As JPHM already mentioned above, I've been here in the European Parliament in Strasbourg since Monday lobbying. I haven't slept last night at all because, together with other people (hi Xavi, Tino, James and Hartmut:), I was making the final voting recommendations of ffii.org. We distributed a paper version of this voting list this morning and also had an MEP mail it to all other MEPs so they all could look at it and use it if they wanted.
In general, pretty much all important amendments to the articles were incorporated. There is a lot of patch-up work to do and in its current form, the directive is a complete mess because of this, but the basic line has been completely turned around.
Yesterday, Commissioner Bolkestein was still complaining that we (the opponents) were trying to destroyt the directive and warned against voting against the directive, because it would not fix the current legal uncertainty (software patents are being granted but not enforceable before a court of law as they are illegal). Today, rumors are doing rounds that the Commission is considering retracting the directive, because it was so successfully amended by us.
Finally, I would like to say that our lobbyiong in general has absolutely nothing to do with open source or Free Software. We simply think software patents would be bad for all SME's, independent developers and innovation/society as a whole. Of course, there are a lot of free software in the independent developers category (and especially in the Free Software category, quite a few people concerned with society as well).
Being stamped"linux junkies that want everything to be free/gratis" corner is however the last thing we want (our opponents have tried that, and failed until now since they have no basis that supports their claims), and we having backing from several commercial closed source companies (such as Opera Software).
thanks.. and if somebody needed +20 informative this would be it.
and i'm pretty much replying just to get this noticed among the +5 modded crap that's just bitching about moving to mars. (actually slashdot would need a '+20 storybreaker' moderation or something)
Thank you for your work. Still I can't see this as a victory.
In contrast to the "software is not patentable" we had beforehand, this is worse. Now each and every formerly illegal patent will have to be examined whether its maybe illegal?
No, dismissal of the whole thing would be a battle won. And a criminal investigation against patent offices for illegally granting software-patents, _that_ would be victory. --
In fact, in my view, one of the major problems with the patent system as we have it now is that patent offices are _rewarded_ for granting a patent, whether it is an invention deserving a patent or not.
IMO, the patent office should be (severely) fined for patents that are refuted in court. Or better yet, they should pay back all costs that have been made for that patent, including both the costs having been made by the patentee to receive his patent, and those that have been made by the patente
Maybe I don't know very well English, but don't you mean patenter rather than patentee?
If anything, those rewards shouldn't go back to the "inventor", they should go solely to the "invalidator".
When applying, I think that some additional amount of money should be paid by the applicant, with a full refund of the additional if granted, no refund if rejected. Possibly a partial refund if they reapply, but I don't know enough about patent applications to know whether that'd be confusing.
In contrast to the "software is not patentable" we had beforehand, this is worse. Now each and every formerly illegal patent will have to be examined whether its maybe illegal?
Three remarks:
This was only the first reading. The directive is not yet adopted, it now goes back to the commission and then back to the parliament for a second reading. Not sure what happens after that.
The European Patent Convention (which says that computer programs can not be invented, and as such not be patented) is still
Story is complete misinformation (Score:5, Informative)
In general, pretty much all important amendments to the articles were incorporated. There is a lot of patch-up work to do and in its current form, the directive is a complete mess because of this, but the basic line has been completely turned around.
Yesterday, Commissioner Bolkestein was still complaining that we (the opponents) were trying to destroyt the directive and warned against voting against the directive, because it would not fix the current legal uncertainty (software patents are being granted but not enforceable before a court of law as they are illegal). Today, rumors are doing rounds that the Commission is considering retracting the directive, because it was so successfully amended by us.
Finally, I would like to say that our lobbyiong in general has absolutely nothing to do with open source or Free Software. We simply think software patents would be bad for all SME's, independent developers and innovation/society as a whole. Of course, there are a lot of free software in the independent developers category (and especially in the Free Software category, quite a few people concerned with society as well).
Being stamped"linux junkies that want everything to be free/gratis" corner is however the last thing we want (our opponents have tried that, and failed until now since they have no basis that supports their claims), and we having backing from several commercial closed source companies (such as Opera Software).
Re:Story is complete misinformation (Score:1)
Thank you for the good work.
Re:Story is complete misinformation (Score:3, Interesting)
and i'm pretty much replying just to get this noticed among the +5 modded crap that's just bitching about moving to mars.
(actually slashdot would need a '+20 storybreaker' moderation or something)
Thank you. (Score:1)
Re:Story is complete misinformation (Score:1)
Re:Story is complete misinformation (Score:1)
In contrast to the "software is not patentable" we had beforehand, this is worse. Now each and every formerly illegal patent will have to be examined whether its maybe illegal?
No, dismissal of the whole thing would be a battle won. And a criminal investigation against patent offices for illegally granting software-patents, _that_ would be victory.
--
Re:Story is complete misinformation (Score:1)
In fact, in my view, one of the major problems with the patent system as we have it now is that patent offices are _rewarded_ for granting a patent, whether it is an invention deserving a patent or not.
IMO, the patent office should be (severely) fined for patents that are refuted in court. Or better yet, they should pay back all costs that have been made for that patent, including both the costs having been made by the patentee to receive his patent, and those that have been made by the patente
Re:Story is complete misinformation (Score:2)
If anything, those rewards shouldn't go back to the "inventor", they should go solely to the "invalidator".
When applying, I think that some additional amount of money should be paid by the applicant, with a full refund of the additional if granted, no refund if rejected. Possibly a partial refund if they reapply, but I don't know enough about patent applications to know whether that'd be confusing.
Re:Story is complete misinformation (Score:2)
Three remarks:
Thanks (Score:2)
Keep the good work.
\\Uriel
Re:We have to defend this (Score:2)