Dutch Say No to Software Patent Directive 363
Rik writes "Thursday night the Dutch parliament has decided that the Dutch government should not vote for the EU Software Patent Directive at the European Council of Ministers next week. The decision of the Dutch parliament strengthens attempts of MEPs of the European Parliament to send the Software Directive back to the drawing board."
I hate EU (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I hate EU (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I think it's about time we killed off the European Commision & European Parlimant entirely and moved to a US style two house system with directly elected officials. The rotating presidency should stay, though. That's actually one thing that works pretty well.
Re:I hate EU (Score:3, Informative)
The EU directly employs about 30,000 people. The U.S. Federal Government directly employs about 1,900,000 people. Work it out.
Re:I hate EU (Score:5, Insightful)
and moved to a US style two house system
How does a *two-system* allow diversity and a whole array of views and oppinions?
I always have found it odd how the US has just the dominating "Rebuplicans", and "Democrats". We have +7 Parties, with all some simular and more diverse agenda's. It'd be a nightmare to just be in the mercy of *two* parties....
Re:I hate EU (Score:4, Insightful)
In Poland we have multiparty, two house system, same in UK and I'm sure other countries.
Robert
Re:I hate EU (Score:5, Informative)
Modern democratic states divide the power between three (at least in theory) independant branches: legislative (parliament, one or two houses), judiciary (courts) and executive branch (gornment, council of ministers or the cabinet, headed by prime minister of president, depending on the system).
So Poland has three branches of power (government) and two houses of Parliament (Seym and Senat). Press is so called "fourth power", not third or fourth "house".
Robert
PS And it's "bullshit", not "bull shit".
Your Local Authority employs more bureaucrats (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I hate EU (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically problems with swpat arise from lack of accountability of some high-ranking EU bodies. They are not accountable because they answer to no constituency.
I remember some eurosceptics and xenophobes before Access Referendum scaring people with United States of Europe, European Superstate (as opposed to superstate structure of independant states), but I think I'd prefer federal structure with directly elected an
Re:I hate EU (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hate EU (Score:2)
There's also the small matter of the EU budget failing its financial audit for the tenth year running. They don't even use double-entry
Re:I hate EU (Score:2)
Wait a minute... Bush 2! OMG, you're right!
Re:I hate EU (Score:2, Interesting)
And before calling me names : I am French but I now live in Switzerland which is far more evolved than France.
For example, provided enough people sign a petition about a given matter, there WILL be a referendum.
Majority has to be gained by both the population AND the cantons which makes it even more secure for lowly populated areas to get their voices heard.
Re:I hate EU (Score:2)
Re:I hate EU (Score:2, Informative)
OK, I was joking, here's [haslo.ch] the status:
Re:I hate EU (Score:2)
For the record, this "far more evolved" system denied women's right to vote until the 70's.
Neither system is perfect
And yep, I'm not Swiss either, just living here as well
Re:I hate EU (Score:2)
Original article (dutch) (Score:5, Informative)
Besides that, I wonder this means they (=Brinkhorst) is actually going to vote or will abstain which would basically mean yes.
Re:Original article (dutch) (Score:4, Informative)
This means that the Dutch government is instructed to *vote against* the Software Patent Directive if it is put on the agenda at a meeting of the European Council of Ministers next week
It seems like they will actively vote against. SYRanger
Re:Original article (dutch) (Score:3, Informative)
(he has voted in favour before, then claiming it did not matter because it was not the final decision but only a decision to go ahead)
Re:Original article (dutch) (Score:3)
But this is still a far cry from a parliament which tells it minister to vote no (and promises to kick the cabinet out if they does otherwise). And given the past (and the voting l
Best response possible (Score:2)
Eventually even the EU will have to pay lip service to what the people want, It may be the most undemocratic system of government I've ever come across, but it at least has to maintain the ideal of being the voice of the people...
Simon.
Re:Best response possible (Score:2)
Background information from FFII (Score:5, Informative)
GREAT!!! but what would happen if....? (Score:2, Interesting)
But my doubt is: what would happen IF Polish minister Marcinski had not vetoed the patent bill in December? Was it really so close? I mean - was the majority in the EU parlament for the software patents or against them in December 2004? Why only one veto?
best regards - michal
Re:GREAT!!! but what would happen if....? (Score:2)
It's been widely seen as one of the least democratic actions ever taken by the council of m
Thank the Dutch, but not their government (Score:5, Informative)
71 voted in favour, 69 against. Note that the Dutch parliament has 150 seats, so an extremely close call - could have gone the other way if some more people bothered to vote, it seems.
Voting was along party lines, but the Dutch parliament is like a zoo: in favour were PvdA (labour, largest leftish-center party), SP (socialist, populist, at heart even maoist...), GroenLinks (merger of communist, pacifist, green parties), D'66 (center party, slightly leftish, pro-education, pro-democratic reform), ChristenUnie (leftish christian party). Against were CDA (traditional biggest party, center, christian), VVD (what we call "liberal", i.e. pro-free market, pro-business, traditional values, typical rightish), SGP (right wing hardline christians).
Currently government is formed by CDA, VVD and D'66, who together have a slim majority. So this win is because D'66 defected, and SGP is slightly smaller. D'66 is much the smallest party in government, and this is certainly not what government wanted (remember they pushed hard to pass the directive in the last few meetings of the Dutch EU presidency end of last year). The minister pushing then was Brinkhorst (D'66!).
Anyway, this is the first time I see D'66 do something that makes me actually happy with the vote I gave them :-)
Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government (Score:2)
Hey, suddenly I notice - it seems the entire LPF abstained then? The LPF ("List Pim Fortuyn") is the incompetent remains of the party murdered politician Pim Fortuyn was building. He was killed before the elections, and the people who are in government in his name since then are amateur chaotic right-wing morons who are only busy with internal fights, frauds, leadership changes etc. They do have 8 seats, and apparently they didn't vote.
Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government (Score:2)
Unfortunately I don't really agree with the rest of their viewpoints...
Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government (Score:2)
Yes, that way you can a government monopoly on everything, instead of a corporate monopoly.
Socialists don't have a big thing for freedom, you know. These guys & gals are against software partents simply because large corporations are in favour, and they're generally against everything big companies do or want.
Useful votes fo
Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally I'm a Marxist, and hence consider the state a means of oppression which it must be the goal to di
Re:Thank the Dutch, but not their government (Score:2, Informative)
For: PvdA, SP, LPF, GroenLinks, D'66, Lazrak
Against: CDA, VVD, SGP, Wilders
Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:2)
You just gotta love this phrase (Score:2, Insightful)
Therefore, in this case the whole point of avoiding the vote is not the legitimate reason of saving time, but the deeply disturbing wish to fabricate a majority where there is none."
Nail on head.
Would someone explain me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, the Dutch Parliament, which I assume speaks for the Dutch people, decided against software patents. OK, so why should they end up with software patents after all is said and done if the Dutch Parliament voted against them? Do the individual governments of the member states not retain their sovereignty in the EU? I realize that for the EU to function as, well, the European Union, it has to have some political will. How far does this politcal will extend?
Just asking.
Re:Would someone explain me... (Score:5, Informative)
Each country in the EU is sovereigen and has their own government, which is controlled by their own parliament.
The governments work together in the the Council of Ministers of the EU. Here political deals are made - governments that are against patents may agree if they can get some extra agriculture subsidies in return, whatever. They can claim at home that they were against but the pressure of other countries was too high.
In theory the EU parliament controls that process, but their powers are far too weak. Perhaps the proposed "EU Constitution" will meredy this, I don't know. Governments say that giving the EU parliament more power is giving up national sovereignity (i.e., the power countries have to make shady deals).
Voting in the Council must be unanymous. A directive that is finally accepted must be implemented by all the member countries.
Donate today! (Score:3, Informative)
Don't want to see software patents in EU? Want to do something about it?
Donate money to FFII today:
http://ffii.org/money/account/index.en.html [ffii.org]
"should" vs. "must" (Score:2)
In Germany there's also broad consensus about voting should be made against that directive, however, certain people in power vote for what they've been paid for instead of what they should vote for.
Or look at Poland: first voted for it, then decided to be against it, and now in a status of "oh, in
Re:"should" vs. "must" (Score:4, Informative)
They can't, the Dutch government isn't bound by motions from the Dutch parliament.
Re:"should" vs. "must" (Score:2)
Re:"should" vs. "must" (Score:2)
Re:"should" vs. "must" (Score:2)
They must vote to accept all new laws, they have the power to change laws before accepting them, they can enter original laws and accept them, they vote on accepting the budget, they can send ministers home, etc.
But the thing that is called a "motie" is not binding to government. In this case they have said they will carry it out though.
Re:"should" vs. "must" (Score:2)
Can this be heavy enough reason for parliament to oust the cabinet and is there a mechanism in Holand constitution to vote governmet out just on motion grounds?
Re:"should" vs. "must" (Score:2)
No, not at all. Parliament consists of 150 members, of which maybe 15 participated in the debate on the motion of yesterday. On the broader political scale software patents are only a small point. Nothing worth sending the government home for.
The specific reason for this motion was to prevent a clash between the European Counsil (pro patents) and the European Parliament (against patents). When patents are A-listed and accepted, this clash will surely happen. They will be rejected by the EP, so we won't en
Re:"should" vs. "must" (Score:2)
Unfortunately it isn't hot, and secondly since the main minister pushing it is D'66 and the other two coalition parties didn't support this motion, there's basically no way that that's going to happen - it'd never get a majority.
It would be extremely unusual though. The thing is that it's currently an "A item" on the agenda - meaning "everybody agrees, no vote needed". Government has explicitly said that they will have it removed from the agenda. To turn around and say five days later that there was no vot
Re:"should" vs. "must" (Score:3, Informative)
No, they don't. See e.g. this page [overheid.nl] (in Dutch) from the Dutch government.
Translation of the relevant part:
Translated from the WebWereld article... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Translated from the WebWereld article... (Score:2)
Oooo! Let's not upset the Luxemburgians!
If that's their argument, don't bother - we the luxembourgish people (ok, the IT knowledgeable ones anyway) will gladly accept that "upsetting" of our government, if it rids us of software patents.
The different lux. parties are all +- against software patents anyway, at least representatives in the parliament are. The government unfortunately always has had a rather ambiguous position.
Some additional notes on this (Score:4, Informative)
Netherlands == Paradise (Score:4, Funny)
1. Do you have to worry about breaking the law by writing your own software? No.
2. Do you have to worry about breaking the law by smoking a joint? No.
3. Do you have to worry about breaking the law by sleeping with a girl below 18? No.
Conclusions:
1. Move to Netherlands.
2. Have a peace of mind.
3. Profit.
Can you trust the patent system? (Score:5, Informative)
if this continues.. (Score:2)
That's about the 4th or 5th country where the national parliament instructed their government not to vote for the directive.
But then again, some caution should remain: the dutch parliament has asked the minister before to change votes, but he merrily ignored that. It is surprising, often, how many time (and how much) so-called democratic governments completely disregard the democratic principle they have sworn to uphold.
If it DOES g
A reformed patent system (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A reformed patent system (Score:4, Insightful)
Take post-it notes.
The guy was working on a new type of super-glue. Only his invention appeared to be a total failure. The glue was barely capable to hold a piece of paper. But he had enough brains to apply it to a piece of paper and sell that.
Investment in the new type of glue: maybe $50.
Time: one evening.
Profit: "3M is an $18 billion diversified technology company with leading positions in consumer and office"
The new system would protect the invention for 3 weeks, or until it gives $2000 (whichever comes first).
Some patents are too dumb nowadays. But sometimes really simple inventions are worth billions.
Re:A reformed patent system (Score:5, Interesting)
The new system would protect the invention for 3 weeks, or until it gives $2000 (whichever comes first).
And why exactly is that a problem? Why does such an idea deserve $18 billion?
Re:A reformed patent system (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO other counter-measures should be taken:
1) Easier to invalidate a patent. A bounty system for prior art (some of the application money
Woohoo!! (Score:2)
(Yes, I'm Dutch as well, but I hardly ever leave my country.)
Article is misleading (Score:5, Informative)
The article is misleading, the Dutch won't be voting against the patent directive, because there will be no voting.
Basically, the whole patent directive is one big swindle:
The only thing that Dutch government can do is to strike this A-item again from the order of council. What's gonna happen when Council decides to ignore JURI recomendation for returning this directive to first reading? Honestly, I don't know...
Robert
Re:Article is misleading (Score:3, Interesting)
I parted
Anyone reading transcript from JURI meeting regarding returning swpat to first reading h
MEPs on the warpath (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Funny)
Cheeseheads? You are lagging behind. For quite some time now, we are widthly known to be potheads.
All kidding aside, this is, imho, the first good decision our parliament has made in quite some time. Good to see there are still some remains of our once so liberal nation.
By the way, why would you chant strange incantaions in recognition of our greatness? Am I missing some reference to my own folklore here?
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:2)
la luhl ala luh lhuluh la la laaaa!!
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:3)
la luhl ala luh lhuluh la la laaaa!!
You're correct there. That's the first line of our national anthem.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Funny)
Umm... easy on the pot dude. It's playing hell with your spelling.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Insightful)
Now software patents, that is a whole 'nother ball game.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't necesseraly have to invest more money. Plain simple rules are cheaper and easier for everyone and make patents more valuable because a lot of todays uncertainty is removed. Business methods should be totally banned and every patent claim that can be implemented on a universal computing machine (software on computers). The rules have to be easy to understand and easy to follow. Y
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:2)
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Five years may not be long enough to design, implement and sell the idea. By the time it's on the shelf the patent could have expired, meaning all the research and development is for nothing.
2. Your non-transfer proposal means that small-time inventors who lack the means to actually implement their idea can't cash in and let a big manufacturing company make it instead. This takes away freedom from the inventor.
I don't think the problem with the patent system is that t
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:2, Interesting)
Patents are a means to an end, not en end in itself.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:2, Insightful)
The EPO is a paper-pushing business- practically a private firm. The last thing they need is more money. Sadly there is alot of under-the-table talk between Parliament members and various corporate (largely US) monopolies. The EU would be much safer with a less 'buyable' source of regulatory control, ideally in the form of a panel of publically nominated experts. This would at least protect the ecology of software development in the EU from rash, uneducated and catastrophic decisions.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:2, Interesting)
And I will set up a donate with PayPal link for those who want to support me.
"...Now how do i glue the GPL onto a nuclear bomb..."
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Insightful)
But to remove the patent system entirely? Many patents in the world outside of software are held by companies that spent millions developing them. You think a paypal donate link is going to benifit them when once their piece of hardware (or whatever) is out in the world and some 3rd world company reverse engineers it and takes all their profits?
Remove the ability to protect your research and the guy who can sell the product for the least amount of money gets the money. A company spends huge amounts in R&D cannot compete with a company that only steals ideas since the company that steals ideas has far less costs.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not, if it's broken? Replace it with something else perhaps? An Australian govt. research project came to the conclusion that not having patents would be useful to innovation and the only reason they kept it was because of international treaty.
Or how about the Journal of Economic Growth, 2004, vol. 9, issue 1, pages 81-123:
"Furthermore, patents affect the allocation of R&D resources across industries, and patents can distort resources away from industries where they are most productive."
I think the debate should be started to see whether patents are a useful mechanism or not.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:2, Insightful)
The patent system was designed to allow for those 'Joe Averages' who tinker in their sheds for instance, to come up with an idea and make money from it without having to worry about a large corporation stealing it and then cornering the market , giving poor Joe Average nowhere to go.
with software theres no reason for not using copyright to protect it
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:3, Insightful)
They do not work for:
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:2)
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:2)
However, it merely states that if you have been forced to stop distributing the code, that you cannot distribute the binaries. Presumably, the only time this would come up would be a situation in which you've already been stopped from distributing anyway.
It isn't imposing anything that is, as the grandparent post stated, "capable of preventing research, development, and progress in some fields".
However, the GPL 3 is supposed to address IP and patents. I'm curious to see how that turns o
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:2)
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:2)
FWIW, last year I saw some report that mentioned the total number of software patents held by Dutch companies was 4.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Interesting)
Patent's don't protect your work, copyrights do that.
Patents are a licence to rip off other people's work, granted by the state as an incentive for you to publish your work. There were perfectly good reasons for this at the time the system developed, but few if any of the reasons still exist.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:3, Informative)
In some countries, there laws that force the licensing of patents if there is no implementation available within a reasonable time-frame.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:3, Insightful)
They are rather wider than that. They are monopolies on an idea. It's not just the specific design of the Amazon one-click buying system which was claimed.
Whichis where the ability to rip of other people's work comes from. If I have a patent and you, in ignorance, produce a better implementation than mine of that idea, I can assume control of your work.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Sir,
I am a programmer and a researcher in computer science, thus one of those supposed to benefit from a software patent system. And frankly, both from what I have experienced personnaly and from what I see in the press, I dont feel protected *at all* by software patents.
Software patents are so silly that any dispute related to them can not be based on rational argument and any form of justice that should derive from it. Those disputs are pure lawyer technical fights. They require money and are possible only between big entities (read corporations).
So, Sir, software patents are not an incentive at all. They are a way to lock the market to keep small structures and individuals out. Anybody saying the opposite is a liar or an idiot.
--
Go Debian!
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:2)
My favourite idea is a system where inventions get government-funded awards *if and only if* they are successful in the marketplace. The inventor gets the award even if someone else commercialises the idea, hence there is no reson to fear being "ripped off" b
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:3, Insightful)
The patent system might not be under such fire if patents had a proportionality to the amount of creative effort (original, not patent lawyer-ese) required to produce the patent. Developers often have seven reasonable (but not necessarily original) ideas before breakfast which patent offices seem onl
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent system was originally instated to grant an inventor a temporary and artificial monopoly on a new invention. The first patents are found in the 15th century in the republic of Venice.
Patent abuse is nothing new. Prior to the enactement of the Statute of Monopolies in 1623, the crown would issue letters patent providing any person with a "monopoly" to produce particular goods or provide particular services. This was abused by the crown, leading to the legislation setting a term limit for the monopolies granted by a patent.
Most people seem to agree that granting an inventor a patent for novel idea or implementation fosters innovation. Let's say I invent a non-obvious and novel idea for building a smaller, lighter and more secure watertight latch for use in large cargo ships. Using this door would save shipbuilders lots of money in materials and labours. If there are no patents to protect me, any other company or individual could reverse engineer my design and sell a knock-off. Since they have little R&D costs to recuperate, they can sell it a cheaper price than me, thus preventing me from recuperating my R&D costs.
The patent system works by granting me a temporary monopoly on my design. I can choose to license it to other manufacturers, so that if they choosem to enter the market, I can still recoup my development costs.
The problem with the patent system today is that the patents are often not in the hands of those that produce and implement the patents in question. Instead, they are concentrated into holding companies that use them to cash in on patent infringments. Often these patents are neither novel nor non-obvious, so many have no idea they are infringing on a patent before they are slapped with a lawsuit.
If this model of business was to be made unprofitable, many of the problem with the patent system would vanish.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, there are more problems with these. While you do point out acurately, that holding companies are abusing these, there is another more common abuse.
A person will obtain a patent and then start a small company(1-5 ppl). However, a large company who watches it sees the potential and simply decides to do the same, but without paying for the patent. The small guy can not afford to take on a big company.
Now, one of the better examples to most here is MS vs. all the small companies that they do this to. What they are counting on, is stalling it in the courts and then paying just a fraction of what it has earned them. In the mean time, they have wiped out the company or buy them at a fraction of what they would have at the height of the company.
But they are no worse (and in fact, better) than many other medium to small. My father has a patent for a archery product. When a larger company decided that they liked it, they started manufactuering their own. When he spoke up and threatened lawsuit, the larger company simply went to all the stores where it was sold at, and stopped them from distributing his product. Since they were not a convicted monopoly, they are not watched by the feds. But they damage is there. And this goes on all the time
Basically, the patent does not protect the little guys. The high costs of the legal system prevents any real action. But it does allow a large company to harass the little guy.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:3, Insightful)
Your wife may be out of a job and so might be some patent-office clerks and a lot of law firms, but would the world as a whole be worse?
A hundred years ago you would have argued that cars are bad because people make a living based on horses. (food on the table, solves real problems, yadda yadda)
Take a look at another thing hapening about a hundred years ago: flying.
The wright
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is also that the number of "inventors" in the realm of computer programming is very very big.
On the left hand: How many people are there that can tinker at home, and make special types of macrophages, or whatever it is that biologists do in research time?
On the right hand: How many people are there who can apply XOR to draw cursors on their home computers? I was doing that when I was 12, and I don't consider myself particularly bright.
The definition of "obvious" or "non-obvious" is not clear. I can easily imagine the baffled patent examiner, considering the XOR drawing algorithm. "Wow! This guy knows about bits, and logic gates, and,... other complicated stuff. Hot damn, that can't be obvious. We gotta do something about this... We gotta... Make sure nobody else does this for 20 years!"
20 years!
Even if the programmers are the ones receiving the checks for their "invention," we still have the same problem:
Specifically, the patent system is prohibiting innovation rather than encouraging it.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:4, Insightful)
By far most software in use today is custom-made. People create websites, design databases, and implement business rules. Just check the size of the IT consulting business. The stuff that you see on the shelf is just the tip of the iceberg.
So, the incentive for innovation is not money, it's the simple fact that you're working on a project and your customer has requested feature X. So you figure out a way to implement it. Your development costs are paid directly by your customer, and even if you did not have patent protection and everyone else implemented the same feature in the software they're writing for their customers, you'd still get paid.
Hence, innovation would still occur if software patents did not exist. Software is a service, as they say, and if you work is protected by copyright, others must do the same work (implementing feature X) again.
The big problem with software patents as they exist in the USA today, is that it is these features (one-click shopping for example) that are patented. That just doesn't make sense. It essentially gives the patent holder the right to tax anyone who implements that particular feature, in exchange for what? Thinking up new features? I don't think we need incentives for that.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you give us a link which backs up this assertion? (Preferably with good quality facts).
All I have ever seen is this mantra repeated ad nauseam whilst I have read many articles which, with economic data, show that patents stifle innovation and distort the market.
Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether (Score:2)