EU Amends Software Patent Directive (Suggestions)

jopet writes "The EU has amended its draft proposal for a directive on how to handle patents on "computer-implemented inventions'. Several harsh points have been dropped and clarifications on what is patentable at all have been added. Good to see that protests and petitions can make a difference." YHBT. These are the suggestions from June.

Good news!

At last - some good news regarding patents appears on slashdot. A step in the right direction at least for the EU...

Too bad

that they only changed the wording a bit with the central point staying the same.

Oh well.

Well it's a start

but the patent system still need a radical revamp

Re:Insightful?

You may be thinking about patenting processes, ideas, DNA and other rubbish but the EU system isn't as abused or open to abuse as the US.

Actually, it is. Or at least trying very hard to be. The European Patent Office has been issuing [ffii.org] software patents for years, even though it isn't allowed to. They can't be enforced yet, but that will change if the directive passes and is implemented.

Furthermore, the quality of the examination of patent application has decreased drastically [ffii.org] for some time now.

Lesser of two evils?

Great, they've removed some of the harsher language. Woohoo! Of course, the flip side of that is that MEPs that were erring over that language are now more likely to vote for it than before. We used to have a chance of a Software Patent free EU, but I doubt that is going to happen now.

Still, at least it shows that MEPs *do* listen to their constituents, so there is some hope...

Re:There never was a Software Patent Free EU

If you ask me, the response would be that stupid and trivial software patents aren't, algorithm and process patents aren't, computerized 14th century practices aren't, whereas those that are classic patents that just happens to involve a computer, like "method for improving output of sawmill involving computerized scales and sorting" or similar, will be.

But IANAL. In any case, in my view of the world, this directive is a step forward from the current situation.

(Especially given that everything interop is nonpatentable and noninfringing.)

Re:Lesser of two evils?

Still, at least it shows that MEPs *do* listen to their constituents

Once they recover from the shock of hearing from them that is.

Is this enough to stop a repeat of LZW?

(13c) Furthermore, an algorithm is inherently non-technical and therefore cannot constitute a technical invention. Nonetheless, a method involving the use of an algorithm might be patentable provided that the method is used to solve a technical problem. However, any patent granted for such a method would not monopolise the algorithm itself or its use in contexts not foreseen in the patent.

On the surface it seems this amendment would stop patenting general purpose algorithms. On the other hand, a suitably lax definition of "technical problem" makes this all moot. "The LZW arithmetic coding algorithm" is not patentable. "Using the LZW algorithm for data comression" however is. You are still free to use it for other things (like what? Creative Garbling?), but we all the the Phyrricity of that victory.

Old draft from June

It says clearly that the draft is from 18th June 2003 in the top left corner. So how can this be news? Does *anybody* REALLY know/care if all those petitions against eu-it-patents are really still relevant? Does the right hand know what the left hand does? Do petition site owners know what place their petitions belong to? A MEP or (already!) the toilet? I don't know...

Re:Old draft from June

If you check the European Parliament site, you'll find there's a briefing dated 1 September 2003 that implies those amendments are still on track, acknowledging significant differences in opinion among MEPs and concern for the impact on SMEs. The information is still relevant, unless something dramatic has changed this month.

Amendment 20, Article 6 a (new)

Article 6a

Member States shall ensure that wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or network so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement

Holy Crap!

Linus and Alan Cox must've said something to light a fire under the EU's ass! Maybe they mentioned off-hand that they had been hanging out with ESR and were starting to take a "liking" to firearms... :P

Seems good.

The changing seem pretty good e.g.from the justifications:

Unlimited patent protection for software could make it illegal under patent law to engage in reverse engineering practices employed by software developers to achieve interoperability as currently permitted under the exceptions in the Software Copyright Directive. Therefore future EU-legislation related to software patents must include an explicit exception to patent rights in order to ensure that developers of software can continue to engage in the same acts to achieve interoperability under patent law as they are allowed to today within the limits of copyright law."

and: "It is essential to monitor the impact of the patentability of computer-implemented inventions on small and medium-sized undertakings. "

and: This recital makes it clear that it is not enough to specify the use of a computer (i.e. of technical means) to make a computer-implemented invention patentable. The invention as a whole must make a technical contribution. Ordinary data processing is not enough.

and finally: It is essential to make it clear that this Directive is not revolutionary and will not change the status quo as regards the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. It will, however, make for legal certainty and set clear limits as to what is patentable in this area.

As someone who wrote to their MEP, I'm pretty pleased with the changes, looks like we made a difference!

article 4a: exclusions from patentability

One of the most important amendments they added is article 4a:

Exclusions from patentability:

A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable

Man, that was fast!

Linus and Alan write on Sunday, and the EU jumps on Monday. Good show, gentlemen!

Some points

• "...(online) petition can make a difference" ?
  I won't be too sure about that, not when many MEP doesn't (have time to) browse Internet regularly.
  (read Tom Chance's story about his lobbying efforts)
  
  
• It STILL allows software to be patented.
  
  
• Although with many restrictions, including declaring that business method/algorithm to be non-patentable.
  
  
• BUT we have witnessed cases where corporations are able to twist interpretations, and challenge everyone who questioned to go to court.
  Small companies/individuals, which can not afford the cost, will simply admit defeat and comply to whatever the big corporations are demanding them to.
  
  
• So personally, I think we still need to do a lot of real (not virtual) lobbying to ensure that software are not patentable.
  EU have no software-patent legislation now, and to my knowledge, there are no CLEAR cases that justifies this (feel free to enlighten me though)
  

Just my 2 pence on the topic.

good and bad

At least they have the rationale behind patenting right:

Justification
The object of any law relating to patenting is not to ensure that patent-holders enjoy an advantage: the advantage granted to the patent-holder is only a means of encouraging the inventive process for the benefit of the society as whole. The advantages granted to the patent-holder must not work against this ultimate objective of the patent principle.

Too bad that they fail to realise that for the vast majority og patents today the benefit of the society as whole is close to zero while the benefit for the patent holder is an opportunety to create obstacles for competitors (som much for "free" competition).

Good Thing

I am happy to see that the EU listens to criticism. I am even more happy to see that they adapted the directive to make it abundantly clear that algorithms as such cannot be patented, and explicitly upheld the right to reverse engineer. This is a Good Thing.

However, there is still cause for alarm. For example, what is meant by:

In order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be susceptible of industrial application and new and involve an inventive step. In order to involve an inventive step, a computer-implemented invention must make a technical contribution.

There are quite some terms here that could be interpreted wide enough to still pose a threat. Moreover, this is just one proposal; it may change again in the future. Still, I sigh in relief.

Not perfect, but some good stuff here

A lot of the proposed amendments add new clauses that specifically limit software patenting. Probaly not enough limits to satisfy the "no software patents" crowd, but still... it sure would be nice if U.S. law took some of these principles a little more clearly to heart:

(13a) However, the mere implementation of an otherwise unpatentable method on an apparatus such as a computer is not in itself sufficient to warrant a finding that a technical contribution is present. Accordingly, a computer-implemented business method or other method in which the only contribution to the state of the art is non-technical cannot constitute a patentable invention.

* * * * *

(13b) If the contribution to the state of the art relates solely to unpatentable matter, there can be no patentable invention irrespective of how the matter is presented in the claims. For example, the requirement for technical contribution cannot be circumvented merely by specifying technical means in the patent claims.

* * * * *

(13c) Furthermore, an algorithm is inherently non-technical and therefore cannot constitute a technical invention. Nonetheless, a method involving the use of an algorithm might be patentable provided that the method is used to solve a technical problem. However, any patent granted for such a method would not monopolise the algorithm itself or its use in contexts not foreseen in the patent.

* * * * *

2. A claim to a computer program, on its own, on a carrier or as a signal, shall be allowable only if such program would, when loaded or run on a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, implement a product or carry out a process patentable under Articles 4 and 4a.

Actually, my favorite part might be one of the preamble amendments:

The object of any law relating to patenting is not to ensure that patent-holders enjoy an advantage: the advantage granted to the patent-holder is only a means of encouraging the inventive process for the benefit of the society as whole. The advantages granted to the patent-holder must not work against this ultimate objective of the patent principle.

This part should be required reading at the USPTO... :-)

Main Amendments

As far as I can see, here are the amendments that will have the most impact:

(13a) However, the mere implementation of an otherwise unpatentable method on an apparatus such as a computer is not in itself sufficient to warrant a finding that a technical contribution is present. Accordingly, a computer-implemented business method or other method in which the only contribution to the state of the art is non-technical cannot constitute a patentable invention.

(13b) If the contribution to the state of the art relates solely to unpatentable matter, there can be no patentable invention irrespective of how the matter is presented in the claims. For example, the requirement for technical contribution cannot be circumvented merely by specifying technical means in the patent claims.

Article 4a - Exclusions from patentability:
A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable.

Article 6a
Member States shall ensure that wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or network so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement.

So, business methods and algorithms are not patentable, and normally unpatentable inventions cannot be patented just because they are implemented in a novel way.

Also, an exemption has been added whereby you can't be charged with patent infringement if you are simply attempting to achieve interoperability with another program.

Quite a few of the major issues with the legislation have been fixed. I am surprised... politicians have actually listened to the complaints, and not just made token changes.

protests and petitions can make a difference?

Sorry to break the news to you, but it had nothing to do with these online protests and petitions. You see, a wandering hobo sold me a magic 'anti-patent legislation/anti-tiger/rain making' rock a couple days ago. I find this to be the more likley cause of not only these events, but the fact that the sun continues to come up, no tigers have appeared on my lawn, and that rain is forecasted in my area next week.

Europe vs. U.S.

Europe's political stance towards the U.S. is shifting, from close alliance to more competition, if not confrontation.

So Europeans start to notice that pushing Open Source, be it adopting Linux on the desktop, be it simply not passing laws that make OSS development impossible, is going to give them a competitive advantage in the long run.

As a European, I would be as critical about "European Linux hegemony" as I am about "American Microsoft hegemony", but still... Issues like this one may sooner or later make U.S. lawmakers realize that in the end it's the economy, stupid.

Earliest European Patents ?

I got the following from the first few paras of "Explanation":

The proposal under consideration is not revolutionary. The patenting of computer-implemented inventions is not new. Indeed, patents involving use of software have been applied for and granted since the earliest days of the European patent system . . .

Is this really true ? Does this mean that the European patent system started in 1980s ? Or that software patents were in existence before that ?

Bad old news. Plenary vote on wed sept 24th.

The link goes ot the fairly bad [caliu.info] JURI report.

As already said this is old news (June). But this was no good news, since the report endorsed the Commission software patent proposal, although it pretended they were not allowing software patents.

This amendments and those tabled for plenary by political groups and >= 32 MEPs will be debated tommorrow and voted on wednesday. There are good enough amendments tabled, but the question is how many votes they will get. There are also motions for rejection by 4 political groups.

MOD PARENT UP!

Stop the misinformation please. The editors have been fooled. This guy, on the other hand knows what he's talking about. [slashdot.org]

Open Source is for Patents

According to point 2 in the second para of "Explanatory Statements":

Secondly, there is no disagreement, even in the open-source community, that the law of intellectual property should protect computer programs.

There is no disagreement, in my mind, that this document is a bag of lies.

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: FFII take on it

An analysis of these amendments is available here [ffii.org]

Amazon patent excluded?

The real test will be whether the patent that already has been granted to Amazon by the European Patent Office (EPO) will be excluded. It is a patent about sending gifts through a web site, e.g., the possibility of sending an item to an other address than where the bill goes.

This is just one of the 30.000 software related patents that have been granted by the EPO but which are not enforced yet by any European law. If the new law is not going to invalidate some of those patents, then it is simply useless, because patents granted by the EPO would define the interpretation of the law.

This article it totally crap

This is the JURI proposal as introduced by rapporteur Arlene McCarthy and voted in JURI we fight against, an amendment to the original Business Software Aliance/EU Commission proposal.

It is very common that patent protagonists lied to the general public and their collegues. Patent lawyers are like crackers. Cracker circumvent security, patent lawyers circumvent restrictions of patent law. A patent lawyer that cannot file a patent on software patents with the current "JURI amended"-directive proposal would not be worth his money.

Here you find the amendments [ffii.org] that will be voted on and FFII's recommendation. FFII and the Eurolinux Alliance are very strong in Brussels and they grow stronger every day. Many parliamentarians listen to us and then the directive protagonists sell the directive as an fulfillment of our concerns, switching rhethorics, but not substance. About 200 people now focus on this issue as activists on our mailing lists. You can subscribe to [e-mail] [aful.org] or take part in theOnline demonstration [wiki.ael.be] or become a member/supporter of FFII [ffii.org] or sign the Eurolinux Petition [noepatents.org]. You can support FFII by donations or even better by contributions. The European Parliament underestimated us. The patent lawyer slaves in Europarl came under strong pressure. We will be a mayor stakeholder in any future debate. The Green Party/EFA Groups impressed by our work even called for Open Source in the EU institutions [greens-efa.org]

The Green/EFA group in the European Parliament has called on the EU, and in particular on the European Parliament, to support free/open-source software by introducing it into their IT systems. In a letter to the Secretary General of the Parliament, Julian Priestley, dated 9 September, the two Green/EFA Co-Presidents Monica Frassoni and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, argue that - as well as supporting Europe's software industry - switching to free and open source software would benefit the Parliament in terms of data continuity, technological independence and budgetary considerations. It would additionally take note of the Parliament's Echelon resolution, which recommended using non-proprietary software to increase technological security.

I also would like to remind you that the US government lobbied against us [ffii.org], esp. against interoperability in the directive. The wrote a letter to EU parliamentarians. I think it is time to internationalize the debate and we need your help to get rid of EU, US, JP ecc. trivial software patents. Unfortunately OSI does not support anti-swpat action and very few US activists joined forces with us. An OSI representative (Russell Nelson) from the board of directors says they are "neutral" not really caring about Intellectual Property, and that's what is written in their FAQ.

Some myths already debunked !!

Even though this is not at all perfect and what we all would like to have ultimately, this itself have debunked some myths.

Myth #1 Only "big lobbyist" groups like RIAA and "big money" have the capacity to lobby effectively and change laws.

Myth #2 Software programmers , especially FLOSS people can be only arm chair activists and not real activists.

Myth #3 European politicians are completely sold out to bug business corporations and are there to protect their interst only.

In short this one incident shows that small groups like free software activists and other groups CAN make a lot of change if they shed off the cynisism and coplacency and start to act. European activists really took the matter and ACTED rather than being cynical and complacent(yah, weird coexistence of 2 bad characters) like US counterparts. If they continue to do like this, more success is sure. This should be a real boost for all the activists and they should be able to work more vigorously for the next steps. I wish US people take a clue from this incident.

Not good enough & What can we do about it

The amendments still allows software patent.

Worst, it's indeed aimed to enable a party to patent the idea.
(search for " opyright" in the document - don't forget to type the extra space in the beginning)

I agree with various parties, including Linus, that copyright (protection for the expression / the actual code) alone is already enough for software developers.
Ideas should never be patentable.

I know that business method and algorithm are non-patentable by the amendment, but:

[#] EU currently forbid software to be patented, and it's doing OK with numerous software houses, big and small alike, flourishing.

[#] So there's lack of justifiable case for this legislation to exist at all.
A software-patent legislation means making a small opening, which may lead to currently unseen consequences in the future.

[#] This software-patent legislation should not exist at all.
We should aim for its cancellation, not its amendment.

But as revealed by a lobbyist (Ciaran?) some time ago in Slashdot, MEPs doesn't like the idea of rejecting a legislation proposal; since they view it as a waste of EU resources.
So this definitely is not going to be easy. But I think we have to aim that high, for our own future.

I've also written another comment that may be relevant here [slashdot.org].

Anyway, I'd like to write/fax (not email/other virtual means of communication) to my representative in EU parliament. But so far I've failed to find out how.
Can anyone enlighten me please ?

Thanks.

This is NOT the version they will vote on.

This is the draft version of June 18, which is the one that was supposed to be voted on on 1st September. That vote has been postponed and new changes have been made. Let's wait the real thing, before commenting any further.

We're hardly out of the woods yet...

Good to see that protests and petitions can make a difference

Unfortunately, that remains to be seen.

First of all, as far as I know a vote is necessary to determine if these amendments make it into the directive.

Even so, most of these amendments are just polishing language. They do not really change the character of the directive proposal, in that it allows software patents (in contradiction to what it says in the explanatory part that it intends to clarify the existing European Patent Convention, and not to replace it. The EPC explicitly prohibits software patents).

A big problem is the definition of the term "technical". It can easily be argued that the use of a certain algorithm e.g. to improve software performance is "technical" and can be patented even if the algorithm itself cannot be patented. Hopefully the following amendment will be included in the final directive:

The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a technical field. The processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes.

The following amendment:

Member States shall ensure that wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or network so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement.

looks promising, but it would still allow the abominable GIF patent as a conversion when it is not specifically used for data exchange between computer systems.

We can always hope the MEPs will vote for a directive that prohibits patenting of any software (and the process of running such software) that is intended for general purpose computers, such as operating systems, office suites, data base software etc, etc, in line with the existing EPC. However, I am not too confident that this will happen...

Looks good...

I contacted all Swedish MEPs last time around, and urged a couple of my friends to do the same. I'm really glad to see that is made some difference, especially as I got a bit pessimistic seeing the stance that our Swedish Social Democratic Party took regarding this.
The liberals, however, were on our side. I haven't had time to read through the whole thing, but it looks like the same conclusion that Canada came to.
Go Europe!

Still very sceptic: device drivers

I'm still very sceptic to these amendments. They require a technical invention to allow software to be patentable.

Software in conjunction with a technical invention is called a device driver. So basically, this amendment still allows device drivers to be patentable.

does wording matter?

The EU has amended its draft proposal

Not to be a pessimist but will wording matter in the long run? I believe the US patent office claims that patents have to be novel and I know they insist there be no prior art and we've seen example after example of stupid, non-novel and pre-existing technologies being patented. This leaves me curious: does anyone here know if the EU patent office is better at following the letter of their law than the US seems to be?

Protest in Strasbourg, France tomorrow

LUG de Strasbourg

Communique de presse
Pour diffusion immediate.

Manifestation contre les Brevets Logiciels le 23 septembre 2003

Strasbourg, le 16 septembre 2003

La proposition de directive concernant les brevets logiciels, qui sera
soumise au Parlement Europeen durant la session du 23 septembre, donne lieu
a une vague de protestations sur toute l'Europe.

Le groupe Verts/ALE au Parlement europeen invite a une conference de presse
avec des invites prestigieux le 17 septembre 2003 a Bruxelles.
(http://www.greens-efa.org/fr/press/de tail.php?id= 1521&lg=fr)

De leur cote, le LUG de Strasbourg, la FFII et l'Alliance Eurolinux
appellent a manifester a Strasbourg le mardi 23 septembre 2003 a partir de
11h00 place Kleber pour une marche en direction du Parlement Europeen. Cette
action sur le terrain sera appuyee par des manifestations en-ligne.

Derriere ces manifestations, on trouve une coalition d'organisations
representant pas moins de 2000 entreprises du secteur logiciel et de plus de
200 000 individus, pour la plupart des professionnels de l'informatique et
les signataires d'une petition en-ligne.

Pour les organisateurs "la proposition legaliserait des milliers de brevets
deja delivres par l'Office Europeen des Brevets, contre la lettre et
l'esprit de la loi. Cela rendrait impossible aux cours de justice nationales
de continuer a les rejeter." La directive proposee protege les interets des
possesseurs de brevets et des juristes en brevets, des gens que la
Commission appelle "une majorite economique", ignorant le rejet unanime des
brevets logiciels exprime via la petition de l'Alliance Eurolinux sur le
sujet : 94% de reponses negatives !

Le programme des protestations a Strasbourg est le suivant :

11:00-12:30 | Place Kleber | Defile dans les rues de Strasbourg jusqu'au
Parlement Europeen
12:30-14:00 | Manifestation devant le Parlement avec spectacle, enumeration
de brevets absurdes deja deposes, discours.

"Le brevet europeen est defini par la convention de Munich, traite
international ratifie par 19 etats independamment du traite de Rome.
L'article 52 de la Convention du Brevet Europeen stipule que les brevets sur
les programmes d'ordinateur en tant que tels sont interdits en Europe.
Pourtant, l'Office Europeen des Brevets a accorde des centaines de brevets
portant sur des programmes d'ordinateurs", nous dit Eric Bischoff du LUG de
Strasbourg, "Accepter cette proposition de directive europeenne serait
suicidaire pour les PME et PMI europeennes, cela revient a livrer pieds et
poings lies l'ensemble des petites entreprises europeennes a la merci des
grosses societes americaines et japonaises, qui ont depose 65% des brevets
logiciels europeens."

"La grande majorite de nos supporters ne sera certainement pas presente le
23 septembre. Mais ceux qui ne peuvent pas se deplacer a Strasbourg pourront
participer a la manifestation en ligne, via leurs serveurs web ou d'autres
services Internet" explique Harmut Pilch, president de la FFII. "Nous avons
propose differentes facons de participer a la manifestation en ligne. Tout
le monde en trouvera certainement une qui lui convient. Il vaut sans doute
mieux rendre l'acces a sa page web un peu plus difficile pour les quelques
jours a venir plutot que de perdre sa liberte de publication pour les dix
ans qui viennent. Rendez-vous compte que si le rapport McCarthy est approuve
tel quel, sans y introduire des amendements drastiques, le Droit d'Auteur et
la liberte de publication deviendront sans valeur. Les programmeurs et les
fournisseurs de services Internet seront regulierement poursuivis pour
violation de brevets. Le 23 septembre est la derniere chance de faire
entendre sa voix."

A few things to consider ...

The EU patent office has already deviated in its practise from already has been EU patent law before. The new proposal is even more specific of what is and what is not patentable. This does not mean of course that the EU rejects software patents alltogether (though I would certainly welcome that :) ). But at least it is a step in the right direction that probably renderes several of the "famous" patents invalid, should it get officially adopted. The bottom line is IMO that it is worth the effort to contact the politicians, sign petitions etc.

Has NO ONE read the amendments?

Slashdot, you should be ashamed of yourself (more than usual).

These are the amendments from the pro-patent camp, the people pushing the directive.

The only good thing in there is the exclusion of Business Method patents. Everything else is just moving words around and generally strengthening the "software innovation = invention" stance. (inventions are patentable).

The vote is on the 24th of this month. No amendments have been adopted yet, that's what the vote is for.

Ciaran O'Riordan

This story is a misrepresentation

The amendments include such things as introduction of software claims (amendment 18 from by Mr. Galgani, PPE-DE) and a definition of technical contribution which is exactly the same than the one proposed by the pro-patent European Council intellectual property committee.

For an analysis see:
Analysis of JURI amendments by FFI [ffii.org]

Interoperability exception

Member States shall ensure that wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or network so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement.

Sounds good.

You can't do that...

The industry already has a patent on the power of suggestion.

"You are getting sleepier... you will believe dancing cleanroom guy when he says 2x GHz == 2x speed increase..."

Yes, you are getting your hopes up.

First of all, MS has enough inertia(not to mention cash) to keep coasting along on their installed user base for decades. Then you must remember that this actually allows software patents in the EU, they are forbidden right now. This plays in MS's hand, though less so than the system that is in place in the US. Also the DMCA-like EUCD is moving in the same direction.

But the most important thing is that, in order to curtail predatory business practices one must prosecute effectively, because failure to do so renders the entire legal framework a waste of paper. I love the EU with all my heart, but sometimes wasting paper is all they seem to be good at.

Re:Goddamned Eurotrash

"Hello! By ourselves, we are insignificant! But let's band together so we can pretend this is the 2nd millennium and feel important!"

We refer to that phenomenon as "E Pluribus Unum", or "Out Of Many, One" on our side of the pond.