EU Software Patents Dead Again 325
Joe Blakesley writes "Heise is reporting (in German) that the JURI (legal division of the European Parliament who tend to be more pro-EPO) have voted to invoke Rule 55 for a total restart of the software patents process (going back through the anti-swpat Parliament with a totally new directive) following attempts by the EC to get their directive through by the back door. This is an important victory for democracy and it means we can no longer say that the JURI is out. Also see Groklaw's story."
Rule 55 (Score:5, Insightful)
Rule 55 is not Catch 22 (Score:5, Informative)
Well, Rule 55 [eu.int] is the parliamentary equivalent of rebooting.
So, you could say the current status of the patent initiative is like BSOD.
But who knows what will happen next time around?
Re:Rule 55 is not Catch 22 (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Rule 55 is not Catch 22 (Score:2)
It might be a bad install if the BSOD's keep reoccuring like they've done lately.
I suggest a reformat and a reinstall of a new european commission.
Re:Rule 55 is not Catch 22 (Score:2)
FDISK and FORMAT.
Re:Rule 55 is not Catch 22 (Score:2, Funny)
Not 22. 55 = Not for sale. (Score:2)
Article translated to English w/Google (Score:5, Informative)
The co-ordinators of the responsible legal committee of the European Union parliament approximately set the switches this evening in the procedure around the planned guideline over the patenting barness of " computer-implemented inventions" seriously to restart. "we decided practically unanimously with only two abstentions that our president explained at the commission a Rekonsultation requested", to SPE Koordinatorin Maria Berger after the approximately three-hour meeting opposite heise on-line. As soon as parliament president Josep Borrell Fontelles follows that urge of the legal committee, the commission is requested to be concerned again with the guideline. Concretely the commission is to send their original guideline suggestion either again to the European Union parliament or submit a new.
Thus the legislation way was walked on completely from the front. The delegates support themselves by article 55 of the agenda of the European parliament. It plans a renewed fundamental concerning of the delegates with a guideline suggestion among other things, if the kind of the treated problem changes "crucially" or the parliament assembles again after definition of its point of view by elections. Appropriate requests had placed a group of 61 delegates as well as the Greens.
The legal committee had looked for Charlie McCreevy in the afternoon first together with domestic market commissioner for ways out of the muddled situation. The Irish had called recently the verabschiedung of the legislation still pending "key measure" for the stimulation of innovation and competition . With the meeting McCreevy spoke now of a "delicate affair". The of Luxembourg council presidency received in the meantime written promises for the Abnicken of the position of the Minister committee without further discussion during one of the next meetings. Naturally however a "constructional dialogue" is necessary between advice and parliament for the reaching of an agreement. In the question, whether the commission desire after a new start will follow, it did not want to commit itself. It stressed that "all options were open". At the same time he said the fact that the guideline was actually important since to a "considerable juridical insecurity" leads everything else.
The European Union advice is guessed/advised with its in May negotiated position into a dead end, since this limits the patenting barness of computer programs in the opinion of countries such as Poland not sufficiently . The government of the new entry country prevented therefore the Abnicken of the point of view of the Minister committee already several times . In addition, Denmark blocked past week the official verabschiedung of the advice position again
Hartmut Pilch, executive committee of the promotion association for a free Informationelle infrastructure ( FFII ), made opposite heise on-line clear that he is for a revision of the advice position by the Minister committee. If the advice should not change its attitude however, the way for a restart, hit now, is the secondarybest solution. The Austrian Berger is pleased in particular that "we brought back movement into the thing. We must come in the long run to a legislation, which is closer at the point of view of the parliament than at the advice position ". The European Union delegates had in September 2004 in 1. Reading a guideline version submitted, which would put a latch plate for software patents forward . Also for their land woman, the Green EH Lichtenberger, is the current "courageous" initiative of the committee "a good beginning, but not yet the lucky end in the question of patenting of software."
The parliament correspondent for the guideline, the French socialist and ex Prime Minister Michel Rocard, expressed themselves however against a restart. He fears that the changes from the 1. Reading so to be lost could come and in particular a guideline still more harmful for the middle class or the procedure completely adjust could. Also Piia Noora Kauppi, Schattenberichterstatterin for the people's party, had first doubts about a renewed 1. Reading expressed. In the long run it gave in however, since there is in its opinion momentarily no other way out.
This shows the truth..... (Score:5, Interesting)
It shows that Freewill and Free thinking is still present in the EU and has not been polluted by the deranged thoughts of MPAA/RIAA and others with similar agenda.
I it obvious that soon the U$A will be something similar to the world in Orwells 1984.
And im not blaming Bu$h, but the coperate infiltrators in the senate.
Re:This shows the truth..... (Score:3, Funny)
I wish Mavis Bacon would infiltrate your post and clean it the fuck up.
Re:This shows the truth..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This shows the truth..... (Score:5, Interesting)
The American public are more impressed by a slick PR campaign than by where their pols stand on the issues.. they are willing to vote someone in on name recognition [ca.gov] than on a real knowlege of who that person is and what they stand for.. when you need megabucks to pay for a campaign that you may win or lose, then you have to whore yourself out to the highest bidder, and this means the megacorps.. (in my country it's a tad different, they get in and then plunder the treasury.. but the slick campaign remains)
so its our fault. after all, no one is FORCING us to vote those idiots in. if people were willing to vote responsibly, then there would be no need for slick campaigns, only a willingness to actually work for the good of the people.. until then power to the sheeple!!!
SuchethaHasta la vista, baby (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This shows the truth..... (Score:3, Interesting)
To vote responsibly, you have to be aware of, and have accurate information about what the real issues are. Then you have to think critically about the issues before casting your ballot. It turns out that our schools aren't doing their job of training people to think for themselves and analyze an argument. IMHO this is the most important job of a teacher. Before we castigate the parents, be aware that they came from the same system.
The other point is that the power mongers do their da
Re:This shows the truth..... (Score:4, Interesting)
i wasn't railing on the gubernator, but.. (Score:2)
i DO think arnie got in on name recognition, and i agree with n0nsensical, that doesn't have to mean he's a bad governor.. but it just shows that being a person with values doesn't really mean anything unless you have a good PR crew
Suchetha
Re:This shows the truth..... (Score:5, Funny)
Paxman: "Tell me Mr Blair, did you pray together ?"
Blair: "I'm sorry, pardon ?"
Paxman: "Did you pray together ?"
Blair: "Er, um pray ?"
Paxman: "Yes pray. You're both Christians aren't you ? And one of the things Christians do is pray isn't it ?"
Blair: "Pray
Paxman: "I see."
Re:This shows the truth..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Opportunity for informed debate (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Opportunity for informed debate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Opportunity for informed debate (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Opportunity for informed debate (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Opportunity for informed debate (Score:3, Insightful)
And why shouldn't they?
The term "intellectual property" is rather misleading: there are superficial similarities between patents, copyright and trademarks, to give the most common examples, but their significance is rather different.
In particular, while software patents are one of those ideas that sounded promising but has been shown not to work well in practice, copyright has been quite the opposite. This
Re:Opportunity for informed debate (Score:3, Informative)
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not claiming that physical property and "intellectual property" are equivalent concepts; clearly they differ in many significant ways, including those you mentioned.
However, they are both equally artificial. The defau
Re:Opportunity for informed debate (Score:3, Informative)
It's no more special than any other law, and it's there for exactly the same reason: overall, it is helpful to society.
Please see my reply to the post above yours: you don't have any rights with that real, physical property without the law either.
Your alternative plan where society co
Re:Opportunity for informed debate (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Opportunity for informed debate (Score:3, Insightful)
Reassuring (Score:3, Informative)
There's s/t else politicians care about (Score:5, Insightful)
I jumped party line the last European Parliament election to hand pick a MEP that was solidly behind FFII's line. And I let all of the involved people, including the MEP and my previous MEP, know it.
Did they care? Did they respond? Yes, they responded to my e-mail. That was a sign in itself.
Politicians ultimately need votes. Regardless of business interests, compromises, if they don't get votes they're out of a job. Let them know what counts. It works.
Re:There's s/t else politicians care about (Score:2)
Now if only we could find a politician who plays GTA...
Re:Reassuring (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can I hear from Denmark please? (Score:2)
So the natural thing to do is stall and delay. Fortunately this help the good guys in this case but it's purely accidential. Poland deserves a hell of a lot more praise.
Re:Reassuring (Score:3)
For now IBM, Sun, Microsoft, Apple, etc, still have to keep patenting every new line of code, in case the law doesn't turn around (because if they don't, someone else will, and might start causing trouble. Patent things to cover their asses, then release the patents because its all ridiculous (unless, of course, they figure out a way to charge $10/month on one. But i digress).
I hop
Re:Reassuring (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I wouldn't hold your breath. It's certainly not impossible that the US patent system will be changed, but I don't see it happenning in the near future.
We'll have to first wait and see how the whole thing in Europe turns out. It's still possible that they say that any software algorithms can be patented. I think that is now quite unlikely. Another possibility is that they say no software patents at all - my favourite, but we may not see it happen. The third option would be that they come up with some definition of what is patentable, and we see some restricted form of software patents.
I think that third option is what a lot of them will be aiming for, but I think they will have a hard time getting enough people to agree on what should be patentable, in which case I think we're more likely to end up with no software patents at all, as a number of countries are very much against a free-for-all - Poland and Denmark have been mentioned already; the German parliament agreed that SW patents are not good (that's all 4 major parties, and they almost never all agree with each other), and there may be hope for the UK too. Certainly, the UK patent office is very aware of the problems that patent abuse can cause, as reported here [bbc.co.uk], and maybe, just maybe, the governement will listen.
If the EU actually does rule against software patents, it will be a very compelling reason for IT companies to do development in the EU rather than in the US, and that is something that may trigger the US to review their system, but that will all take time.
Patents are supposed to encourage people to invent and disclose, so that everyone can benefit. If that is not happenning, then patents are not working and the goal is not being reached. Many are using patents as a form of protectionism, and this abuse is something that the EU now has a chance to address. I really hope they do.
-- Steve
Re:Reassuring (Score:2)
The UKPO speaks with a forked tongue.
They have a history [zdnet.co.uk] of saying things that mean multiple things, depending on the listener's point of view, and then campaigning strongly behind closed doors to allow unfettered patentability.
The most glaring example of this is their use of "status quo" which one might think meant that they were trying to preserve the current ban on software patents, whereas they actually want to preserve th
Re:Reassuring (Score:5, Interesting)
What if you just like to use what you regard as the best and most economical tool for the job?
I strongly disagree with Software patents, but I wouldn't put myself into any of your 3 categories - not everyone bases their software choices on political views.
Sorry to be a pedant
Re:Reassuring (Score:2)
Because on the job you need to sistematically analyse whther your company has:
* The freedom to work (no expiring licenses, etc...)
* The freedom to grow (just copy this software to any employee, no extra cost to grow but the hardware)
* Vendor independence (if you can hire someone to study and adapt software to your needs, or do it yourself!)
* Maintenance cost dillution (if you distribute the cost of maintaining
Read all about it on ffii page (Score:5, Informative)
Brussels, 2 February 2005 - The Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (JURI) has decided with a large majority to ask the Commission for a renewed referral of the software patents directive. With only two or three votes against and one abstention, the resolution had overwhelming support from the committee, and all-party backing.
The decision is a powerful statement from MEPs that the current Council text, and the logjam of concern it has caused, is simply not a sustainable way forward. It is now up to the Commission to submit a new, or the same, proposal to the Parliament. Parliament will then hold a new first reading, this time under the guidance of Michel Rocard MEP as rapporteur.
The European Commissioner for the Internal Market, Charlie McCreevy, had in the morning assured the JURI Committee that the Council would finally adopt its beleaguered Common Position text. He announced that "the Luxembourg Presidency has now received written assurances concerning the re-instatement of this issue as an A point at a forthcoming Council". Given that A points are to be adopted without discussion, this left no possibilities for renewed negotiations in the Council. Apparently, the Members of Parliament concluded that a restart was the best solution.
Former french prime minister Michel Rocard MEP, PES (FR/PS), gave a very strong speech at the meeting with the Commissioner. Apart from noting several "inelegancies" by the Commission, such as not taking into account any of the Parliament's substantive amendments in its recommendation to the Council, he also took issue with the Dutch and German governments ignoring their respective parliaments and the attempted ratifications of the political (dis)agreement at several fishery Council meetings. He furthermore mentioned that at a meeting with the Polish government, the industry players had confirmed that the Council text allowed pure software patents, and he wondered how the Commission could continue claiming the reverse. He was also curious about how the Commission's perfectly tautological definition of the concept "technical" could help in any way to distinguish between what is patentable and what is not.
Despite his own abstention when voting on the restart later that day, the fact that almost everyone else supported it is probably his personal achievement.
The Commissioner made clear that "any agreement will need to strike a fair balance between different interests", and that "a constructive dialogue between the Council and Parliament will be vital for an agreement". He does have the option to deny a new first reading. But given the strength of feeling in the Parliament and the concerns of so many member states in the Council, the Parliament request looks like the best way to achieve a clean way forward for this Directive that everyone has been looking for.
Comments
Jonas Maebe, board member of FFII:
The Commissioner can jumpstart the constructive dialogue by submitting
a new and more balanced proposal to the European Parliament this time. By
taking into account the countless new facts that have surfaced since the
start of this procedure in 2002, the Commission has a great opportunity to
reinvigorate the Lisbon strategy.
Dieter Van Uytvanck, president FFII Belgium:
We owe this victory for democracy to the members of the European
parliament. Today they have shown once again that they really care
about the concerns of the European citizens. And of course we would
like to thank those as well. I'm sure that without their impressive
support for an innovative climate that is freed of software patents,
this step would not have been possible.
André Rebentisch, FFII Media
The Commissioner was not prepared to take blame for Bolkestein's policy.
Charlie McCreevy is a very straightforward Irish politician.
But unfortunately he adopted a pathetic phrase style. Today at JURI
he 'read poems' while JURI members
Re:Read all about it on ffii page (Score:2)
McCreevy (Score:2)
He is typical Fianna Fáil, more concerned with helping business pals than looking after the public.
I mean really - his Minister of Finance period was so heartless (Rich-poor gap growing hugely despite the country rolling in dosh) that after he left the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) declared himself a Socialist just to placate the public. (Quite an absurd statement, there'
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, the Gates Foundation was reported as saying that Poland had been evaluated as an unsuitable recipient for any of Bill's money.
It will come (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It will come (Score:5, Informative)
With this kind of definition of a technical effect almost anything becomes patentable. It has not been tested in court though. But we do already have thousands of software patents approved in the EU. This would just have put an official approval on the whole buisness.
Not having it go through will still leave all software patents where they are, but it will also give us a better chance to fight them off.
Re:It will come (Score:3, Insightful)
But according to the national laws in many member countries, software is not patentable (at all). If the current directive would pass, every country would have to change their national laws to accommodate the directive. That is why the patent lobby want it so much, because in the current situation, their pate
Re:It will come (Score:3, Insightful)
I refuse to believe that Europeans would be so stupid as to make a law that would require sending money to the US for something as trivial as selling an item with one mouse click.
Re:It will come (Score:2)
Yes you are. The tide is really turning in the EU, there is scarcely an MEP in the European Parliament that isn't familiar with this issue, and even those MEPs that supported the initial pro-Patent directive now seem to understand what the problems with it were.
Of course, we can't let our guard down, but we have them on the run, and we have taught our politicians that there are two sides to the debate over whether Intellectual Property should be expanded.
it is time that (Score:2)
just as for high treason, we need the most severe threat of punishment for those that use their power to corrupt democracy.
Not dead! (Score:5, Informative)
The patent lobby has not given up. The process will now be restarted and they will try with any means possible to get their way. Fortunately, awareness is rising. Politicians begin to understand that not only big companies and patent lawyers are interested in whether software can be patented. And some of the FUD and lies from the patent lobby is beginning to be exposed. So there is hope for the future.
But the battle is not over yet! PLEASE write your politician and support ffii.org. Now you can make a difference.
Re:Not dead! (Score:2, Interesting)
InfoWorld article in English (Score:5, Informative)
This is great news!
Thanks so much, (Score:4, Interesting)
I sent a handful of faxes in myself to some of the more critical MEP's, and some emails to the Swedish government explaining my position. While that was the most I could do with my resources and time, it would certainly be interesting to see how far other people went to further this cause
Re:Thanks so much, (Score:4, Interesting)
great victory (Score:4, Interesting)
I really hope that one day patents become just a registry of who invented what when
Intelectual PRIZE. (Score:2, Troll)
Why does everyone have to pay homage to the creator. If it's for private use then why the hell do I have to pay somebody? If I put together a lawn mower from parts I find at the tip and donate it to charity I'm a hero. Why can't I create something for my own amusement from software/music/dvd's and share it (or gasp the original) with everyone on the planet who is "wired"?
What would be fair and reasonable
Re:great victory (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I don't like most music that's been produced this way, I don't oppose to the method (apart from the extreme copyright protection). It's the consumers 'fault' that they buy it.
I think the same thing
Re:great victory (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree.
Patents are monopolies handed out by the government. The original reason we allow the monopolies is that we want the technology behind the patent to be exposed rather than kept secret. This way, the public gets a benefit from handing out the monopoly, the knowledge in technology can advance.
Since I'm pro free market, I'm very much against monopolies. I would rather have the companies compete. The company that can produce the best products win, in an open competition. We should not pass laws to protect the income of companies. If they can't earn it, too bad! That said, I can tolerate patents if they are truly inventive. And helps progress. Tolerate!
However, when it comes to software we need to understand that it is not technological but mathematical. Software is written, not manufactured. And since it is written we have copyright protection for it. You protect cars and machinery by patents, not copyright. You protect films, books and software by copyrights, not patents. With software patents, the author of software texts is denied his right to publish his independently created works.
Re:great victory (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents have nothing to do with morality or justice, they're a purely economic tool which can be used by the government where it deems them to be beneficial. Look e.g. here [eu.int], page 8 of the pdf document near the top.
Re:great victory (Score:2)
Re:great victory (Score:2)
I'm not convinced that software patents are any more counter-productive and unjust than any other type of patent.
Even in the US, you can't get patents on artwork, film scripts or a plot in a book. Yet. Even though there certainly are novel ideas behind many
Help us EU-1-Europa, You're our only hope! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Help us EU-1-Europa, You're our only hope! (Score:2)
Luckily, in Europe it's not all about the Benjamins. We have politically correct, culturally-neutral drawings of fictional bridges on our Euros... blech :-)
I'm wondering what this says about the EU itself. (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, I'm not in Europe but from everything I've heard the governments, the EU reps and the people of Europe all approach the EU as if it is an arbitration body between governments, yet it's now making decisions-- such as the patentability or nonpatentability of software-- which very much directly effect the people of Europe on a day to day basis and should not be made by a body which does not unambiguously feel it is directly responsible to the people.
Things in the EU are still taking shape of course but, well, that just means that this is the best time to address these things. I don't think it's a bad thing for the EU to centralize power but if it's done, it needs to be done in a very deliberate and careful way.
Am I making sense?
Re:I'm wondering what this says about the EU itsel (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a situation similar to the situation in the US between the Articles
Re:I'm wondering what this says about the EU itsel (Score:5, Informative)
by and large what you say is right, but you're wrong that the EU cannot legislate directly into national law. (and yes, I am a European lawyer)
The EU can issue three types of legislation: regulations, decisions and directives. The first two are "directly effective", meaning that they automatically become part of national law. A directive is meant to be implemented by the national parliament before it takes effect in national law, but if the national parliament fails to do so, then the directive itself can take direct effect and be enforced through the national courts.
You're also wrong in saying that "there is nothing in principle stopping a national parliament from refusing to accept a new EU law". One of the fundamental concepts of EU law is its supremacy over national law.
The legislative process in the EU is basically that the commission (the executive) has to propose legislation, which can then be adopted by the Council (the legislature). The Parliament is also part of the legislature but has fairly limited powers - hence why it has taken so long for its repeated rejection of the software patent directive to get anywhere.
Re:I'm wondering what this says about the EU itsel (Score:2)
The EU has had federal-like powers right from its start - that was the whole point of the exercise. If you think of it a an arbitration body between governments, then you're very mistaken. EU law governs everything from employment rights to environmental protection. The EU has an executive, a legislature and a supreme court with the power to overrule national governments.
In effect, it's very similar to the US federal government, with the member nations being like US states - except that EU members still re
Re:I'm wondering what this says about the EU itsel (Score:2)
The European Parlement, i.e. our elected representatives, voted against software patents. It is the national governments (who are also our elected representatives; non of the EU countries are dictatorships) who try to push this through.
Maybe this mindset needs to change.
Maybe people should know what they are talking abo
Re:I'm wondering what this says about the EU itsel (Score:2)
Europe; the EU is a fundementally about 2 things. a kind of post WWII guilt and establishing a new super power (particularly with collapse of the Soviet Union)
Guilt has nothing to do with. We europeans have learned the hard way that fighting major conflicts on your own soil is not generally speaking A Good Thing. The EU, quite rightly, seeks to make sure that
Are we sure? (Score:3, Funny)
No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Look, matey, I know a dead patent law when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'!
Re:Are we sure? (Score:2)
In italian (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.monicafrassoni.it/detail.php?id=771#
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Even a delay is good news (Score:2)
Umm...I thought Redhat said they would?
Let's hope it won't get worse (Score:2)
Or even the worst case scenario: making it even more pro-patent than it already is.
But I guess the good side is that patents are stopped for now
(And just so can mod this Offtopic:
2005-02-02 21:31:30 EU Softwarepatents on-hold (for now) (Index,Patents) (rejected))
A point I haven't seen made... (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is a thought experiment:
1. Company X is based in a country which doesn't have laws regarding sw patents. They develop a product Q which has some novel software concepts. They cannot patent it because their patent office won't move on sw patents.
2. Company Y is based in a country which has laws permitting sw patents. They see product Q and think that some concept in it is pretty cool and so they patent such a concept. Brain dead examiner rubber-stamps patent.
3. Company X can no longer sell product Q in any region where sw patents are recognised (due to Berne convention)
The only real solution to this is to have some countries to have a law which explicitly makes sw patents invalid AND is a signatory of the Berne convention. Then they can be safe to exercise their innovation.
Right now, it is exceedingly unfair to permit software patents because the USA has such a headstart in that arena, anyone coming afterwards is automatically disadvantaged.
The major benefit of a law which renders sw patents dead is that other signatories of the Berne convention would eventually have to follow suit or risk some kind of international trade war... and as trigger-happy some people are, I think invading Belgium would not help the pro-sw-patents argument much.
Re:A point I haven't seen made... (Score:2)
Why wouldn't company Q patent it in company Y's country in the first place?
Re:A point I haven't seen made... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't doubt that they would get their patent rubber-stamped (that's not hard at all). But wouldn't the patent be invalid and easily defeated, because of prior art (i.e. product Q) - especially if someone tries to charge company X for product Q, which is older than the patent itself?
Re:A point I haven't seen made... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A point I haven't seen made... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Braindead" is the key point here. Patents cannot be granted if there's any known prior art anywhere. I believe it also means that such braindead patents are not enforceable.
By the way, does anyone here remember the original intent of patents? It was to encourage the disclosure of inventi
Re:A point I haven't seen made... (Score:2)
Now is time to... (Score:2)
And (wheeze) they must'a (gasp wheeze) call these career lobbyists...fat cats
'caused "it died, twice."
Poland no longer opposes patents (Score:3, Informative)
As I understand it, aby hope now lies in the EU Parliament.
Details (in Polish) here:
http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,5
Eventually SWpat will come to Europe (Score:4, Insightful)
Cop: You know, being a criminal doesn't pay. They have to get lucky every time, and all we have to do is get lucky once.
This is why the SWpat people will win eventually, because the !SWpat people have to get lucky every time in stopping this, and the SWpat people only have to get lucky once and sneak it through the system in some obfuscated form.
What persistence can get you. (Score:3, Insightful)
I applaud those who organized this effort for having the courage of their convictions to pursue better policy. You offer us who are burdened with software patents something to aspire to.
more news from outlaw.com (Score:3, Interesting)
Simon Gentry, founder of the pro-patent Campaign for Creativity, wrote a letter to his supporters today: "The assault on patents - based on a deliberate distortion of the facts - has, in effect, won."
Gentry added that he is considering winding up the lobbying group. "Set against the apparently limitless resources - both human and financial - of the anti-patent lobby, the cause seems lost."
The current draft has changed radically since the Parliament first considered it, while the membership of the Parliament and the European Union itself has also altered. These are reasons for a restart, say many MEPs.
The draft Directive, often known as the Software Patents Directive, has been on the verge of approval by the Council of Ministers since May, when European Trade Ministers rejected amendments made to the draft by the European Parliament. Some MEPs expressed fears that the wording of the Directive risks bringing to Europe the more liberal regime of software and business method patenting that exists in the US.
Progress on the draft Directive then stalled, as political manoeuvring kept the proposals off the Council agenda, where it was due to be included as an "A" item, being one that is voted through without discussion.
The Polish Government has been influential in delaying the vote, taking advantage of new voting weights that came into force on 1st November. Denmark also appears to have disrupted progress of the draft in the run up to its Parliamentary elections on 8th February.
Once successfully rubber-stamped, the Directive is due to be sent back to the European Parliament for a second reading. But some MEPs argued that the legislative progress should be restarted instead, allowing the enlarged Parliament to give full consideration to the issues, instead of rushing it through in the three-month timescale that a second reading allows.
The issue came to a head yesterday in a meeting of the Parliament's legal affairs committee (JURI).
In what has been described as a heated debate, Charlie McCreevy, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, explained that the Council of Ministers had now reached consensus and that the draft was due to be re-instated as an A point at a forthcoming Council meeting.
Committee members reacted to the news by voting by 19 votes to two in support of a motion to ask the Commission to send the proposals back to the Parliament for a first reading, effectively restarting the process.
The Commission does not have to comply with the request. It may instead continue with the existing process, in the knowledge that once the Directive is put to the Parliament for a second reading, consensus is unlikely to be achieved.
According to UK Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy, it is more likely that the whole process will now be delayed for up to six months, in order to assess the impact of the legislation. "Under the circumstances this is the best solution," she said.
Austrian JURI member Eva Lichtenberger said: "The Legal Affairs Committee's initiative is a good beginning, but does not yet offer a happy ending to the software patents story."
She added: "Today's courageous decision introduces the possibility of a better solution. I am very happy that we now have an opportunity to prevent software patenting and to obtain a better directive that will benefit the whole of the industry. We may now be able to stop market giants - aided by an American-style patenting law - from forcing innovators and SMEs out of the market."
But Simon Gentry of the Campaign for Creativity believes that the Committee vote "will open the way to a deluge of anti-IP amendments that will probably result in the final stripping away of IP protection for the IT sector."
He continued: "At the very least we
Re:Maybe a victory for Democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Even if it was, why is that a bad thing?
Just because the Brits object, it's not wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU is not a democratic organisation. When people elect people who elect people, democracy is not the correct term. The obvious problem is that the first stage can promise X and then turn around and do Y to elect the second stage. This is the problem that people have with the EU. With the advent of the 'net, we have the ability for true democracy within our society. I'd like to take it.
At the end of the day, there is a decision to be made - is it better to be part of an organisation that is moving and shaping the world in the local neighbourhood, or is it better to be apart ? Britain for one cannot afford splendid isolation any more. It's as simple as that. That doesn't make the EU a great choice. It's just the lesser of two evils.
In Europe, the traditional view of Brits is that of 'little Englanders' obsessed with their petty social rights and demands on society. It's far more complex. Most Brits are far less patriotic than portrayed (for example, I'd like to see a world government), but we just don't think the setup of the EU is a good framework to build on for that ultimate journey.
Under no circumstances ought the EU parliament and the EU council of ministers be so disparate in their opinion that the issue of software patents (or any issue, actually) should divide them so. The EU government (as a whole) is there to represent the people - it's a shame that the council of ministers is far too busy representing (paying) businesses to pay attention to the people whom those businesses ultimately depend on.
Yes, this is politically biased, and I apologise. I'm just sick of being told I'm "anti-democracy" because I disagree with the non-democratic (ironic, huh?) process that the EU takes on these things. I'm especially sick of being told it's "because I'm British". For crying out loud, address the ISSUES, not my nationality.
Simon
Re:Just because the Brits object, it's not wrong! (Score:2)
How is that different to the fact that the U.S. citizens don't elect the president but vote for an electoral college?
How is that different to the fact that the german chancellor don't get voted for by the people but by the german Bundestag (parliament)?
US isn't a democracy (Score:2)
Re:Just because the Brits object, it's not wrong! (Score:2)
Re:Just because the Brits object, it's not wrong! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not with Labour doing all it can to tear down the centuries of 'gentlemen's agreements' which have kept our rather weak parliamentary system functioning at some sort of acceptable level.
We're heading more and more towards a presidential Executive, without the proper Legislature checks & balances. The simple fact that the Executive gets to decide the Legislature's timetable makes a mockery of the whole process.
Without the EU, t
Re:Maybe a victory for Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you actually need to be told why this is a victory for democracy? Ok: because the majority of people (at least the people affected by it, the rest don't even know what it is) are against software patents. The only people who want software patents are rich organisations that can afford to use them to choke their competition. QED.
Or perhaps you hink democracy means "people with money rule"?
And a unified European government is not a bad thing (I want one), but software patents are.
Re:Maybe a victory for Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
I think European National sovereignty has a bigger problem then this. The fact that there is no nation that is recognised as "Europe" would probably be a big problem. There are numerous nations in Europe that have sovereignty, but that isn't the same thing as European National sovereignty
Re:Maybe a victory for Democracy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh please (Score:2)
You are spot on, you have all the clues, hang on to your serious warlike capitalist-pig view of the world.
Ignore that meek GP AC who will inherit jack shit, he is just trying to lure you out of your bunker.
Don't forget to say three "Hail-McArthur's" after checking under your bed.
Re:Nothing is dead, it's on hold for years again (Score:2, Insightful)
That's like everything. Any law can be changed, created or whatever in 5 years time.
Re:Nothing is dead, it's on hold for years again (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure it is. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sure it is. (Score:3)
I wonder what Slashdot editors use since they obviously don't get annoyed enough to fix it. Surely not all are on Mac's and Safari, so that leaves IE or Konqueror?
Re:Linux users (Score:4, Funny)
It looks like you failed evenly to FP and in the EEC.
Will this sudden blizzard finally dry your sweat ?
I suggest you get back to what you do best : Dancing and Rhymin [ntk.net] !
Back on topic: (Score:3, Interesting)