Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Software Your Rights Online

Major Blow to Opponents of Software Patents in EU 508

Posted by timothy from the guard-the-backdoor dept.
Sanity writes "According to a FFII report, and a Financial Times article, proponents of software patents have just won a significant victory against smaller software companies and open source software proponents as the EU's legal affairs committee rejected most of the effective amendments that were proposed to the Computer Implemented Inventions Directive, which is widely perceived to usher-in U.S.-style software patents in the EU. All is not yet lost as the rejected amendments can be re-tabled when the entire European Parliament has the opportunity to vote next month. If you value the freedom to code without worrying about getting sued, and you live in the EU, now is the time to take effective action." And JasonFleischer writes "Richard Stallman has a piece in The Guardian which does a nice job of explaining the problems with the EU patent directive that will be voted on next month (and for that matter software patents in general), using literary examples."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Major Blow to Opponents of Software Patents in EU More

Major Blow to Opponents of Software Patents in EU

Comments Filter:

  • Hot Damn! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PopeAlien ( 164869 )
    Score 1 more for the giant faceless monster! Canada gets the DMCA, super-secret last minute sneak in of the broadcast flag in the USA, and now this..

    Lets hear it for Goliath!

  • A constant battle (Score:5, Insightful)

    by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @02:35AM (#12870137) Homepage Journal
    With the introduction of DMCA legislation in Canada yesterday, and now this in the EU, it brought to my mind a realization that the battle to keep software free, and the right to copy media we own is going to be a lifelong battle. If we win one battle, we haven't won the war, and if we lose a battle like this in the EU it doesn't mean we've lost completely, it just means we have to work even harder to overcome it.

    • Re:A constant battle (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thorndt ( 814642 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @02:41AM (#12870155)
      Famous (and totally applicable) quote: "The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance."

    • Re:A constant battle (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:10AM (#12870237)
      If we win one battle, we haven't won the war, and if we lose a battle like this in the EU it doesn't mean we've lost completely, it just means we have to work even harder to overcome it.

      Once a battle like this is lost in any one location, then the war is lost in that location.

      Don't believe me? Look at the state of copyright around the globe. It has been monotonically increasing over time. Not once that I've ever heard of have we seen a reduction in copyright strength or an increase in the rights of the general public.

      And not once has a location gained software patents only to lose them again.

      I agree, if we lose in the EU it doesn't mean we've lost completely, but it does mean we've lost completely in the EU.

      If the EU adopts software patents (and I guarantee they will -- it's only a matter of time and money), there will be precious few places left in the world where one is truly free to write software.

      Not that such a trend would be in any way out of character with the overall trend the entire world is following: a descent into an oppressive global police state in which the masses are only given the illusion of freedom.

      • "Not once that I've ever heard of have we seen a reduction in copyright strength or an increase in the rights of the general public."

        Mmm, if I remember correctly, it sortof happened in Britain when people got really tired of the monopolies that James I granted. At the time they were used as a form of indirect taxation, where merchants were granted monopolies on products for money or support. These days it's money, support and 'jobs'.

        It's much easier to trick people that way. If you were to suggest putting
      • > Not once that I've ever heard of have we seen a
        > reduction in copyright strength or an increase in
        > the rights of the general public.

        Danish copyright did for some time forbid making personal copies of digital material without explicit permission by the copyright holder.
    • With the introduction of DMCA legislation in Canada yesterday

      Not to go too far off topic, but keep in mind that this bill has been introduced and is not yet law; as such anyone, particularly Canadian citizens, who cares about this should stop by their MP's office, write them (preferrably on paper), or phone them and voice their opinion on this legislation.

      Alphabetical list of MPs [parl.gc.ca]
      Lookup by postal code [parl.gc.ca]

      There's detailed contact information on each MP's page.

  • More than coding (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @02:40AM (#12870153) Homepage
    If you value the freedom to code without worrying about getting sued, and you live in the EU, now is the time to take effective action."

    It's more than that now. A democratically elected body has rejected it, an appointed body is enforcing it. It's now about more than just code. more than software patents. It's now about the primacy of elected bodies.

    Cheers,
    Ian
    (UK - yes, I'll be writing but not merely on 'just' the software patent point)

    • Not knowning all that much about how the EU is layed out, perhaps you can fill me in. Is the democratically elected body some how superior to the appointed body in all matters?

      If so, then you may have a legitimate concern. However, if as I suspect it is not, then the system would seem to be working as it was designed and you may have a bigger fight on your hands than just one piece of legislation if you expect to stop this thing.

      • Re:More than coding (Score:3, Informative)

        by sp3tt ( 856121 )
        The parliament, the only elected body, has little to NO power whatsoever. The commision says, "we want to do this." Parliament says, "that's a very stupid idea, no way." Whereupon the commision says: "Oh, fuck you, we'll do it anyway."

      • Re:More than coding (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:08AM (#12870234) Homepage
        ...Is the democratically elected body some how superior to the appointed body in all matters?...If so, then you may have a legitimate concern. However, if as I suspect it is not, then the system would seem to be working as it was designed and you may have a bigger fight on your hands than just one piece of legislation if you expect to stop this thing.

        Absolutely. The concern remains legitimate whether the system is working as intended or not. The system itself is clearly wrong.

        Europe's political scene is in chaos at the moment, with what was assumed to be the most pro-Europe country voting against a proposed constitution (France). In fact, almost everywhere politicians have dared to give people the vote instead of just waving it through the vote has gone against the European institutions, and in many places a vote will not even be chanced because of overwhelming popular opposition. Reasons are disparate (France thought the constitution was too Anglo-Saxon, Britain thinks Europe is too much slanted towards the French...) , but the point remains that these institutions have little to no popular support. Rubbish like ignoring a parliament to enact the will of civil servants will certainly not be helping.

        Cheers,
        Ian

        • Re:More than coding (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I guess I'm going to have to be the one to break it to you guys, since apparently no-one did the research. The E.U. managed to invent what we Americans called The Articles of Confederation when we tried it 230 years ago. Basically it's a weak federal government, with no authority to govern over its myriad independent states. And like in the U.S.A., it's never really going to work. You managed to get a single currency, somewhat, which is more than the U.S. could under the Articles. Eventually, conflicti

        • interesting but untrue (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ThinWhiteDuke ( 464916 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @05:29AM (#12870613)
          In fact, almost everywhere politicians have dared to give people the vote instead of just waving it through the vote has gone against the European institutions, and in many places a vote will not even be chanced because of overwhelming popular opposition

          3 votes have been held. Spain voted massively for YES (77%), France and Netherlands (less) massively for NO (respectively 55% and 61%) but with a higher turnaround. Besides, the vote was not for or against European Institutions, it was for or against the European Charter.

          Rubbish like ignoring a parliament to enact the will of civil servants will certainly not be helping.

          You don't seem to understand how the European decision process goes. The EU is NOT a federal country. It has very little power over member states. The parliament has a consultative function but no real authority over member states. The Commission is just an administrative body and has no real power either. The EU Council has the power, it's basically a board room where EU countries negociate stuff. States are represented in the Council by the Heads of States not by anonymous European civil servants as you imply. It works pretty much like the UN. Each country has a representant in the Security Council who negociates and makes decisions in the best interest of his country.

          I'll drive a parallel with the US. Donald Rumsfeld or Condi Rice are unelected officials. Yet they have been granted power by President Bush, who was elected (I won't get into the argument here). Within the bounds of theses powers, they can decide stuff independantly of the opinion of the Senate or Congress, which are elected bodies.

          Maybe a better analogy : the EU is like the US would be if the Federal government had no power at all. The elected Senate would vote, but could only make recommandations since it would not have any power. The President of the US would not exist, the position would have no point. The real decisions would be made by direct negociations between State Governors, a broad equivalent of the EU Council.

          but the point remains that these institutions have little to no popular support

          This is ironic because the only European institution is the elected European parliament. Its powers would have been expanded in the EU constitution. It is misleading to present the EU constitution as a vote about giving power to elected or unelected bodies. The question is about transferring power from elected nationals to an elected European body. Do we want to go toward a federal European elected goverment with real powers over member states (like in the US) or do we want to keep all the power in the elected government of member states?

          Prefering one way or the other is perfectly legitimate but please, don't claim that one is more democratic.

          • Re:interesting but untrue (Score:4, Informative)

            by Lonewolf666 ( 259450 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @07:26AM (#12871053)
            The EU is NOT a federal country. It has very little power over member states. The parliament has a consultative function but no real authority over member states. The Commission is just an administrative body and has no real power either. The EU Council has the power, it's basically a board room where EU countries negociate stuff. States are represented in the Council by the Heads of States not by anonymous European civil servants as you imply.

            This is a correct but incomplete description of the status quo. The rub is that member states are obliged by EU contract to adjust their laws to the content of EU directives.
            This implies a transfer of legislative powers to the government-controlled EU Council, which undermines the checks and balances a democracy should have. To continue your US analogy without federal government:
            Imagine a council of State Governors could create directives that have to be integrated into state law, unless the states want to break the US constitution.

            An acceptable way of fixing this would be to give more power to the EU parliament. This would turn the EU parliament into a body with powers similar to Congress, and restore a proper balance between government and parliament.
      • The EU is not a democratically elected body.
        The EU was formed as, and still acts as, a union of industrial countries that want to cooperate to create a big market in which multinational companies can operate and make big profits.
        The mechanism of a commission with large groups of lobbyists hovering around it is very efficient for this. They are not interested in the opinions of the citizen or the problems of small companies. What counts and what brings them money is the large corporations. The large corpo
      • The national governments do not want to give away real power. Thus we have three bodies. The council, which consist of the national governments, where the big decisions are made. The commission which consist of the people appointed by the national governments, which take care of day-to-day operations. And the parliament with no real power which serve to give an illusion of democracy, and as a highly paid retirement post for national politicians.

        The people who created the EU probably would have prefered
        • I thought the recent referenda made fairly clear that the people of Europe are even less keen on the idea of an elected European parliament with real power, than the national governments are.

          Whether they're right in their skepticism I really don't know. It's interesting that the people of France are so seemingly skeptical of an instution that shovels them massive subsidies to keep their tiny, inefficient farms afloat...

      • All bodies in the EU are democratically elected. The difference is the way and how directly.

        The EP is the only body directly elected by the people. So, some/many people think it should the final authorative on European matters.

        On the other hand, there is the Council of Ministers. The ministers are representing the various (also democratically) elected goverments of the various countries. Since the EU is no state, other people argue that the respective governments should be authorative on most matters.

        In

  • Lets make prior art (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Kim0 ( 106623 ) *
    What if we made a gargantuan database of prior art?

    Not just actual prior art, but new art? We could use some sort of generator to make millions or billions of inventions. It should be possible to cover almost all obvious inventions this way.

    Kim0

  • The don't understand do they? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by moderators_are_w*nke ( 571920 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @02:42AM (#12870158) Journal
    I get the impression they don't understand the legislation. I don't see how else they can think its a good idea.

  • Retaliation: GPL should be changed... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @02:46AM (#12870169)
    ...to explicitely forbid the use of GPL'ed software for public institutions in countries where software patents are enforced.
    • That would only help to make the institutions even more dependent on proprietary software. There is nothing to gain with that.
    • If the GPL'ed software doesn't pre-exist awarded patents its possible that they will be driven out anyway.

      What smaller producer of GPL'ed software has the necessary resources to perform a patent search and pay the appropriate licence fees. It can't be too long before patent holding companies take a tilt at GPL'ed software in an attempt to have it banned from areas. They would much rather proprietary software do the job as its possible to get a licence fee from the vendor.

    • Re:Retaliation: GPL should be changed... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cpghost ( 719344 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:48AM (#12870338) Homepage

      The GPL is already a "political" license (as opposed to BSD-style licensing), and this scares some governments away from using it in the public service. We don't like this, but sadly that's the way it is in some parts of the world.

      If the GPL were amended in such a way as to fight patents, it would become even more political. IMHO, politics don't belong in licensing terms, but in the political debate.

      Now that we've apparently lost the patents fight (or are on the way to losing it), we need to regroup and take political action more seriously than before. No more and no less. A change in GPL terms won't make a dent into the current state of affairs.

  • Hypercorrection (Score:2, Interesting)

    by AndrewHowe ( 60826 )
    Nice that RMS realises he's writing for a UK audience, but we say "program" not "programme".
    Here you go, the Grauniad's own style guide [guardian.co.uk].

    • Re:Hypercorrection (Score:5, Funny)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @02:56AM (#12870200) Homepage Journal
      I heard two women talking about programming on the train the other day. I was following their conversation for about 30 seconds before I realised they were child care workers. They have to make a programme so their children get the necessary amount of exercise and educational activities. What the difference between a programme and a schedule is I'll never know. Maybe child care workers will be applying for patents next.
    • Nice that RMS realises he's writing for a UK audience, but we say "program" not "programme". Here you go, the Grauniad's own style guide.

      More conservative dictionaries prefer "programme", eg Cambridge [cambridge.org]. Newspaper style guides are often useful, but not authoritative.

  • Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @02:52AM (#12870185) Homepage Journal
    The only argument Stallman makes is that patents should not be overly broad. You don't see broad patents in the automobile, aerospace or pharmacutical industries because people actually challenge patents in those industries. In the software industry we just tend to roll over when a lawyer even sneezes in our general direction. Why? Because the software industry is made up of fly-by-night companies that can't afford to put up a legal fight, let alone produce a stable product. If our industry is ever to mature we have to learn to let go of the status quo and embrace change. This does not mean the amature programmer has to suffer. Free and Open Source Software can continue to produce new and innovative things, just like amatures do in automobile, aerospace, radio and other industries already covered by international patents.

    Personally, I'd like to see the copyright system not be applied to software. The kind of argument Stallman makes about patents not being a good fit for literature can also be made for why copyright is not a good fit for automobiles or planes.

    • Re:Sigh (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Free and Open Source Software can continue to produce new and innovative things, just like amatures do in automobile, aerospace, radio and other industries already covered by international patents.

      But the Free will never challenge corporatist hegemon again, being marginalised and underground, battered down with patents which switch the software development question from geekish "who's the most technologically competent" to the jockish "who's got the most lawyer friends, money and connections": make no mis
      • The fact that Open Source can challenge commercial software at all just demonstrates that commercial software is shit. So what's your plan for making it not shit? Oh that's right, nothing, you have no plan. Instead you want everything to stay the same.. or better yet, have the commercial software industry just crumble and go away to be replaced by the equally (or possibly even slightly superior) shit we call Open Source. Great! Here's a better idea. Let's grant software patents on truely original and

    • Re:Sigh (Score:2, Insightful)

      by insert cool name ( 889389 )
      Personally, I'd like to see the copyright system not be applied to software

      Why???? What problems do you see caused by the copyrighting of code?

      I can see a lot of advantages - it's a system to ensure I receive credit for my creative works, and enables me to exploit them for financial gain if I see fit. If I create them for reasons other than financial gain it allows me to do that and still exert control over their use in ways I see fit - eg the GPL which is built on top of copyright.

      As for your asse

    • Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pesc ( 147035 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:36AM (#12870463)
      The only argument Stallman makes is that patents should not be overly broad.
      No, he argues why authors (of text or software) are not helped by patents. And why patents (monopolies) hinders development for authors.

      This does not mean the amature programmer has to suffer. Free and Open Source Software can continue to produce new and innovative things, just like amatures do in automobile, aerospace, radio and other industries already covered by international patents.

      FOSS authors have already been threatened by patent holders even when the FOSS authors fully own the copyright on their own code and has not pirated any code. By allowing software patents, software authors lose the right to their own work. And unlike "mature" industries, the software author can reach a large audience on the internet, competing with big business. Of course big business will use their patent monopolies to censor independent authors if they threaten their bottom lines.

      Personally, I'd like to see the copyright system not be applied to software.
      So that everyone could pirate any software they liked? Windows, Photoshop, etc?
      Or so that M$ could rip off any independent developer and include their code in Windows without having to pay any royalties? Please explain.

      The kind of argument Stallman makes about patents not being a good fit for literature can also be made for why copyright is not a good fit for automobiles or planes.

      Well, copyright is not appropriate for automobiles and planes. What is your point?

  • Great article by Stallman (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gbulmash ( 688770 ) * <`semi_famous' `at' `yahoo.com'> on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:01AM (#12870214) Homepage Journal
    I've never seen the patent concept put in such easy-to-understand terms before. I didn't need it explained to me (of course :-)), but after reading it, I had better ideas on how to explain it to others.

    OTOH, it might be more accessible if he'd used a more accessible example. The example appeals more to the French and francophiles, and fans of great literature. I'd apply it to sandwiches. Imagine if every sandwich shop had to pay the Earl of Sandwich $1 for every sandwich they sold (and then had to pass that cost on to the consumer in the form of higher prices). Then EoS sues McDonalds, as a hamburger is actually a hamburger sandwich, and since he's getting $1 a sandwich from Akbar's Gas n' Munch on 135th Street, he's suing McDonalds for $100 billion.

    But the guy who patented combining cheese and meat is suing McDonalds. And so is the guy who patented the extending sandwich flavor by adding condiments. And so is the guy who patented the idea of conveying french fries to customers in a cardboard container. And so is the guy who patented a method of conveying liquid from a distributing nozzle to the customer by means of a cyllindrical shaped device open at only one end (i.e. a freakin' CUP). And yes, the cup, and mayonnaise, and cheeseburgers, and fries in a cardboard carton all seem like obvious inventions with lots of prior art. But we've seen such silliness get through the patent office in America.

    Don't think the government is going to put the money in place to keep some overworked, underpaid patent examiner from approving a patent on cheeseburgers! And once the patent is granted, getting it revoked or dismissed is so expensive that every little burger stand will pay the guy who got the cheeseburger patent $10,000 a year because they don't have the $10,000,000 to fund the challenge.

    When granted for truly original inventions within a certain limited scope, patents are a wonderful thing that encourage innovation. But that's in theory. In practice, they're something else entirely.

    Don't let the patent lawyers and the politicians they lease paint rosy pictures of theory over the cesspit of practice. Don't let software patents pass in Europe.

    - Greg

    • Your example more points out why Stallman's argument is stupid. Patents exist harmoniously in dozens of industries in our society. For many industries they underpin how that industry operates. Will introducing software patents in the EU change the way the software industry works? Yes. About as much as it changed the way the software industry works in the US. If you want to argue that overly broad patents are a bad idea, fine, do that, no-one will disagree with you. In fact, they'll happily point you
      • A few posts up you were talking about how the modern ( American ) software industry is "shit", how it produces "shit" and that this was somehow due to a lack of patent protection.

        Here however you have changed your tune and modern ( American ) software is no longer "shit" thanks to the wonder of Patents.
      • Fine, no one argues that overly broad patents are being granted. Everyone admits much of this can be attributed to the facts that the patent office doesn't have enough staff to give the patents proper examination, and the staff level of expertise isn't keeping up with the pace of technology.

        And as you said, "they'll happily point you at the numerous supreme court rulings that have decided as much." I think the operative phrase here is "numerous supreme court rulings." Do you know how expensive it is to

    • a year because they don't have the $10,000,000 to fund the challenge.

      Care to point out a reference or two or breakdown of the costs you used to come up with this figure?

  • Why Innovation Is Stifled (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Boss, Pointy Haired ( 537010 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:03AM (#12870222)
    It costs very little to be innovative in Software.

    The same cannot be said of innovation in pharmaceuticals.

    From the article:

    "They (those in favour of Software Patents) argue that intellectual property rights provide incentives for companies to innovate and invest in research and development."

    What i'm saying is, that in my opinion, this argument is void because it is possible to innovate in Software without any considerable investment in anything other than your own time.

    • Re:Why Innovation Is Stifled (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pecisk ( 688001 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:11AM (#12870240)
      ...and my pick is that copyright and trademark laws are very well designed to protect intelectual property in software world. Patents only makes things worse, it is thing only loved by lawyers.
    • What i'm saying is, that in my opinion, this argument is void because it is possible to innovate in Software without any considerable investment in anything other than your own time.

      Be careful of your word selection. It is also "possible" (as in a probability not equal to 0) to innovate in pharmaceuticals without any considerable investment in anything other than your own time.

      It may not be equally probable, but it is certinly possible. That being said, you seem to be considering ones time as not terri
  • From RMS' article:

    You might think these ideas are so simple that no patent office would have issued them. We programmers are often amazed by the simplicity of the ideas that real software patents cover - for instance, the European Patent Office has issued a patent on the progress bar, and one on accepting payment via credit cards. These would be laughable if they were not so dangerous.

    I see this point constantly being brought up everytime patents are discussed here and it represents a major misunderstan

  • New motivation to drop IT completely (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pecisk ( 688001 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:03AM (#12870224)
    I was looking for slow transformation to be a musician and record producer (at least no one can patent certain sounds), but this will quicken my farevell. Guess what...another industry killed by greedy corporations. Yeah, money it is all that matters. Who cares about healthy, free market? Fuck it.

    Sorry about my rant, it is just really sad.

  • Not the end of the world (Score:2, Interesting)

    by naich ( 781425 )
    I'm not sure that we should have hoped for anything different happening here. This was a chance for the JURI to amend the directive ahead of it's vote in July. As they have chosen not to amend it (well, not in a significant way), then there is still a reason for the MEPs to put the effort into turning up to reject/amend it in July. If they had amended it enough to make it look like it was better (without actually changing the fundamental problem with it), then some MEPs might have been placated enough to

  • DMCA, patent law, the war for oil ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by blankslate ( 748549 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:16AM (#12870255)
    I for one hope some enterprising freedom fighters destroy the USA entirely, before it can further contaminate the actual free world with the next round of infectious pure insanity. If we can't disassemble corporate personhood, maybe we should disassemble the populace? Viva la fucking insanity.

  • Swedish EU represants (Score:5, Informative)

    by aliquis ( 678370 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @03:39AM (#12870311)
    I've found the right e-mail address to all of them except one, if you want to tell them what you think, here's the addresses:

    jandersson@europarl.eu.int, charlotte.cederschiold@moderat.se,
    lek@europarl.e u.int, cfjellner@europarl.eu.int,
    helene.goudin@telia.co m, anna.hedh@telia.com,
    ehedkvist@europarl.eu.int, ghokmark@europarl.eu.int,
    aibrisagic@europarl.eu. int, nlundgren@europarl.eu.int,
    cmalmstrom@europarl.eu .int, carl.schlyter@mp.se,
    jsjostedt@europarl.eu.int, e-b.svensson@bredband.net,
    awestlund@europarl.eu. int, anders@wijkman.nu, lars.wohlin@telia.com,
    inger.segelstrom@riksdagen .se, maria@liberal.se

    However the inger.segelstrom@riksdagen.se wasn't valid longer, I tried with inger.segelstrom@europarl.eu.int but that failed aswell. If anyone know the right address please let me know.

  • Existing patents (Score:4, Interesting)

    by noims ( 23711 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:20AM (#12870419) Homepage

    I'm looking for existing EU patents that show up the system. In his article RMS mentions patents on progress bars and accpeting payment by credit card... are there any other popular choices, or better still a page with lists of them?

    Recently I've come up against one that, while I haven't read the actual text of, seems to cover downloading a file from a central authority that lists rates for several currencies, and using these rates to convert a price from a local currency to a foreign one.

    Wow. I wish I'd thought of that.

    Noims

  • EUizens: please please contact your MEP (Score:3, Insightful)

    by erikkemperman ( 252014 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:40AM (#12870479)
    My .sig says it all -- please contact your MEP and stop this madness!

  • Stop Apple, MS et al undermining EU SME voice. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by delire ( 809063 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @04:58AM (#12870528)

    SME's are the hardest hit here, but as the FFII organisers suggest, SME's need to make direct contact with MEP's, ideally in Brussels itself.

    Fat yet hungry wolves like Apple and Microsoft et al http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=11 649&Page=1&pagePos=11 [macworld.co.uk] are working hard alongside EU nationals (eg Nokia, Siemens) to falsely lobby on behalf of SME's. The case needs to be made clear to MEP's that SME's have the least to gain from swpats, and the argument needs to be economically framed in the context of the EU's stake in a global IT market. Statistics like these serve as good support material:
    http://wiki.ffii.org/Bsa050609En [ffii.org]

    It's not just that there is much to lose from unbridled software patenting, so much as there is arguably much to gain from disallowing them altogether.

    Personally I would have thought the moment US mega-corps become involved, would be glaring reason for MEP's to become anxious over the interests of the directive, but as they say "follow the money".. in this case off a cliff.

  • EU (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jaysyn ( 203771 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @05:44AM (#12870646) Homepage Journal
    Q: What does the EU & the USA have in common.

    A: They are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Big Business.

    Jaysyn

  • Natural science vs. natural forces ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by file-exists-p ( 681756 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @06:00AM (#12870695)

    The Financial Times summarizes the event [ft.com] as a major victory for the bad guys (to make it short). Still, the summary given on FFII's page [ffii.org] states that the definition of field of technology as the field of applied natural sciences (and not exact sciences) excludes clearly software patents.

    Also, Rocard's phrasing [slashdot.org] was to characterize what is patentable vs. what is not by considering if it requires or not the use of natural forces. All the good guys (to make it short) seem to agree with that characterization.

    Can someone explain why it is a "major blow" ? And more precisely what is patentable with natural sciences which is not with natural forces ?

    Cheers,
    --
    Go Debian!

  • point (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Exter-C ( 310390 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @06:51AM (#12870879) Homepage
    The real issue here is that there are so many people that are vocally against patents on the internet but realistically how many of those are actually consulting with their Members of the European Parliment. I have recently asked how many people had actually contacted my MEP in the UK and the response was very few. If we want to make our point of view heard you will need to make it public WRITE a letter and post it to your MEP, Email them, and bombard the local news papers with information otherwise whats the point if nobody actually hears about the battle?.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Users never use the Help key.

Close