For the record: if the Council approves its pro-software patents text, all is not yet lost since there is still a second reading in the European Parliament. A downside of this second reading is that the EP can only amend the Council's text using absolute majorities there (i.e., half the number of MEPs must vote in favour of an amendment, regardless of how many abstain or are even present at the vote).
The big news is however that the Council Presidency is basically trying to circumvent the Council itself. In May, they reached a political agreement on the most pro-software patents text seen in EU legislative circles until now. At the Council meeting in May, Poland first abstained, then Germany and the Commission introduced some fake compromise amendment, and after a break Poland was not consulted again about its position, because there was a qualified majority in place even without its support. They confirmed [ukie.gov.pl] afterwards their position did not change because of the bogus compromise amendment.
Recently, Poland confirmed its position [slashdot.org], after everyone in a meeting with HP, Novell, Microsoft and others confirmed that the text of the Council of Ministers allows pure software patents (contrary what is often claimed). And apart from Microsoft and the Polish Patent Lawyers association, everyone agreed that software patents would be bad for the Polish economy. Because the voting weights changed on 1 November (due to the joining of all the new member states to the EU), Poland's support suddenly became necessary and thus the qualified majority was officially broken.
So the Council currently has an ugly text on the table which is no longer supported by a qualified majority in any way, but by means of diplomatic pressure on Poland and others the Dutch presidency (lead in this case by Minister Brinkhorst) is trying everything it can to push it through nevertheless.
I've previously contacted some Belgian MEPs about this issue, and was pleased by their response. Is there anything we 'Belgians Against Software Patents' can do now regarding this matter, given that Belgium already seems to be on the right side ?
Yes, getting more Belgian companies/businesses to speak out against software patents, because the Belgian ministry's position is ambiguous at best. There was already a nice statement in May [softwarepatenten.be], but we need bigger companies. Companies like e.g. Telindus and Belgacom. Telindus has exactly 1 patent (on some modem modulation technique), Belgacom has 5 (none of them software patents).
Telindus is now an integrator/services company. It provides services for e.g. the Flemish government. Another company that does so
You mention a company where I have a foot (actually only some toes) in door, and I already had a lot of informal discussions with my contacts about this issue. But typically they're too distanced and too busy minding their own corner to care. With a wait-and-see approach businesses in Belgium tend to be very reactive regarding politics.
I've also talked to a quite highly positioned person at Alcatel, but they take a very, very pro-patent stance since they feel it's a thing that can protect them from Chinese
You mention a company where I have a foot (actually only some toes) in door, and I already had a lot of informal discussions with my contacts about this issue. But typically they're too distanced and too busy minding their own corner to care. With a wait-and-see approach businesses in Belgium tend to be very reactive regarding politics.
It's true it's very difficult to mobilise companies. Maybe showing them them the presentation linked here [ffii.org] can help. And otherwise, maybe showing them this [espacenet.com] will wake them
...as the representative of all Slashdot users*, I would like to publicly thank you and everyone else on the front line of this battle - I personally don't know where you must find the energy, but am very glad that you do:-)
IIRC (no time to verify now), the dutch representative even voted for, after he had said he would vote against. A grassroots activist group then went to parliament and informed them of the irregularity. In response, a change of the official stance to abstention was requested. AFAIK, though, the representative is still in position, and it seriously escapes me why.
Please do verify what I wrote, I have the feeling I may be mixing up things.
Please do verify what I wrote, I have the feeling I may be mixing up things.
Indeed, you are. The Dutch minister had said there was an agreement over the text between the European Parliament and the Council, so that there was no problem to support it. Afterwards, this was shown not to be true, so the Dutch Parliament voted a motion [ffii.org] asking the Dutch government to change into an abstention. The government claims it's fulfilling this motion, why in fact it is not.
In fact the government is saying they they can vote 'yes' because, as they say, the current proposal does not allow for software patents.
The position of the dutch government on software is schizofrenic. At one side they support big companies by voting support for software patents and secretly(!) arranging 5 year contract with Microsoft despite a law ordering big contracts to fulfilled after requesting prices at various vendors and a motion ordering goverment to buy _only_ free software after 2006.
In fact the government is saying they they can vote 'yes' because, as they say, the current proposal does not allow for software patents.
That is not true. They have claimed in the past that the Council text does not allow software patents, but they never used it as rationale for not changing their vote. They simply interpreted the motion as stating "when there is a new vote, you have to abstain, but since normally there won't be a new vote, we don't have to abstain; and we also won't ask for a new vote
Thanks for clearing that up, Halo1. As often in this neverending saga, the subleties are difficult. The main intent of the government is for software patents. I'd wish the Dutch parliament had proposed a stronger motion.
I'd wish the Dutch parliament had proposed a stronger motion.
What they passed was pretty strong: they asked to withhold support to the Council text from then on. However, Brinkhorst reinterpreted this as that he only had to change if a new vote was held. He's just weaseling out.
There was also a motion to change to the vote to "no" (instead of abstention), and Van Gennip had said that in that case they would be prepared to ask for a new vote by themselves (although Brinkhorst would probably have found
VVD and D66 have clear points on software patents: they are against software patents. For example, D66 says:
D66 is nooit voorstander geweest van de octrooiering van software, omdat het de creativiteit en bewegingsvrijheid en innovatie zelf in het gedrang kan brengen. (
The only party not having an easily findable public statement is CDA. This is strange. However, I have email CDA EP members and she said she was against software patents but agreed with the current proposal. I don't have the mail here
VVD and D66 have clear points on software patents: they are against software patents.
VVD is hardcore in favour. They use similar misleading language like the Commission, Bolkestein and the Council, but they're in favour. They voted against the motion in the Dutch parliament that requested abstention by the minister.
D66 is against software patents, but Brinkhorst doesn't care about his own party (or anyone else for that matter, except for Philips).
The only party not having an easily findable publi
We're here to give you a computer, not a religion.
- attributed to Bob Pariseau, at the introduction of the Amiga
Some corrections and overview (Score:5, Informative)
The big news is however that the Council Presidency is basically trying to circumvent the Council itself. In May, they reached a political agreement on the most pro-software patents text seen in EU legislative circles until now. At the Council meeting in May, Poland first abstained, then Germany and the Commission introduced some fake compromise amendment, and after a break Poland was not consulted again about its position, because there was a qualified majority in place even without its support. They confirmed [ukie.gov.pl] afterwards their position did not change because of the bogus compromise amendment.
Recently, Poland confirmed its position [slashdot.org], after everyone in a meeting with HP, Novell, Microsoft and others confirmed that the text of the Council of Ministers allows pure software patents (contrary what is often claimed). And apart from Microsoft and the Polish Patent Lawyers association, everyone agreed that software patents would be bad for the Polish economy. Because the voting weights changed on 1 November (due to the joining of all the new member states to the EU), Poland's support suddenly became necessary and thus the qualified majority was officially broken.
Other notable events since the political agreement of May are the fact that in July the Dutch Parliament asked its government to change position [slashdot.org] from being in favour to abstention, and at the start of this month all parties of the German Parliament did the same [nosoftwarepatents.com].
So the Council currently has an ugly text on the table which is no longer supported by a qualified majority in any way, but by means of diplomatic pressure on Poland and others the Dutch presidency (lead in this case by Minister Brinkhorst) is trying everything it can to push it through nevertheless.
Re:Some corrections and overview (Score:2)
Re:Some corrections and overview (Score:2)
Telindus is now an integrator/services company. It provides services for e.g. the Flemish government. Another company that does so
Re:Some corrections and overview (Score:2)
I've also talked to a quite highly positioned person at Alcatel, but they take a very, very pro-patent stance since they feel it's a thing that can protect them from Chinese
Re:Some corrections and overview (Score:2)
It's true it's very difficult to mobilise companies. Maybe showing them them the presentation linked here [ffii.org] can help. And otherwise, maybe showing them this [espacenet.com] will wake them
By the way... (Score:1)
* Not true
Re:Some corrections and overview (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Some corrections and overview (Score:1)
More Craziness (Score:2)
Please do verify what I wrote, I have the feeling I may be mixing up things.
Re:More Craziness (Score:2)
Indeed, you are. The Dutch minister had said there was an agreement over the text between the European Parliament and the Council, so that there was no problem to support it. Afterwards, this was shown not to be true, so the Dutch Parliament voted a motion [ffii.org] asking the Dutch government to change into an abstention. The government claims it's fulfilling this motion, why in fact it is not.
Re:More Craziness (Score:1)
The position of the dutch government on software is schizofrenic. At one side they support big companies by voting support for software patents and secretly(!) arranging 5 year contract with Microsoft despite a law ordering big contracts to fulfilled after requesting prices at various vendors and a motion ordering goverment to buy _only_ free software after 2006.
On the o
Re:More Craziness (Score:2)
That is not true. They have claimed in the past that the Council text does not allow software patents, but they never used it as rationale for not changing their vote. They simply interpreted the motion as stating "when there is a new vote, you have to abstain, but since normally there won't be a new vote, we don't have to abstain; and we also won't ask for a new vote
Re:More Craziness (Score:1)
Re:More Craziness (Score:2)
What they passed was pretty strong: they asked to withhold support to the Council text from then on. However, Brinkhorst reinterpreted this as that he only had to change if a new vote was held. He's just weaseling out.
There was also a motion to change to the vote to "no" (instead of abstention), and Van Gennip had said that in that case they would be prepared to ask for a new vote by themselves (although Brinkhorst would probably have found
Re:More Craziness (Score:1)
The only party not having an easily findable public statement is CDA. This is strange. However, I have email CDA EP members and she said she was against software patents but agreed with the current proposal. I don't have the mail here
Re:More Craziness (Score:2)
VVD is hardcore in favour. They use similar misleading language like the Commission, Bolkestein and the Council, but they're in favour. They voted against the motion in the Dutch parliament that requested abstention by the minister.
D66 is against software patents, but Brinkhorst doesn't care about his own party (or anyone else for that matter, except for Philips).