Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

European MP Responds on Software Patents 307

Posted by michael from the foad dept.
Wolfbone writes "The Guardian newspaper has a contributed article from the European politician Arlene McCarthy in which she responds to a previous article in the same organ by RMS and Nick Hill on the issue of software patents. If the appalling mixture of misrepresentation, non sequitur, solecism and faux-naivete does not make your blood boil, you are a cold fish indeed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

European MP Responds on Software Patents More

European MP Responds on Software Patents

Comments Filter:

  • Boiling (Score:5, Funny)

    by jabbadabbadoo ( 599681 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @06:47AM (#6198391)
    " If the appalling mixture of misrepresentation, non sequitur, solecism and faux-naivete does not make your blood boil,"

    That sentence was enough to make my blood boil.

  • Oh, please... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Noryungi ( 70322 )
    Everybody knows European MPs (Member of Parliament) are next to useless anyway... I don't even need to read the interview to tell you she is a fscking moron.

    Seriously, though, almost *anyone* can get elected to the European Parliament, and the *real* decisions are not made in Strasbourg (Euro Parliament home town) they are made in Brussels, Belgium, either through the European Commission or through high-level talks between the different European governments.

    Of course, this might change in the near future,

    • Re:Oh, please... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by oogoliegoogolie ( 635356 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @07:04AM (#6198425)
      Everybody knows European MPs (Member of Parliament) are next to useless anyway.

      Unlike Canadian MP's, Australilan MP's, and members of the US Congress, which always represent the people that elected them and never ignore the little guy in favor of big business, lobbyists, and their own political interests.

      • I think you're missing the point. (Score:4, Informative)

        by l-ascorbic ( 200822 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @07:13AM (#6198451)
        Euro MPs are next to useless because the European Parliament is virtually powerless.
        That's not to confuse them with MPs in the individual member states' parliaments, who occasionally do have some power.

        • Euro MPs are next to useless because the European Parliament is virtually powerless.

          This may be true in general terms, but they do have considerable powers to amend European legislation, which is most of the legislation that could harm free software (e.g. Copyright Directive, Software Patent Directive).

          • No, they don't. The only area where the European Parliament has any real power is the E.U. budget. In all other cases, all it can do is give advice, which in turn can be ignored...

            • Re:I think you're missing the point. (Score:4, Informative)

              by cabalamat2 ( 227849 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @10:04AM (#6199153) Homepage Journal

              No, they don't. The only area where the European Parliament has any real power is the E.U. budget. In all other cases, all it can do is give advice, which in turn can be ignored...

              This is wrong (whoever modded the post up shouldn't have). The powers of the EP are laid out here [eu.int].

              Basically, it jointly decides EU laws on a co-decision basis with the Council. It has powers over non-compulsory expenditure only, which basically means the EP can't stop the Common Agricultural Policy.

    • Re:Oh, please... (Score:4, Informative)

      by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @07:23AM (#6198469)
      http://www.europarl.eu.int/factsheets/1_3_2_en.htm

      The parliament's powers:

      -"Parliament takes part in the drafting of Community legislation to varying degrees, according to the individual legal basis. It has progressed from a purely advisory role to codecision on an equal footing with the Council."

      -"The Treaty of Rome made provision for a motion of censure against the Commission (Article 201 (144) EC). It requires a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, representing a majority of Parliament's component members, in which case the Commission must resign as a body."

      So, the parliament is now equally important as the Council and has the power to force the Commision to resign. Just because most of the electorate don't bother reading about or even voting for the European Parliament doesn't make it meaningless.

      • Guess what? (Score:2, Informative)

        by Free Bird ( 160885 )
        The European Council doesn't have any real power either! However, unlike the parliament, it *does* get taken seriously...
        • How can you say the council does not have any real power? Over half of the legislation in many member countries come straight from the EU, which means the council (sometimes combined with the parliament). Explain yourself, please.
    • Everybody knows European MPs (Member of Parliament) are next to useless anyway...
      I think you're being a bit unfair here, almost ALL MPs are fucking useless, not just the European brand. And those that aren't complete morons are just plain dangerous...
    • Of course, this might change in the near future, with the new European 'Constitution', but it will probably change for the better, by making sure more intelligent people are elected.

      The current situation is made worse by certain countries' tendancy to hold national elections on the same day as the European elections. Most candidates run in both polls... and only the losers (those who lose the national elections, which are deemed more important) go to Strasbourg.

    • Actually, the _real_ real decisions are made in London, Paris and Berlin. I wonder how good a model of European decisionmaking 'best two of the big three = policy' would be?

  • GNU a monoply? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by brettlbecker ( 596407 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @07:00AM (#6198418) Homepage
    We have an obligation to legislate not just for one section of the software industry who seeks to impose its business model on the rest of industry, which moreover is not "free", but is actually a different form of monopoly by imposing a copyright licence system on users.

    Interesting... this seems to be saying that, through the use of the GPL, the FSF is, perhaps unwittingly, attempting to create a monopoly. I'm not sure her statement holds water... how does the GPL stifle competition and innovation? I mean, releasing software under the GPL is the choice of the developer... and as for "imposing" the license on users, aren't *all* licenses imposed on users? Isn't that really part of the definition of a license? It's still the user's choice whether or not to *use* the software. Simply because they can't take GPL'd software and package it without the source and sell it doesn't mean that the software is part of a monopoly... geez! The GPL certainly is another form of *contract*... but monopoly? Give me a break.

    B

    • Re:GNU a monoply? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @07:18AM (#6198460) Journal
      "We have an obligation to legislate not just for one section of the software industry who seeks to impose its business model on the rest of industry, which moreover is not "free", but is actually a different form of monopoly by imposing a copyright licence system on users."

      Heh, my guess is that Stallman pissed her off. He seems to do that to people a lot... She's confused about the difference between patents and copyright though.

      The GPL forbids me to take an interesting bit of software with a GPL licence attached, and use its code in my own closed source program. However I am free to duplicate the programs functionality by re-writing it, using the GPL'ed software as an example. That means I can freely use other people's ideas, but I cannot freely use their work.
      However, software patents actually cover algorithms and/or business methods. I am not allowed to freely use a patented bit of software in my own product, but I am also not allowed to duplicate the functionality. That means I cannot write my own 'one click shopping' routine.

      Anyone who wants to can get out from under the GPL licence... if they are willing to do the work. Not so with patents.

      • Re:GNU a monoply? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ichimunki ( 194887 )
        That is my prime concern with what she said. She doesn't seem to understand the danger patents pose to free software (which I won't reiterate because you did so perfectly). She says Linux grew 50% marketshare. So? If I go from 1% to 1.5% that's a 50% increase... and while that's exciting, it's hardly a big win in terms of that marketplace. The question is, long-term, will the growth continue at 50% rate of increase or at the .5% absolute increase?

        We already have ample example in the patents that encumber

        • Re:GNU a monoply? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Cyberdyne ( 104305 ) *
          We already have ample example in the patents that encumber GIFs and MP3 and the various video technologies.

          Ah yes, the GIF patent. That [mozilla.org] stopped [gimp.org] any [konqueror.org] free [imagemagick.org] software [nectec.or.th] using [sourceforge.net] GIFs [sourceforge.net].

          The MP3 patent's licensing terms don't even prohibit legal Free Software implementations - you pay a one-off licensing fee, and you're fine. There [winamp.com] seem [xmms.org] seem [mpg123.org] to [sourceforge.net] be [underbit.com] plenty [pjrc.com].

          The reality is, those patents haven't killed MP3 or GIFs. If anything, it's Ogg Vorbis and PNGs which are an endangered species - not from litigation, but disuse. (

          • Actually, the thing that patents have done the most to hamper is encryption.

            And the reality of the gif patents is that Unisys just hadn't gotten around to extorting money from the authors of the programs you name yet. xv died because Unisys started demanding money from the author for its gif support.

        • Re:GNU a monoply? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Alsee ( 515537 )
          I agree with you in general, but have to question one point:

          use patents to encumber their DRM schemes. If breaking CSS were not only a DMCA issue, but a case of violating a patent

          I don't see patents as being a particularly effective weapon against breaking DRM. The whole goal of DRM is that no one knows how to defeat it. In order to get a patent you are requiried to make full disclosure of the means of implementing the patent. The last thing they want to do is disclose how to crack DRM.

          Patents are usef
          • And this is my big issue with software patents, they generaly don't really do a full disclosure, their technical details are scant and end up with some bullshit like.

            patent #####
            a method for implementing %insert common task% using %insert common tool%

            %insert clever legalease that sounds vaugely technical%

            Take the one click patent by amizon(please) or the purchasing things at fixed price that is biting ebay. niether of these patents specifies exactly how the protocalls work, because if they did I (o
      • Actually all the GPL does is is to forbid you from distributing closed source software. All it says is that if you give someone a binary that uses GPL'd code, you have to give them the source too.

        So long as you only use the application internally, you don't have to give up your source.

    • Re:GNU a monoply? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rnapier ( 607622 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @07:34AM (#6198492)
      What else is a monopoly but the exclusive control over the rights to something? You have copyright on the things you write. That gives you monopoly control over them. That's what copyright means (monopoly control over copying). It doesn't mean "stifle competition and innovation." That comes later.

      The point you are trying to make I believe is that the GPL does not create an abusive monopoly, or perhaps that it does not create an undesireable monopoly (depending on who desires what), but it absolutely creates restrictions on what can be done with software under it. And that isn't freedom (but then I never said total freedom was good).

      In response to "aren't *all* licenses imposed on users," the answer is yes. So to have total freedom, you have to have no license. We have a name for that: the public domain. That is total freedom.

      As far as "It's still the user's choice whether or not to *use* the software," this is true of Windows as well. Does this mean that Microsoft does not have a monopoly? Would things change if some core piece of technology that everyone used were under the GPL? Given that we're headed that direction, it's a valid thing to consider. The "if you don't like it, you don't have to use my stuff" has always been the argument of monopolists (and they've always been right in their way).

      • What else is a monopoly but the exclusive control over the rights to something? You have copyright on the things you write. That gives you monopoly control over them. That's what copyright means (monopoly control

        The GPL doesn't create a monopoly based on copyright. Copyright itself is the monopoly, granted by the state, to the individual. The GPL is a set of conventions (in this case, embodied by the license) governing the behaviour that the monopolist (in this case, the author of the program) follows. M

      • What I meant by 'monopoly' was what she implied... the illegal sort that, for instance, MS was convicted of being--she is implying in her article that, though different in appearance, in substance the GPL creates a monopoly comparable to that held by MS, which was the company most broadly attacked in rms' original article.

        I hold that line of thought to be utter nonsense. I don't care if its abusive or non-abusive (a curious term anyway, since, at least in my understanding, all monopolies are abusive--it's

      • ..but it (GPL) absolutely creates restrictions on what can be done with software under it. And that isn't freedom (but then I never said total freedom was good). In response to "aren't *all* licenses imposed on users," the answer is yes. So to have total freedom, you have to have no license. We have a name for that: the public domain. That is total freedom.

        Here's an alternative argument for you: What the GPL does is essentially *force* derivative works to be under the same pseudo-public domain ownership
        • "What the GPL does is essentially *force* derivative works to be under the same pseudo-public domain ownership as the original. (thereby prohibiting proprietary derivatives..)"

          Ever tried to release your own product based on the Windows Media Player source-code? Oops, got forced into a license, what a shame.

          A Free program doesn't force the GPL license: you can go to the authors and ask them for an alternative arrangement, same as with all software. It might cost a little more, and you might have to ask q

  • Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @07:05AM (#6198431) Journal
    She certainly doesn't sound as evil as the submitter of the article would suggest.

    "It is infinitely better for the EU to harmonise laws across the EU with a view to limiting patentability, than to continue with the mess of national courts and European Patent Office (EPO) systems, and the drift towards US patent models."

    Sounds sensible to me, but then again, no one has ever shown me a computer program or business method that merited a patent, so I'd like to see the strictest possible limits on such patents.

    In the end, it's EU directive that will have to speak for itself. I'll try and dig up a copy of the draft.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Alan Cox ( 27532 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @07:57AM (#6198540) Homepage
      Thats doublespeak. There is no muddle on software patents. They are not currently allowed. There is a drift towards US type problems - paying the EPO on the basis of patents approved not reviewed, inability to spot prior art etc

      A computer program and a business method are the same thing. Its dishonest to claim otherwise IMHO. A software patent is a defined series of steps with conditions performed by the box on your desk.. A business method is a defined series of steps with conditions performed by a human at the desk.

      Reality gets even murkier.

      A DSP decodes MP3 audio. Is that a hardware patent on the DSP, a software patent on the code in it or neither

      A human sits down with a calculator and decodes the MP3 by hand. Is that a hardware patent, a software patent, or a business method ?

      • You know what would clear up the US patent problem?
        Have the USPO give a $100 reward for each reported and documented prior art on a patent that would invalidate the patent. It would get rid of most of these crap patents, and give us unemployed geeks something to do for fun.

        That would rock.

      • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Alsee ( 515537 )
        A human sits down with a calculator and decodes the MP3 by hand. Is that a hardware patent, a software patent, or a business method ?

        I appologize for mixing issues here, but you just brought up my favorite objection to the DMCA. What if a human sits down with a calculator and circumvents DRM by hand? And you don't even need the calculator - the entire process can be done completely mentally. The DMCA anti-circumvention provision makes it a crime to think certain thoughts!

        In a similar vein, software pate
      • Perhaps software patents are formally not allowed, but in practice they do exist [ffii.org]...
    • It is infinitely better for the EU to harmonise laws

      More Europeans are beginning to realize there are disadvantages to harmonising their respective systems of goverment. For example, if you are an EU country with inflation problems, you might like to raise interest rates. But a central currency prevents that. Moreover, all this bullshit about harmonization presumes there is a right way to do things. It is central planning on a vast scale. Rather than allowing different competing ideas about how to ap

  • Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @07:05AM (#6198433)

    So, she does the normal M(E)P thing of speaking without saying anthing. Looking at this [derwent.com] report, though, it appears that what she is trying to say is that the rules will only allow software to be patented as part of another system.

    So, patents like the Amazon one-click patent wouldn't be allowed, but you could for example patent a novel ECG machine along with the software that is 'part' of it.

  • Cold Fish (Score:4, Insightful)

    by yanestra ( 526590 ) * on Saturday June 14, 2003 @07:07AM (#6198440) Journal
    As I understand, Ms. McCarthy tries to promote her modified draft of EU directive as the least damage variant, saying that if they do nothing, it only gets worse.
    (This I believe is true, you can see the patent offices in the EU's national states approve less and less technical "inventions".)

    It appears, EU wants to link a certain technical device with its software, which could be patented for the use in this case, and only in this case, together with the device, but which is not covered by the patent.

    The main problem with the US patent laws is likely that the officials are ignorant laymen; not patents per se are evil, but their (lack of) interpretation is.

  • Parliament (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nepheles ( 642829 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @07:08AM (#6198441) Homepage

    This article is, generally, totally irrelevant. The European Parliament holds virtually no power, and is, generally, merely a talking-shop. The Council of Ministers, and, to a larger extent, the Commission hold all power. There are attampts to change this with the work-in-progress that is the Constitution.

    This lack of power of the Parliament leads many single-issue candidates, washed-up politicians, and other power-hungry novices to run for election to European office in the Parliament. Very few serious politicians will be found there, bar those who lead the political factions present. As such, we can safely ignore the warblings of this MEP.

    If only we could find a similarly talkative Commissioner. It's what the EU needs

    • we can safely ignore the warblings of this MEP

      Yes, until they make copyright or patent laws that criminalise a good deal of Free Software.

      People, this proposal, and similar laws in other countries, are a serious threat to Free Software. We ignore them at our peril.

    • Re:Parliament (Score:3, Informative)

      by JPMH ( 100614 )
      This article is, generally, totally irrelevant. The European Parliament holds virtually no power, and is, generally, merely a talking-shop. The Council of Ministers, and, to a larger extent, the Commission hold all power. There are attampts to change this with the work-in-progress that is the Constitution.

      I think you are somewhat out of date. Parliament now has amendment rights and a veto on proposals coming out of Brussels. If Parliament doesn't vote to pass a Directive, it doesn't happen. This MEP,

  • free software won't be harmed? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cabalamat2 ( 227849 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @07:14AM (#6198455) Homepage Journal

    In her article, she says that:

    this directive will not have any adverse effects on open source software development

    So I've written her a letter, suggesting that open source software explicitly be made exempt from patent enforcement. If what she says in her article is true, this would have no effect, so she's got no legitimate reason to oppose it.

    My weblog [cabalamat.org] has an article [cabalamat.org] that goes into this in more detail.

    If you want to contact Arlene McCarthy, and politely tell her your views, she has a website [labour.co.uk].

    • thanks for the links. (polite) email sent...
    • I've written her a letter, suggesting that open source software explicitly be made exempt from patent enforcement.

      You've certainly pointed out a flaw in her comments, but your proposal is a bad one. You are asking for special status for open source. If anything, requests like that will probably hurt the cause. It makes open source advocates look selfish and abusive, that they don't want to have to play by the same rules as everyone else. It casts suspicion on the REAL argument that software patents are ha
      • we are talking about a woman here who seems set in her mind about this... no matter what the evidence says. for example, neither i nor brussels has heard from any small/mid range software house which WANTS this proposal (the opposite in fact), but she seems firm in her mind that this is good for small business. despite all evidence she seems stubborn, almost religious.

        i sent a letter with simliar points as the parent, but i really dont think any good will come from it. if anything, it will just prove that s

  • Here's a short precis, no need to read the article (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @07:30AM (#6198479)
    Stallman: "Patent system's got problems!"

    Some MP: "Does not!"

    You may think I'm being facetious, but I'm actually just being concise. She literally doesn't say anything else.

    • I've been seeing it a lot lately, first (in recent times) in Penny Arcade but since then a gazillion places.
    • What the hell are you talking about? She's saying the exact opposite. Her major point is that she (and presumably others) are trying to hammer out some legislation that would stop the EU patent system from heading right down to where the US one is, to wit, shit creek.

      She isn't saying the patent system doesn't have problems, she's saying it does, and she wants to fix it before it gets too bad.

      She makes a few other valid points too, about "free" software. I don't buy her argument about it being a monopoly
      • Her major point is that she (and presumably others) are trying to hammer out some legislation that would stop the EU patent system from heading right down to where the US one is

        Ah yes, the "harmonizing" argument. I certainly agree having a "harmonious system" across the EU is a GoodThing. However that that does NOT mean the system she is proposing is a good one.

        She is abusing the harmonizing argument to slip in BAD changes. She is either a nieve puppet or she is being intentionally deceptive. Currently m

  • We're a US company with a development office in Canada (which is where I write from). We're staying out of Europe partly because of the multitude of languages, but mainly because (I'm told) it's a morass of different regulations; I have no doubt patent law is one of them. The complexity is not worth our trouble of going there. The first ocean we crossed was the pacific, to Japan.

    I have very ambiguous feelings towards software patents, but the European Parliament is probably going in the right direction if they're harmonizing business regulations.

    • But hey, McDonalds, Monsanto, Exxon et al do the American reputation a world of good.

      On the other hand, it gives European companies an advantage as they are already used to dealing with the complexity of trading within Europe.

    • "We're staying out of Europe partly because of the multitude of languages, but mainly because (I'm told) it's a morass of different regulations"

      Thankyou for that insight, Mr Famulak. It's obviously very difficult to program software, what with all this having to comply with the law and all... perhaps trying to expand into 15 countries at once and expecting the laws to be all the same is a bit of a large step to take all at once without lawyers. After all, you could say that expending to america is a mora

  • She doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Halo1 ( 136547 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @07:32AM (#6198486)
    If we fail to offer European industry the possibility of patent protection, we will hand over our inventiveness and creativity to big business, who can cherrypick ideas and patent them.
    So what she's saying is "If we don't allow (software) patents in Europe, big businesses will patent every thing". Hello, this is you wake-up call: if there are no software patents, big businesses can't get them either!

    It's exactly the reverse: if there are no software patents in Europe, then European businesses (and inventors and every one else) can still get software patents abroad (e.g. in the US), while foreign businesses can not enforce their software patents here in Europe. So if there are no software patents in Europe, the Europeans actually have an advantage over foreign (big, small and everything in between) companies.

    • So what she's saying is "If we don't allow (software) patents in Europe, big businesses will patent every thing". Hello, this is you wake-up call: if there are no software patents, big businesses can't get them either!

      Exactly my thoughts!
      The stupidity of the lady is worrying.

  • Different /. opinion (Score:3, Interesting)

    by halftrack ( 454203 ) <{jonkje} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday June 14, 2003 @07:47AM (#6198515) Homepage
    To me, she seems to make some sense. I know software patents are bad on slashdot, but maybe that's because slashdot's only familiar with the insane US patent system. She actually makes it clear in the article that she doesn't want a US system.

    I don't think software patents are evil by nature, it can be applicable in a few cases. However I see a problem of patents limiting the users legal rights to contents. Say firm M gets a patent on a fantastic text compression algorithm which they use as a part of a de-facto file format that stores formatted text. Now developer S can't legally develop a reader of this format to use on his operating system that isn't supported by M.

    Maybe if someone could solve this problem then software patents could be feasible. Maybe - as someone else proposed here - open-source should be excempted from patents. Some sort of a patent system limited to commercial activities. Patent infridgement would be easy though with the code legally as open-source.

    Btw.: "... non sequitur, solecism and faux-naivete ..." gDict only knew 1.5 of those words, but I'm assuming it's a fancy way of saying anyone being pro software patents are morons. Did the poster notice that the article was pretty moderatly worded and forthcoming? Did he RTA?
    • She actually makes it clear in the article that she doesn't want a US system.

      She ceritainly said she wants to stop the "drift towards US patent models". However I'd love to see you explain how her software patent system is different from the US software patent system.

      Currently the European Patent Convention [european-p...office.org] forbids software patents in article 52, paragraph 2, part (C). She wants to stop the "drift" to a US style system by implementing a US style system in one fell swoop.

      Maybe - as someone else proposed

  • contact her ... (Score:2, Informative)

    by geeklawyer ( 85727 )
    If you think she needs to have it explained I suggest you email and explain why she is wrong about free software and software patents.

    In the heat of the moment I was very rude to her but can I suggest others be moderate.

    amccarthy@europarl.eu.int or
    arlene.mccarthy@easynet.co.uk

    • If you're going to contact her, for fucks sake be polite and professional.

      Contact YOUR MEP as well. It will help them vote against any legislation...

      In the UK anyway, you can find out who your MEPs are here:

      http://www.europarl.org.uk/uk_meps/MembersMain.h tm

      Mail her and cc: all of your MEPs.

  • She's calling a system with more opportunities for imposing patents more "liberal" and a less patent-drenched society more "restrictive".

    That's pretty weird. If I were to choose such politically loaded words to describe patent systems, I'd have 'em switched the other way around, but I probably wouldn't use them at all.

    She also writes: "With many of our traditional industries migrating to the Far East leaving behind job losses, we Europeans are having to rely on licensing out inventiveness to generate income and create jobs."

    That's pretty silly and not likely to work in the long run. Imagine a future where non-european countries provide all goods and services needed - why should they want to trade with Europe? Because we have "inventions?" That's supposed to be Europes schtick, that Europeans are "smart"? Even if we'd have a fraction of the worlds inventiveness, what's to stop the aforementioned Asian countries from declaring our patent system null and void? (Along with some other IP practices like say, copyright.) Because "otherwise we won't trade with them?" That's just silly. If all we have to "offer" is slick ad campaigns and ruthless corporate practices along with a few good "ideas" - basically "ownership of ideas" - why should they want to trade? They could just copy it (assuming their own inventions weren't enough - there's plenty of good ideas coming out of Asia).

    (And please don't talk of using military might to enforce an IP system internationally. My every fiber and cell tell's me that's not a just cause.)

    Just saying that "we own this!" and pointing at words, ideas... you might argue some intellectual property practices are just but you can't expect everyone to agree (I certainly don't, and I even live in Europe), especially not when it could be a dumb move in international economics for a country to blindly abide by another's IP claims.

    And if she's not talking about IP as an export product, then why bother? Selling each other "air" would jack up the GNP but it sure wouldn't raise living standards, it would only be a pointless excercise in number juggling. Same would apply to selling "ownership rights to ideas". Note that I'm not saying that the ideas themselves are without value - having someone on the payroll to sit and make up ideas might be worth it - but once the cat's out of the bag the ideas are easily copyable. Preventing that /bin/cp doesn't exist might be an appealing idea to some but it is just a game of pretends these days. Things can be copied. Deal with it.

    Lastly, she's calling free software (she seems especially focused on copyleft software) "[A] form of monopoly by imposing a copyright licence system on users".

    That's just not true.

    Unlike patents, anyone's free to reimplement copylefted software any way they choose.

    And unlike plain copyrighted proprietary software, anyone can use the copylefted software (both the program and source code) as long as they don't prevent others from doing the same.

    Sure, the GPL has some practical problem (for example enforced warranty disclaimers, and problems with compability with other copylefted licenses) but it's definitely not a "monopoly". More like an "omnipoly" where every man, woman and child on the planet has the same right to the program.
    • What can be owned and sold can be taxed. That means more feet on people's heads and hands, more power to the owners of the feet, and more credit to the owners as "great people" when something gets done.

      Question is, when everything is known in heaven, how is this going to play out?

      This isn't a question of how well Europe should do. This is a question of who should be on top, and it is clear that an MP is a much more valuable person than a software programmer, and should be on top.

      It only stands to reaso
      • What can be owned and sold can be taxed. That means more feet on people's heads and hands, more power to the owners of the feet, and more credit to the owners as "great people" when something gets done.

        Ah. I can understand it, but that doesn't mean I have to accept it.
        If you doubt me, read "The Republic", see how it is held up as an example to be followed, and understand.

        Are you talking about Plato's The Republic, or some other The Republic?
        • Clearly, I don't accept it either -- but that is the typical goal of people who seek power.

          And yes, I did mean Plato's [guardian.co.uk]
          Republic. Quite honestly, I think that this newspaper article I linked to is too close to imply anything but.

          The problem is that if you read The Republic as a serious work [as our leaders would have us do], the Plato learned absolutely nothing from his teacher. But if you read it as a satire, then Plato was trying to take Socrates' work and turn it around, and a Republic, though not ne
    • what's to stop the aforementioned Asian countries from declaring our patent system null and void? (Along with some other IP practices like say, copyright.)

      Because the WTO [wto.org] TRIPs Agreement [wto.org] says they' re not allowed to. The Agreement provides for minimum IP standards, the principle of nondiscrimination, and even procedural safeguards.

      Because "otherwise we won't trade with them?" That's just silly.

      Oh my, no. Violate a WTO Agreement, and you get slapped with some $billion in trade sanctions by the WTO cour [wto.org]

  • GPL - Monopoly? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jezza ( 39441 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:09AM (#6198573)
    I find it amazing how many people have a "problem" with the GPL and see it as "restrictive" - when it's aim is quite the converse.

    We have an obligation to legislate not just for one section of the software industry who seeks to impose its business model on the rest of industry, which moreover is not "free", but is actually a different form of monopoly by imposing a copyright licence system on users.

    So are we expected to believe that the GPL restricts the rights of users? Firstly the GPL doesn't restrict what you can USE the software for - business, is quite acceptable.

    It doesn't even restrict the rights of developers, they can extend the software however they feel. What it does do is PROTECT the rights of users and developers to have the same rights from derived works.

    So if I extend some GPL program that's fine, if I wish to distribute the derived work that's also fine, BUT I must make my changes under the GPL. If I don't want that then I can't work with that product. Seems easy.

    Compare that with "traditional" software (actually open source is older than the closed model, but you know what I mean), here I can't extend the product because I don't have the source, and I am not allowed to decompile it (for any use).

    In short the GPL restricts a right that traditional software DOESN'T give me! Even that restriction is only that I cannot take that right away in derived works.

    You can make money from GPL software, it is not "anti-business" you can charge for services, and additions to the software, but you make those in the environment of the GPL.

    I am not saying I think the GPL is the right way to go for ALL software, clearly it isn't - but the GPL is not evil, and end users have nothing to fear from it. Developers should understand the legal impact any license they agree to (but this should not be a problem, as long as one takes care to check the details).

  • As of the parliamentary hearing... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14, 2003 @08:12AM (#6198593)

    In her article, Arlene McCarthy wrote:

    Numerous people from small to medium-sized enterprises have written to me in support of my proposal.

    To me, this is the most blood-boiling point. I was there at the parliamentary hearing in Brussels in early May. Arlene McCarthy was not. The hearing was a forum for SMEs (Small-to-Medium Enterprises) to present their take on the proposed software patent directive. The prevailing opinion was so unanimous it was boring: software patents are bad. Enterpreneurs and investors pleaded lawmakers to stick to and reaffirm the spirit of the 1973 Munich convention. Yeah, supporters of Free Software were there too (strong Debian contingent, hi, guys!), but by no means in the majority.

    I could hardly muster the willpower to talk to anyone during those two days, it was so depressing. No one of the opposing viewpoint showed up, effectively reducing the conference and the hearing to a feel-good get-in-our-of-your-systems-then-go-home kind of event. The only supporter of the directive was Elly Plooij van Gorsel (chairwoman of one of the three committees in charge of the directive), who showed up for the last thirty minutes, took some notes, evaded answering any questions, then left. An enterpreneur even said to her face: I'm the one who's supposed to be protected here, and I'm here to tell you, I don't want your protection. This went wholly unanswered.

    So allow me not to suspend my disbelief in Ms. McCarthy's comment quoted above. BTW, Ms. McCarthy is also a chairwoman of a committee handling the directive (of the most powerful of the three). What I saw and read and got to know so far all point into one direction: she's entirely aware of what she does, she just doesn't care about flushing the European SMEs down the toilet. The American multinationals sure can pay for more educational opportunities taking place in Hawaii.

    Posted as AC on purpose.

    • The EU-Direcorate for the internal market conducted a survey in re. to software patents during the consulting process end 2000. They got 1450 responses, 1200 of those were in opposition to software patents. The only possibility they found to manipulate this into a positive result was to invent the concept of "economic majority" since the few positive responses came from cash-heavy companies.

      The report that came out of this, stated that while 91% of the individula responses were negative, and "economic majo
  • Software can be patented, but not "Software as such."

    I've read this expression in many pro-software patent texts, and after having seen it discussed on various mailing lists, it appears that it doesn't mean shit.
  • ...as RMS asserts, there are 39 different patents on playing MPEG-2 video, then there is likely a 40th and it is up to the OSS community to develop this method and make it available under the GPL. For once I'd like to see RMS think instead of react. I'm not going to hold my breath though as he might have book snarts but his lack of common sense really shows in articles like this.
    • You probably need each and every one of those patents to be able MPEG-2 video. That's RMS' point exactly: in software, one program (or even algorithm, as in this case) is often covered by dozens patents, making licensing just not feasable as it is with traditional patents.
  • It is time some of the "computer rights campaigners" got real. Patents for software inventions will not go away.

    Why not? Patents are purely a legal construct, change the law, and it's done.

    We keep fighting to get rid of crime and it is even less likely to go away.

    Sorry the helpless arguement is garbage.

    She clearly has the view that patents allow one to level the playing field, if the system worked right that would be true.
    But as an employee considering a patent fight the lawyers say "don't bother", you

  • EU & IP (Score:4, Insightful)

    by peatbakke ( 52079 ) <peat@noSpAM.peat.org> on Saturday June 14, 2003 @09:14AM (#6198880) Homepage
    The EU really does need a universal intellectual property regulation system. In order for businesses to operate efficiently in Europe, there really needs to be a common court where intellectual property issues can be addressed.

    In theory, patents are needed to protect those who can't compete financially with larger, more capable corporations. A patent is the intellectual stick you can use to beat off unfair business competition in a market place. In theory, of course.

    In practice, it's a little different. I'm sure we're all aware of the potential for abuse with poorly designed IP regulations (the Stallman/Hill article does a good job outlining some of those issues).

    What we needed are universal IP regulations designed to protect the the individual who doesn't have the financial resources to fend of giants like Microsoft or IBM, AND a much narrower definition of what can be patented in software.
    • The EU really does need a universal intellectual property regulation system.

      First of all, saying a universal (or harmonized) system is a good thing is NOT an argument for any particular implementation of that system.

      Secondly, patents and copyrights are patents and copyrights. They have VERY different properties than physical objects, and they have very different rules controlling them. Copyrights are patents are valid and useful, but they aren't property.

      What we needed are universal ... a much narrower
  • Arlene sounds pretty reasonable. She isn't. With one hand she writes articles like this one, with the other one she is relentlessly pushing the patent inflation damaging innovation and competition. The European Patent Office has for many years granted illegal patents on software and business methods, and now they want EU to bless this practice. (Never mind hurting innovation)

    Let me point out a couple of points:

    First, the EU directive is not proposing to patent all software, it is limited to genuine in
  • Her article was, at least, responsive and reasonable. It is sophomoric and irresponsible merely to state, without more, that her arguments were misrepresentations, and such silly remarks tend to support the position she takes (that the "computer rights campaigners" need to get real.

    RMS wrote a parade-of-horribles argument that doesn't distinguish "patents are horrible," from "software patents are horrible," from "bad software patents are horrible." Marking arguments mostly from the first and third categor
    • n.b.: In my prior posting:

      She correctly observes that the US patent system is FAR more liberal to software arts patents than the present directive, and does not permit business methods patents (like the US prior to the State Street Bank decision, under the old Alapatt standard).

      Should have read

      She correctly observes that the US patent system is FAR more liberal to software arts patents than the present directive, and the proposed EU standard does not permit business methods patents (like the US prior t
  • "If the appalling mixture of misrepresentation, non sequitur, solecism and faux-naivete does not make your blood boil, you are a cold fish indeed."

    I'm still trying to find out what most of these words mean...

Slashdot Top Deals

I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. -- Isaac Asimov

Close