TerminalSpin ( 766133 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:51AM (#11864696)
    What can be done now?
    If this is going to be forced upon us, can we do anything to take some of the bite out of it?
    For example, we know that it is prohibitively expensive for the man in the street to register patents for the kind of trivia that Megacorp Inc. are inclined to do. So does anyone know if there is any kind of facility for proactively declaring prior art?
    In other words, if I produce something and release it as GPL - is there somewhere where I could also declare that anything patentable within it should be considered to be in the public domain?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:54AM (#11864719)
    So please, write your local member of the EU parliament and tell him that you ask him to do everything within his power to stop this madness.

    I would, but what's the point? Last time I tried that, his reply was basically "thank you for your concern, but I'm not going to succeed in my life goal of becoming a bigger arsehole than Mr Goatse unless I can get myself sodomised by every major US corporation at once."
  • by erichschubert ( 96206 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:56AM (#11864735) Homepage
    Hi, I need a lot of people that help me googlebomb the european council - set a link to ue.eu.int: Banana Republic Europe [eu.int] to get it into google.
    Thanks. ;-)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 07, 2005 @10:00AM (#11864766)
    Not true in EU. Here the patent is granted based on the application date, not the "discovery" date, which applies in the US. Makes it much clearer.

    Which is why sw patents would be a very bad move for Europe -- businesses in the U.S. have been applying for sw patents for years. The land grab is over. EU lost.

  • Re:What can be done? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 07, 2005 @10:17AM (#11864906)
    What do you consider to be the most effective course of action?

    Maybe the UKers can meet up and have a discussion about this, our future, and so on.

  • by gini_ ( 93053 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @10:30AM (#11865050)
    Can they be sued for this?
  • What if... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 07, 2005 @10:38AM (#11865137)
    Since the council has no legislative arm, this directive, even if passed, must be enacted into law by the individual parliaments.

    What if no (or at least a majority) ignore the directive and do NOT pass a law to implement this directive? The parliamentary imperative being that the council are unelected where the parliament is and could well get voted out before any legislation gets passed, so why bother?
  • by sadler121 ( 735320 ) <msadler@gmail.com> on Monday March 07, 2005 @10:46AM (#11865208) Homepage
    not just the servers but yourself personally (if not you WILL be sued).

    Look to Africa and Asia to be the lead innovators as the EU and America descend into a new dark age.
  • Re:Knuts (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 07, 2005 @10:54AM (#11865295)
    Mplayer already ignores copyright law and illegally distributes Microsoft's, Apple's and Real's binary DLLs.

    Why would they give a fuck about patent law?
  • by mikael ( 484 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @10:57AM (#11865326)
    If this directive is passed, European software researchers like my firm are basically put out of business.

    It also has the potential to severely damage the UK games industry - there are around 400+ game development teams. These would be seen as a cash cow for McKool Smith given their litigation with Electronic Arts, Take-Two Interactive, Ubisoft, Activision, Atari, THQ, Vivendi Universal Games, Sega, Square Enix, Tecmo, LucasArts, and Namco Hometek [gamedaily.com]
  • GPL modification (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Richard_J_N ( 631241 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @11:25AM (#11865653)
    I wonder whether a suitable monkey-wrench could be obtained by a change to the GPL. Something (in legalese) like:

    If you sue anyone for patent infringement, you lose your right to use patented techniques under the GPL. i.e. anyone else who wrote GPL software can then sue you.

    This could be made to work, since when someone releases GPL software, they are essentially granting a free license to everyone to use any patented methods within the software. If that right were revoked for those starting lawsuits, it could be a useful start.

    It could, in principle, fix the problem of large real companies (eg Microsoft) trying to crush smaller ones. What is left unresolved is how to deal with the really bad guys: "pure IP organisations" such as Eolas.
  • by Windcatcher ( 566458 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @11:29AM (#11865700)
    Before 1913, our Senators were elected by our state legistatures. This produced Senators that were nigh untouchable, and their job was just another rung on the politican's ladder. All their parties had to do was demagogue national-level concerns to keep the state voters in line and they could keep their man in power. Finally we had to amend our own Constitution to do something about it, oh, only about 120 years after it was created in the first place (Amendment XVII). Something like this can last a long time.

    I'm not writing to gloat, merely to inform. From my standpoint, unelected legislators are never a good idea. If you must have two legislative houses in the EU, better to have an upper and a lower house where both are popularly elected. If I lived over there I would vote against any Constitution that featured an unelected body.
  • by Jacco de Leeuw ( 4646 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @12:50PM (#11866340) Homepage
    Is the European Parliament known for large numbers of MEPs not bothering to show up to vote?

    I'm afraid so. I don't know if it has changed (the current MEPs are relatively new) but there was a TV documentary about MEPs showing up, signing the presentation list for the (considerable) travel expenses and leaving immediately.

  • Re:What if... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cortana ( 588495 ) <sam@[ ]ots.org.uk ['rob' in gap]> on Monday March 07, 2005 @01:37PM (#11866984) Homepage
    You can't escape from a directive. If you try then the countries that do implement the directive impose trade sanctions on you.

    The EU is shit.
  • by NatteringNabob ( 829042 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @01:53PM (#11867180)
    There is a pretty strange thing going on here. Slashdot is news for nerds, which I always assumed included a substantial number of software developers. The comments are uniformly anti-software patents. As a software developer myself, I am 100% in agreement, software patents in general stifle innovation in order to protect monopolists. The amazing thing is that governments around the world have decided to 'protect' us against our will, so there must be some of us that support software patents. I invite all such people to post here and explain why. This would be an excellent topic for a slashdot poll in fact, as there are really only three choices:

    1) No software patents

    2) Allow software patents

    3) Cowboy Neal
  • Re:What if... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @02:29PM (#11867606) Homepage Journal
    Implement it, but don't enforce it.
  • by cheesybagel ( 670288 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @03:24PM (#11868228)
    The large corporations are not happy with getting money from selling products or services in an open market anymore. They want a license to print money.

    They are doing this by trying to apply patents and copyrights nearly universally (remember HP trying to apply the DMCA to printer cartridges?). Next thing you know, auto parts will have anti-circumvention devices and special lock codes so only a licensed auto-mechanic can repair them. Then you have DVD region codes (which HP seems to want to include now in printers too), which are nothing more than pure vendor lock-in so they can charge different prices at different places as they please giving no alternative.

    This is Neo-Feudalism. Make no mistake about it. The barons are the corporate leaders (many of the Japanese corporate leaders used to come from Samurai families, so for them I suppose this is going back to the old times). Hopefully we can revert it by peaceful means before it sinks in.

  • by Jeremy Erwin ( 2054 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @03:59PM (#11868659) Journal
    China has a patent system. It's just that it's a patent system with Chinese characteristics [nytimes.com] For one thing, prior art isn't considered. If a Chinese company has the cash and the connections, they can copy a foreign invention and get a patent on it.
  • by born_to_live_forever ( 228372 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @04:03PM (#11868702) Homepage

    If you think Bendtsen is an idiot presently, try reading this: Minutes, meeting of the Folketing's EU Affairs Committee, June 23 2004 [www.ft.dk]. Bendtsen is just about the most arrogantly ignorant idiot you can imagine, and this really shows him off as what he is. Note his condescending tone...

    In response to the several posters who have urged me to vote "Yes" because, in their estimation, a vote against the new treaty merely supports the undemocratic nature of the EU, I can only say that they obviously have not read the treaty text.

    The "new EU" is by no means any more democratic than the present. In fact, it retains the current system whereby the unelected council dominates the political process. Since it also takes away veto rights of individual (democratically-elected) national parliaments, I consider it a step backwards for democracy in the EU. The present mess has only convinced me that it is a proud and noble thing to vote "No".

  • by lordholm ( 649770 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @05:13PM (#11869588) Homepage
    It isn't actually that bad.

    For absolute majority 367 votes of 732 is needed, this equates around 50.136612 %, not 70 as stated in the parent.

    Four things can happen now:

    1. The EP approves the Council's proposal. This ends the process and the proposal is made into law.

    2. The EP approves the proposal but with amendments. The new proposal is then sent to the Council for a second reading. This requires absolute majority or 367 votes of 732. Before the Council's second reading the Commission is allowed to make a statement.

    The Council's second reading can accept the EP's proposal with a qualified majority, or reject it. If it is rejected, the Council and EP must form a committee that consist of an equal number of representatives from the two bodies. If the committee agrees the proposal is sent to the EP and Commission for formal adoptation, if no agreement can be made the law is dead and can't be resurrected.

    If the compromise goes to formal adoptation, the Council must approve the compromise with qualified majority, and the EP must approve it with a absolute majority. If either Council or EP fails to approve the compromise the law is dead. If both approves the compromise, it is made into law.

    3. The EP rejects the proposal. This terminates all future attempts to pass this piece of legislation. This requires absolute majority or367 votes of 732.

    4. The EP does not do anything within 3 months (+ 1 month possible as an extension). In this case, the Council's common position is treated as accepted and made law.
  • by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @06:38PM (#11870811)
    Someday, this may cause a revolution...I hope.

    Karl Marx thought so, too. He identified the problem all right - read the parts of the Communist Manifesto that deal with how capitalist imperialism was set to evolve and tell me it hasn't happened. Globalisation, corporatism, empire by proxy, it's all there. Unfortunately, his proposed solution didn't work out.

    Any better ideas? I thought European-style social democracy was working pretty well, but the EU seems intent on acting paradoxically against its own interests here...

The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine

Working...