Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

EU Ministers Went Off-Brief In Patent Vote 290

Posted by simoniker from the ot-ot-ot dept.
MartinB writes "Several EU ministers reportedly went against the wishes of their nations in voting for the proposed EU Software Patent legislation in May. Among those misleading the council of ministers were representatives from Holland, Poland and Germany. The Dutch parliament is going as far as asking to change its vote, which was originally in favour of making software patentable."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Ministers Went Off-Brief In Patent Vote More

EU Ministers Went Off-Brief In Patent Vote

Comments Filter:

  • It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @07:38PM (#9637299)
    This could be a scandal that might rock the comparatively-new EU system for a loop. Ministers were being trusted to represent the view of the government that sent them... but it seems as if business interests have found that these individuals are a weak link that can easily be "bought off" and convinced to act on their own.

    Of course, the USA didn't get things right on the first try either. We created a national government under the Articles Of Confederation that had so little power it couldn't tax and therefore quickly ran into problems getting anything done. (The writing of the US Constitution was actually a rather peaceful overthrow of the existing US government of the time rather than the creation of a government where there was none.)
    • Actually, I'd say the USA got it right the first time. ;)

      • Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Carnildo ( 712617 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @07:53PM (#9637432) Homepage Journal
        I'd say they didn't. Among other things the government couldn't do was keep the states from threatening to invade each other. Fortunately, we got the Constitution-based government before any wars started.

      • Fortunately the world noticed in time (Score:5, Insightful)

        by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @11:10PM (#9638675) Homepage Journal

        Fortunately it seems a few European nations have noticed the current US system is only good for patent lawyers and draining resources to fight off vulture corps. Even Microsoft's recent BS patents being awarded had to have helped wake up the EC to the insanity which is destroying the American ability to innovate and compete.

        Maybe a few of them also noticed that such legislation was only a first step. Next would have been a "unified" patent database "offered" by the US which would have started with a portfolio of bogus patents owned by US interests. Essentially signing over a world-wide "software tax" to US corporate interests.

        Not only would the US businesses continue to be gutted by IP vultures, the EC businesses would have been caught up in the same nightmare. The US is quite welcome to continue destroying the American economy, but thank God the rest of the world has finally noticed the insanity of their patent "system" as a viable model.

    • Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Platinum Dragon ( 34829 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @07:50PM (#9637405) Journal
      but it seems as if business interests have found that these individuals are a weak link that can easily be "bought off" and convinced to act on their own.

      Hey, sounds like something else [congress.gov] I've heard of.

      At least here in Canuckistan, the business interests only have to buy off the Prime Minister, and the rest of the party is forced to follow. Simpler and more efficient kakistocracy!
    • We created a national government under the Articles Of Confederation that had so little power it couldn't tax and therefore quickly ran into problems getting anything done.

      You say this like it's a bad thing. Remember, we didn't need an income tax until 1913, when the chick who wrote the screenplay for "The Mummy" [msn.com] wrote "her other horror story" - the first income tax form.

      It'd be funny if it wasn't true; and yes, I know that the government had tarrifs on imports well before 1913. But taxing income just bugs me - it's not taxing the rich, it's taxing the people who are working hard to create a new barrier to prevent new people from becoming rich.

      • Income tax was originally pushed for by poor farmers that were being bled dry while the rich paid virtually nothing.

      • Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @08:39PM (#9637725)
        Part of the reason we didn't need income taxes was the sale of goverment land during the 1800s. Once we stopped selling off "The west" income in other forms was needed.
        For better or worse we also have stopped our isolationism and need to support a standing military capable of fighting wars overseas to preserve our interests. This doesn't just affect oil in the middle east, but it gives the US leverage to prevent things like China invading Taiwan (which could devastate the tech industry for several years)
        Income taxes are more useful than consumption taxes (which preceded income taxes) to tax the rich. The percentage of income spent on goods is typically inversely proportional to the income of an individual. For example poor people spend almost all their money (people living month-to-month) on goods and necessities; Rich people can buy goods and necessities, and still have money left over to save. A consumption tax would be regressive, since poor people would be taxed on nearly 100% of their income, while rich people 70-80%.
        • I don't think parent was advocating consumption taxes, I think they were advocating asset taxes (like property, inheritance, and estate taxes). There are some problems with asset taxes however.

          Firstly you have to assess the value of the assets "fairly", plus it's just not worth the time to assess the value of low value assets, just major ones. Thus land + housing + financial asssets are the main tax targets under such a system, simply because it's not worth the governments time to evaluate the worth of o

          • Mod this guy insightful.

            Indeed, I (grandparent post) recognized that consumption taxes are even more regressive than income taxes; and occasionally think asset taxes would be better in some ways. An amusing way of declaring your assets, is to assign a value to everything (list big-ticket items, and list "everything else" as another item with value), and those items are essentially up-for-sale at ebay at that price. That way people'll be conservative about overvaluing their assets, not undervaluing them.

      • Income tax can tax the rich- until Kennedy, the top income tax bracket was 91%. The fact that its been lowered so much and given so many loopholes it no longer does is a sign of the corruption in our government.
      • Income tax was developed by the government of Sir Robert Peel in the UK as a temporary measure to fund the napoleonic wars at a rate of 2.5%. In theory the government facilitates the business environment where I make my profit so they get their share. If you want the alternative, almost zero government and no tax, go to present day Iraq.

        However inequitable it may seem, income tax was fairer than most other taxation methods which were largely based on your assets on a particular day. Tax assesment was horr

        • Re:Imported from the UK (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Peel didn't become PM until the 1840s. The Napoleonic wars had been over by a quarter of a century. Peel reintroduced income tax which had previously been introduced by Pitt. Peel's tax taxed only the rich and was accompanied by a reduction of the number of goods subject to duty.
      • Which "we" is that? The US had an income tax in the 19th Century, until corrupt Gilded Age politicians repleaed it for their wealthy friends.

      • Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @03:39PM (#9646063) Homepage
        There are basically three types of taxes:

        Income taxe, that taxes you as you get the money.

        Possesion taxes which tax you on what you have, even if you are not spending it.

        Outgo taxes which tax you on what you spend.

        Outgo taxes encourage savings, discourage spending, which runs counter to the consumption based philosophy our society is based on. It is a tax on the poor, as the poor do not have enough cash to save, thereby a larger portion of their money is taxed. The rich simply spend a far less percentage of their money, so they end up being taxed less.

        Possesion tax, discourages savings - if you spend what you have instead of saving it, the government never taxes you. Smart people would go on lots of trips when they are young, never letting the government see the 10,000 bonus they earned. Unforunately this seriously hurts people that want to retire and live off of savings. Again this tax affects the poor people the most, preventing them from making the change from poor to rich. While the rich do tend to get taxed the most, they generally have enough money to avoid being seriously harmed while the poor/middle class have a HUGE road block on the way to becoming rich.

        Income taxes encourages people to save what they earn, thereyby helping people become rich. While it does not hurt the rich the most, it is the best for poor folk, as they can both get taxed less than the rich folk and do not have a roadblock stopping them from becoming richer themselves.

    • Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Durrik ( 80651 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @11:57PM (#9638963)
      I would suggest for anyone who likes British Comedy and wants to see how some of how politics and backroom dealing works, look for 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes Prime Minister' [yes-minister.com].

      The quote that I find most relevant here, And I'm going from memory is:

      Prime Minister: I explicitly ordered the UN ambassidor to abstain from the vote!

      Humphery: Yes but an order to the Foreign minster becomes a strongly worded word to the permanent secretary. Which becomes an advisory to the UN under secretary. Which becomes a suggestion to the Ambassador. Who will vote for what's best for him.

      I would not be surprised if this thing happened in the countries involved. Yes Minister while being a satire and funny. Is still a satire and reflects on real life.
      • Is still a satire and reflects on real life.

        So close a refelection that Margaret Thatcher once called it "[a] closely observed portrayal of what goes on in the corridors of power".

        I often say that Yes Minister would be even more hilarious if I didn't know it was actually the sort of thing that goes on.

    • Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Groote Ka ( 574299 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @02:56AM (#9639762)
      This could be a scandal that might rock the comparatively-new EU system for a loop. (...) Of course, the USA didn't get things right on the first try either.

      I don't think it's a good idea to compare both institutions. You compare a intergovernmental institution with a nation. When you want to compare US with EU member states, you have to check whether Negroponte represents the opinion of the majority of the US citizens when he casts his votes in the UN Security Council.

      Nevertheless, you are right that this might rock the system, just as much as the EU world was rocked when the fraud by the French commissioner Edith Cresson was brought out. Perhaps nice to know, although off topic, is that the dutch EU civil servant who brought this to the light is now a member of the European Parliament.

      There have been a lot of complaints by Dutch MPs that they are unable to control the ministers in the Council of Ministers. But they did not act. So finally, they know now they can control the Dutch vote over there. About time.

      • Re:It's a newbie error in world politics... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by DunbarTheInept ( 764 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @04:49AM (#9640112) Homepage

        You compare a intergovernmental institution with a nation.
        At first, the United States *was* an intergovernmental institution. There's a reason they're called "states", and it's no coincidence that 'state' is a synonym for "national government". At first, it really was a union of independant states.

        What makes things signifigantly different is the culture. Unlike the EU, The new USA was made of member states that all spoke the same language. Unlike the EU, they all came from the same original parent culture. And unlike the EU, the states in question had no previous history of independant sovereignty to protect, and so were willing to 'give up' a little more. (They were moving from being colonies of an empire to being states in an alliance, without any intervening period of independant, non-allied rule.)

  • This could happen in the USA too. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @07:40PM (#9637316)
    In the USA, the people don't directly elect the president. We might say we do, we might think we do, but really we don't.

    What Americans actually vote for is "electors" who have been selected by campaign organizations to be the people who will represent the people who are running for president. Each state holds its own election to determine which slate of electors they will send to the "Electoral College"... whomever gets a majority of the votes for president there wins. (Should three candidates get electoral votes, and nobody gets a majority, the election is kicked to a special session of the House of Representatives where each state gets exactly one vote.)

    The point is that these electors were selected by the campaign of the candidate they're supposed to vote for, and are contractually and legally bound to do so... but, uh, what if they don't? That's just plain uncharted Consitutional territory. The Supreme Court would most likely have to issue a ruling that'd end up deciding the outcome, deciding if the votes would stand as originally cast, or if the "expected" result should be used instead effectively making the Electoral College meeting the formality we all want it to be.

    That's exactly the situation the EU seems to have worked themselves into here. They've ended up with "unfaithful" representatives who didn't do as they were expected to, and the EU hasn't exactly pondered what to do in such a situation yet.

    I'm just saying, it's not like this is a situation that could never happen in the USA...
    • Of course, we in the USA could as a country hold a constitutional convention for purposes of abolishing the current government and setting up a new one, as a constitutional right.

      I wonder how the EU is set up with regards to this?
    • The electoral college has really only played a minor role in filtering the will of the people into a result for who ends up being US President. ("Minor" meaning situations where popular and electoral votes don't exactly reflect each other, while "Major" means mass chaos in the electoral system of the sort that would be akin to what the EU ministers did.)

      However, electors *have* cast votes for a different candidate than the one they were expected to vote for. Tennessee in 1948 is one example.

      See here [presidentelect.org] or

      • Re:This could happen in the USA too. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Short Circuit ( 52384 ) <mikemol@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @08:19PM (#9637590) Homepage Journal
        Actually, there have been many occasions where electors didn't vote for who they were expected to. A quick googling turned up this link [fairvote.org].
      • Another system is in France. Quoted from this article [counterpunch.org], describing the 2002 French presidential election:

        "According to French polling rules, the presidential elections, a direct vote for the candidate, takes place in a two-step election process. The top two finalists meet a second time in run-off elections, which is how Le Pen has managed to face off with current President Jacques Chirac for the top job. The process allows for alliances to take shape in the two-week period between polling, just as it g
        • Well, the two step approach here just sucks. We now have 15+ candidates in the first turns (not just the presidentials, mind you, in just everything. For the European Parliament (a mangled proportional-no-make-that-affine/single turn system in this state), there were no less than 28 lists competing for Paris voters!
          What we really need is a Condorcet voting system; a little longer to run, but at least people can both send a message to the elected (with a careful choice of "alternative" first choices) and sen
      • "Minor" meaning situations where popular and electoral votes don't exactly reflect each other

        Getting a different guy in the White House is a "minor" change?

        Wow. I thought I was cynical.

    • The only major problem I currently have with the electoral college system is 1. There are real human electors and 2. Almost every state uses an all or nothing system to determine the electors to send.

      I think each state getting #ofRepresentative + 2 "votes" for president is a good thing, however I think that it shouldn't be all or nothing. Perhaps each district within a state would determine their particular "vote" and the extra two would go to the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote.
      • Not all states do an all or nothing vote with their electors. in fact, iirc, the electors aren't even truly obligated to follow the popular vote in their state at all. of course, they almost always do.

        there is at least one state (new hampshire, i believe) where one elector votes for the candidate who recieves the popular vote in each congressional district, and the remaining two electors vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in the state as a whole. thus it is not uncommon for new hampshire t
    • If the Founding Fathers were around today, they'd say "That's not a bug, that's a feature."

      They didn't trust anybody...not even the general public. (The line "Your people, Sir, is a great beast" is commonly attributed to Alexander Hamilton.) The electoral college, and the original way that senators were elected, were yet another check and balance... and some argue that the amendment that switched us to direct election of senators is a mistake.
      • Originally, you know, the people didn't even vote for the president - those electors were chosen by the state legislature.

        If you think about how ignorant and/or stupid the average person is, and how few people even bother to vote anyway, do you really even want them choosing the president?
      • Actually, I would say that they especially did not trust the general public. Truth to tell, the popular will is often an idiot, and he is rapidly descending into moronism. You're correct: the Electoral College was intended to be a safety-system that would prevent gross failures of the election process. It has been less than successful, I would say, given the fools that have been repeatedly elected to the highest office in the land. Of course, to be fair, we don't often give them (or ourselves) much to w

    • The point is that these electors were selected by the campaign of the candidate they're supposed to vote for, and are contractually and legally bound to do so... but, uh, what if they don't? That's just plain uncharted Consitutional territory. The Supreme Court would most likely have to issue a ruling

      This is incorrect.

      First, this is not uncharted territory. It has happened several times in the past that electors didn't vote the way they were expected to, though I don't believe electoral infidelity has

    • That's exactly the situation the EU seems to have worked themselves into here. They've ended up with "unfaithful" representatives who didn't do as they were expected to, and the EU hasn't exactly pondered what to do in such a situation yet.

      Not quite. The EU Council, which took this decision, is not intended to represent the people. It represents the governments of the respective member states'. The governments, in turn, are supposed to represent the people.

      (The EU parliament is the direct representative

  • In other words - the Dutch wish to vote No (Score:5, Informative)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @07:40PM (#9637320)
    The text of the submission was somewhat misleading, for a second I thought it read the Dutch wished to support patents - but they really wish to vote no. I just thought someone should make that perfectly clear.

  • What a shock (Score:4, Funny)

    by Platinum Dragon ( 34829 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @07:45PM (#9637359) Journal
    What? Members of a legislative body voting against the wishes of the body/ies they're supposed to represent?

    In other news, the sun rises.
    • In US terms it is as though the members of the presidential electoral college did not vote as directed by the electorate in their state. Council members are supposed to be on a tight leash, more so than the MEPs so it is interesting to see how they bypassed their own national policy.

  • It's Legal... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @07:45PM (#9637362)
    Yes, they did [voting against their governments]. But the result is legal and binding, isn't it? If it is,...then, by Holland wanting to reverse its decision, I have a feeling that is legal too...right? It seems we [Free Software Lovers] will be caught up in a legal quagmire, defined as "A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament". I hope the odds are with us. Cb..

    • Re:It's Legal... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nutshell42 ( 557890 )
      But the result is legal and binding, isn't it?

      No it isn't because it was just a preliminary voting on the draft of the directive. The text first has to be translated into all official languages of the EU before there can be a final vote but normally that just confirms what the preliminary voting said.

      BTW even if the decision of the first voting is confirmed it's not law because first there has to be a second reading in parliament if that votes against patents (again) the council has to vote for unanimous

  • So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @07:46PM (#9637372) Homepage Journal
    If they're worried about ministers not voting according to their briefs, then dump the whole system of ministers and just mail in the briefs! I mean, what's the point of appointing a human being if you're going to get pissed everytime he or she acts like a human being? Why don't you appoint a rubber stamp instead?

    • Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @07:58PM (#9637462)
      I think the solution to this problem should be to mirror something we have in the USA when the two houses of our Congress pass similar but mis-matched bills...

      Those two bills are taken to a "conference comittee", where appointed members of the House and Senate hammer out the differences to each other's satisfaction, and report out one unified bill. However, that comittee can't pass their bill on to the President directly, both the full House and Senate must pass exactly same bill with a majority vote in order for that to happen. If either house amends the conference's bill and the other doesn't make the exact same change, then it's back to the comittee room to try again.

      The point is that this meeting of the Ministers with briefs shouldn't be able to come up with a binding decision... they should come back with a suggested law their legislative bodies should review and cast the real vote on.

    • Stop the ride! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by spinlocked ( 462072 )
      If they're worried about ministers not voting according to their briefs, then dump the whole system of ministers and just mail in the briefs!

      Or we could just ditch the whole thing. My parents voted to join a common market in the 70s (a 2 way split in this household). What we have now is a fundamentally un-democratic, sleaze-ridden gravy train for an 'elite' band of largely unknown technocrats, elected through an utterly flawed process.

      The sooner we have a referendum to get out of this farce the better.
      • What we have now is a fundamentally un-democratic, sleaze-ridden gravy train for an 'elite' band of largely unknown technocrats, elected through an utterly flawed process.

        The French demonstrated a rather effective solution to such a situation back in 1788 or so, but I don't think the ability to even dream of such an action is in their or anyone else's blood any longer.

        • The French demonstrated a rather effective solution to such a situation back in 1788 or so, but I don't think the ability to even dream of such an action is in their or anyone else's blood any longer.

          I dream about it all the time.
        • The French demonstrated a rather effective solution to such a situation back in 1788 or so

          Well I'm not sure you've chosen a very apt example there, because one of the first things the French revolutionary National Assembly did, in early 1791, was to pass a patent law stating that "it would be to attack the rights of man in their essence not to regard an industrial discovery as the property of its author".

          -wb-

    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @10:10PM (#9638245)
      Because they are not expected to behave like ordinary human beings. And their personal beliefs are irrelevant: they must vote for what provides the greatest good for the greatest number. The responsibility these people share means that they are supposed to be held to a higher standard than everyone else, because everyone suffers the consequences when they fail. They failed here. And considering the uniformity of their votes on software patents, I'd say they were acting more like lemmings than human beings. There's some influence being spread around there, and it's not legitimate.

      I wouldn't want someone in control of, say, a Minuteman silo to be allowed to just "behave like a human being" whenever he or she wants to. No, when trust is betrayed on such a grand scale it is time to make some repairs. The decision must be made as to whether the entire system is too flawed to continue, or whether some drastic changes can save it, but if the EU does not serve the needs of its member countries (and peoples) then it should be dissolved until something better comes along.

      Regardless of the outcome on software patents (the effects of a bad decision will not be felt for some time, but they will feel them, much as we are) this is a political disaster. If the ministers cannot be trusted to adequately represent their members on something this important, what else can they be trusted to screw up? If I lived in Europe right now I'd be very concerned. I guess we aren't the only ones suffering undue corporate influence in the halls of power.
      • If all you want is a calculator in the position, appoint a calculator!

        Although you may not agree with this current vote, there may be others in the future where you would want the ministers to vote for what is right rather than to rubberstamp what they are told to. It's called statesmanship. What if the voting were reversed? What if their briefs said to vote for software patents but they decided not to?

  • Even our damned chancellor... (Score:5, Informative)

    by char** argv ( 777388 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @07:47PM (#9637373)
    ...gave a flaming speech (german, sorry) for software patents and the protection of intellectual property as the new resources of the 21st century in Munich, 2 days ago. Note the european parliament voted AGAINST the draft, now the senate is clandestinely pushing for it's implementation. We're talking, demonstrating, doing everything in our possibilities here as german software developers, but the "social democratic" guys in power do not care, and do not have a fucking clue what they're talking about. Destroying innovation to appease the big companies :( If you're in europe, come on join at the FFII [ffii.org] and help in the fight, please. It might be our last chance.
    • Munich is the home of the EPO (also a very important MS Centre) as well as one or two cabals of IP lawyers. Of course, the Bundestag has embraced an open-source policy and the city of Munich is even trying to get open source solutions onto the desktop. An interesting dichotomy.

      The federal government is confused. There are big German software company's too (SAP) with IP portfolios and they have respectable lobby groups. The EPO itself certainly seems to want software patents. It is difficult to go around s

  • One of the most undemocratic decisions here... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eamacnaghten ( 695001 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @07:48PM (#9637391) Homepage Journal
    The Council of Ministers decision on pro-patents under the Irish Presidency has been one of the most undemocratic decisions ever taken here (Europe).

    A vote in the European Parliament not long before had REJECTED US style software patents, much to support of the vast majority of their constituents.

    The ONLY people interested in promoting Software Patents here are a few (not all) of the large corporations (Microsoft, Nokia) and, of course, the IP lawyers, and some relatively influential (unfortunately) politicians and civil servants who have been duped. The VAST majority of others who are aware of this are dead against it. To make the message clear, excuse the shouting...

    WE DO NOT WANT SOFTWARE PATENETS HERE.

    Software patents are not in force here yet, hopefully they will not be but there is an enormous fight on our hands to prevent it.

  • I always did wonder.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Kjuib ( 584451 )
    how in the world a law gets passed that no one wants?! The chance that some day there is a patent on software is very high, even though 99% of people that understand what software is are against it.

    Why must we always hurt the ones we love?!
    • 99% of people are not the ones who understand what software is, or what the implications of software patents are.

      They won't get rid of those politicians, because all they care about is healthcare or terrorism or the issue-du-jour....

      ...or maybe just jerry springer and wardrobe malfunctions!
  • ... and they called it indecent exposure.

    Go Figure.

  • About time. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dark Lord Seth ( 584963 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @08:01PM (#9637486) Journal

    Here in the Netherlands, the fact that that asshole minister of us voted FOR software patents has been a nice little riot in the dutch techie world. People were encouraged to write said minister, write to his party, write to the head of the party, parliament, etc. I think that all of this caused sufficient public backlash that forced our goverment to make that bastard swallow his words and do The Right Thing(tm).

  • Dupe? (Score:2, Informative)

    by johndoe42 ( 179131 )
    This is more or less the same thing reported last friday [slashdot.org].

  • They know the game (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WildBeast ( 189336 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @08:06PM (#9637519) Journal
    The big corporations see governments as potential threats who'll come after them just like they did against MS. They all learned the lesson long ago and know that using there money they can control politicians and make laws that favor themselves. They're paying good money to get the governments off there back and they certainly expect to have some kind of power in return for such a waste of money.

    The corporations won the war.

  • This Should Be No Surprise (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nova Express ( 100383 ) <lawrenceperson@nOspaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @08:11PM (#9637547) Homepage Journal
    At every opportunity, the Eurocrats in Brussels have shown that they are far more interested in increasing their own powers than in representing the citizens of the nation-states which make up the EU. In every case, whenever EU rules override existing national law, the flow of power has been away from elected regional or national governments and toward unelected EU bureaucrats, the very opposite of federalism. Every bureaucracy seeks to increase and enlarge its own powers, but the EU bureaucracy, being doubly-insulated from possible electoral outrage, has done so far more than most. This has resulted in an EU bureaucracy that is far more autocratic, insular, centralizing, self-interested, and socialist than the vast majority of both EU nation states and their citizens. That's why you will see ever-more votes like this one, increasing the power of Brussels' bureaucrats and their special interest allies at the expense of the citizenry of the nations making up the EU.

    • Re:This Should Be No Surprise (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anspen ( 673098 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @08:19PM (#9637589)

      You do realise that the problem in this situation was the coucil, that is the gouvernements of the member countries? Not "Eurocrats in Brussels".

    • Note that the council are nationally appointed. The MEPs are directly elected. Guess who is more likely to listen to the people. Under the council are the mechanisms of the EU and the Eurocrats. Theoretically this should also come under the MEPs, but most of the control comes from the council. Again, guess where their loyalties lie.

    • Re:This Should Be No Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jamie Lokier ( 104820 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @11:51PM (#9638934) Homepage

      Don't talk rubbish. The bad people in this are representatives of National Governements: they are the Bad Council Ministers. The good people are representatives of the people: elected members of the European Parliament, not beholden to National Government interests.

      According to your arguments, then, the European Parliament should be making of beuraucratic, self-interested, and destructive policies which ruin my autonomy as a UK citizen. But that's not true!

      The European Parliament wants to guarantee my software and business method freedom. The freedom to write and share my creative work. And they frame it in quite noble and clear language too, so the good intent isn't easily twisted. It means I am free to do the work I want and invent and share all my best ideas, as much or as little as I want. It's my choice, I'm free, so I'm happy.

      The UK Government wants to take away my software and business method freedom, making it illegal for me to publish my own code on my own web site and making it even more illegal to sell my own code. If I come up with an improvement to an existing idea, I cannot safely share my improvements in public. I can be sued, and go to jail if I cannot pay massive fines.

      So, you still think it's better to eliminate the EU part?

      If the UK Government gets its way, through the Council of Bad National Government Ministers, my work becomes effectively illegal and I am less free. It's that simple.

      I have no special interest in being a member of the EU. But when the European Parliament would guarantee my freedom, and UK government if it was totally independent would take away my freedom, then I must support the European Parliament on that issue. Wouldn't you?

      -- Jamie

  • Some questions ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by s20451 ( 410424 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @08:18PM (#9637583) Journal
    I'm not trolling. But I think the software patent issue is more complicated than you think.

    Let me start by saying that I think submarine patents are a gross abuse of the system and should be abolished. And I agree that, in general, intellectual property law needs to be reformed. Both these ideas are beyond the scope of this post.

    Now, you ask the average open source advocate what s/he thinks about software patents, and s/he will be opposed to them, on the grounds that they stifle innovation. I can buy that to some extent. However, if you ask the same advocate why s/he wants a particular patent invalidated, it's usually to copy a patented algorithm and incorporate it into an open source product. That doesn't seem like innovation to me. It's true that open source would let others learn about the algorithm and improve on it, but there's nothing preventing you from studying a patent -- in fact that's the whole point of the patent process. If you're keen enough, you can take the ideas in the patent and implement a free work-alike (like png, gzip, or the free equivalent to rsa), and innovate away.

    Looking deeper, I don't see that it's consistent to be in favor of patents but opposed to software patents. This is because software blurs the line between a device and a description. For example, consider an integrated circuit. This is clearly a device, and hence patentable, right? But it can be described using a language, such as VHDL. In fact the VHDL can be used with a programmable chip to instantly implement a work-alike to the device. Hence, if the chip is patentable, the VHDL should be patentable too.

    It's as though you had a description of a tool (a drill, say), which could be instantly implemented on some universal machine. The description is only trivially different from the tool. (This may sound ridiculous, but with 3-d printers and related technology, the day may not be far off when we see such a thing.)

    To take a Touretzkian view, this means that either all patents are valid (including software), or none are ... though I would prefer a middle view that recognizes software as a distinct hybrid of an "idea" and a "device". Such a legal status would also resolve the question of "is code speech?" with the answer "yes and no". (Can you tell I'm Canadian?).

    • However, if you ask the same advocate why s/he wants a particular patent invalidated, it's usually to copy a patented algorithm and incorporate it into an open source product.

      No - its usually because she has already implemented the algorithm independently and want to be able to continue to use it.

      *snip*
      but with 3-d printers and related technology, the day may not be far off when we see such a thing
      *snip*
      that either all patents are valid (including software), or none are

      The day where anything can be

    • Re:Some questions ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FroBugg ( 24957 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @09:02PM (#9637868) Homepage
      I'm not a programmer. Not a real one, at least.

      I like the idea of Open Source, but I don't think it should be forced on people, and I'm sure lots of people here agree with me. I also don't think software should be patentable. I do think it should be copyrightable, though.

      The difference is that with a patent, you're covering an entire process. You've patented going from A to B, and nobody else can do that without paying you off. With a copyright, you've only restricted one path between A and B, and others are free to find their own.

      With real inventions, it doesn't tend to work this way. I could invent a light bulb with a filament made from cork, and Bob could invent one with a filament made from pasta. In my limited experience I think both would be valid and neither would be able to sue the other. Software patents, however, seem to always deal with the results, and not the processes. Someone is given a software patent for the equivalent of every light bulb, no matter what materials it uses. This is the problem.
      • Software patents deal with the result in some cases, but the important fact is that 1) everything is connected in some way 2) There are large monopolies that may force 95% of the population to use software that requires the innovators to pay a lot for royalties. Things *could* be easily done in 10 other ways, but it just happens that 95% of the people only have 1 of the "paths" available.

        So you patent either results, or whatever that can be an important piece in the large chain that makes systems work, and
    • Actually software is patentable, but only if it is part of a physical invention. A VHDL desciption may not be patentable, but the device created with it can be. A circuit diagram in itself can't be patented either, it is just the description of something that can be.

      Actually your VHDL code may be copyrighted just as the circuit diagram can be. The problem is that when you copyright the design, it can't be used as the basis of a patent because it should be free of all encumberances after the protection per

    • My gripes with software versus real patents. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @09:11PM (#9637924) Homepage
      1. Most software patents I've seen patent ideas or concepts rather than implementations. Let me try to make that a little clear. Like, the AC3 algorithm is patented, which is fine. You can make another format which does the same. A software patent would patent the concept of "multiplexing several audiostreams into one datastream" or somesuch. There's no "innovating" around that. Try looking up how many trivial concepts of a webshop is patented. You'll exceed a dozen patents already on the front page, if not more.

      2. Ideas are often trivial to come up with, and should more often than not be dismissed for being obvious. Since that is a sleeping criteria, huge amounts of trivial ideas will be granted a software patent. It is also requires no real-world connection at all. You could pick up "Science Illustrated", and patent everything they claim is "likely to appear in the next 20 years".

      3. An expired software patent is still protected by copyright. Since the software itself and the patent description is essentially the same sequence of commands, you can't use it anyway. While whereas with a real patent, I could use your exact blueprints (as appearing in the patent) to build my own device.

      Real patents describe a path from state A to B. Software patents describe the process of going from A to B. Getting a patent should mean that you've actually done some work and found a way from A to B, not merely assumed "some way to go from A to B will be invented". That is not innovation. That is profiting from someone else's innovation, and is directly opposed to the purpose for which patents were created.

      Kjella

    • The case against software patents (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dachshund ( 300733 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @09:27PM (#9638020)
      However, if you ask the same advocate why s/he wants a particular patent invalidated, it's usually to copy a patented algorithm and incorporate it into an open source product.

      You're exactly right-- the advocate wants to use a particular technique to build something. Now, if you view this sort of activity as nothing more than a commercial process in which the open source developer is trying to get somethng for nothing , with no greater significance, then it's perfectly reasonable to follow your line of reasoning. Problem is, in the aggregate, building things is how innovation happens. Cut it off and innovation strangles.

      The "gray area" for policy makers is not whether software inventions should be considered patentable because of their similarilty/dissimilarity to physical devices. The real argument is whether software patents will advance the process of innovation (and otherwise benefit society), or slow down innovation and harm society. Opponents of software patents have made an excellent case that in this particular situation, at this time, software patents will severely restrict innovation in an important industry.

      Now a great deal of their justification comes from the observation that software patents being allowed in places like the US are overly broad and carelessly considered. But more importantly, it comes from a deep understanding of the nature of invention and the state of the art in software. Whether you're considering hardware or software, inventing new things has almost always required the use of components invented by other people. Imagine if the independent inventors of last century had been denied access to the capacitor, battery or transistor-- because those things were patented and only large corporations with legal departments and plenty of capital could afford to license them. So many of the things we take for granted today would never have been invented.

      Why are software patents different from these physical devices? For one thing, where many patented devices can be constructed and sold in bulk for a reasonable per-unit price, it's difficult to purchase an algorithm or an application at your neighborhood Fry's. And since corporations generally can't profit through bulk manufacture/licensing of software components, they profit through high licensing fees unmanageable to the small inventor. Or they profit by using their patent portfolios as defensive or offensive weapons against potential competitors. Open source development, arguably one of the most promising engines of 21st century software innovation and cost reduction, is in some cases an innocent victim of this, in others, a direct target.

      But here's the important issue: while physical device patents may have encouraged invention and innovation throughout the last century, there is no reason to assume this will be the case for software patents. While an efficient model may develop to smooth over the economic inefficiencies of a software patent system, none has yet, and the interim costs will be high. So the near-to-medium-term result of software patents is not a net increase in innovation or a financial windfall to society, it's exactly the opposite. And for this, some argue that society should subsidize the creation of a software patent industry. I don't think it's worth it, and I think this is the aspect of the debate we should be focusing on.

    • i'm not opposed to software patents as a whole- some, such as rsa and lzw, are truly breakthroughs, and i see no reason why the companies that developed them should not be allowed to use or sell them as they choose. (unisys were bastards about how they used the lzw patents, though, regardless of whether they were justified in getting the patent). However, very few "software" patents are really meaningful innovations. as an example, a company that i did some consulting for has applied for, and will proba
      • "...some, such as rsa and lzw, are truly breakthroughs,..."

        The RSA algorithm may seem like a 'breakthrough' to a software developer but as a mathematician I see it rather differently. The patenting of the RSA algorithm, like the DHT algorithm before it and any other piece of maths disguised as a software idea was a disgraceful act - effectively the partial privatisation of a piece of mathematical knowledge.

        The patent on the RSA algorithm was particularly egregious as it is the obvious and *only* algorith
    • Why software patents in particular are bad:
      • (lack of) interoperability
      • algorithms are math
      Granted, it's a short list, but also an important one.
    • There are many things that seperate software/mathematical patents from legitimate patents.

      1. Alan Turing, having given us the design for a machine that can produce the same mathematical results as any other known mechanical process, has prior art on all software. Any patent he would have taken would have expired a long time ago. To patent a specific use for his machine is like some joker patenting the use of Edison's Lightbulb for lighting a living room, and another joker patenting the use of lightbulbs

    • "Now, you ask the average open source advocate what s/he thinks about software patents, and s/he will be opposed to them, on the grounds that they stifle innovation."

      Why not ask instead, the average mathematician, scientist or proud owner of what he or she once assumed to be a general purpose electronic computer? Just how is it you think anyone has the right to lay claim to exclusive ownership of any particular use of such a device and deny the owner of the machine his right to put it to that use?

      "it's u
    • Patents are a drastical way of influencing the free market, and governments should have a very good reason to interfere in a free market. This is something you need to get inside your thinking: patents are far from natural because they interfere in the 'natural' process of the kapitalistic economy.

      Do some reading about the history of patents and you will see that patents were introduced to make sure inventions were not kept secret and would disappear from society when the inventor died. Granting the patent

  • The spin in this article is un-fucking-believable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lpontiac ( 173839 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @09:03PM (#9637882)
    Business generally wants software to be patentable across the EU, the way it is under U.S. and Japanese law, in order to preserve their right to collect royalties and protect work they have invested in.

    What right to collect royalties? Their entire problem is that so far they don't have that right!

  • Reform. (Score:2)

    by eddy ( 18759 )

    They want special rules for software patents? Well then, how about this: You can only be granted a patent on process A which achieves X if you in the patent describe a process B which also achieves X, which is released for everyone to use. B of course would typically not be as effective (memory, time, whatever) as A, so the patent grants you, for a limited time, the exclusive right to one [efficient] method to achieve something, but it can never give you a monopoly. Of course, someone else is free to come u

  • "ministers went against the wishes of their nations in voting for Software Patent legislation" And in other news, Microsoft's cash reserves have mysteriously dropped down to $51 billion . . .

  • EU goverment is too complex (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 12357bd ( 686909 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @01:43AM (#9639479)

    The EU system is still too complex, people doesn't understand how it works, and that's why that kind of weird things find a place to happen.

    In a more simple and logical system people is aware of what's going on, and have more direct ways to interact.
    Of course EU goverment is still in preliminary stages, we have just aprouved a (still to be referended) new (and complex) constitution, that's why we need to be specially careful. It's really easy that a 'technical' matter as software patents could be politically manipulated by interested lobbies as a 'minor' question.

    One of the big problems in the EU process is the dichotomy between states fighting to keep his power, and the need of a better interstate and interregional harmonization, another is the need to equilibrate very different economies. In that big scenario software patents risk to be a undesired and silenced loss!

    More than ever we need to keep talking about these things.

  • This just in (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SlashDread ( 38969 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @04:24AM (#9640030)
    Mr Brinkhorst (Shame on him! Curse him!) just decided he did NOT have to follow the motion approved by Dutch parliament.

    We WILL vote yes, to save his own goddamn face.

    He can do that too, motions on our parialment our not binding.

    See (dutch) Webwereld.nl

    Goddamn motherfucker. Sorry for the cursing, im MAD. I am being ruled by idiots, with NO respect for their constituents.

    "/Dread"

  • Dutch minister refuses to withdraw Yes-vote (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Frans Faase ( 648933 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @05:20AM (#9640189) Homepage
    Minster Brinkhorst does not feel obliged to changes his 'yes'-vote into an abstination", according to Joop Nijssen, spokesman of the Dutch EU-representation in Brussel. This against the desire of the Dutch parlement. The minister is still seeking way to implement the degree that was filed by the parlement to withdraw the 'Yes'-vote. The degree is supported by all parties, except the party the Mr. Bolkestein belongs to, thus also the party that Minister Brinkhorst belongs to.

    So far, I have not heard any report in the normal media about this political conflict which has been ongoing for some months now. Appearantly, the normal media does not consider it as news, probably because they do not understand the issue. Which is a very sad things.

  • EP divided over this issue (Score:3, Informative)

    by cpghost ( 719344 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:02AM (#9640459) Homepage

    I've talked to many members of the european parliament about software patents. As FFII correctly reports, the representatives are really divided about this issue. A majority is just plain ignorant of the problem, and will vote according to the wishes of the party that sent them in the parliament (probably pro swpat).

    Others are genuinely interested in avoiding the blunders of the US patent system, but they don't know exactly how to do it. The most favored solution would be to patent computer based innovations that are having a "technical" impact. The idea being to protect software controlling industrial robots and some such. Unfortunately, the definition of "technical impact" is being disputed and very blurry, to say the least.

    Then there's the fraction of representatives who have fallen prey to the IP lawyer lobby group. They really believe that they are helping innovation by unifying the already present patent laws in all EU countries.

    All in all, it looks like we've lost this battle to the giant IP/patent holders. Perhaps we didn't protest loud enough and have been widely ignored by the mass media. That's very sad indeed.

  • That's a Move in the Right Direction (Score:3, Insightful)

    by trifakir ( 792534 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:31AM (#9640554)
    That's a move in the right direction, although I'm quite sceptical about the chances of this silly law to be withdrawn. And I was sure that if someone was going to oppose such an oligrarchic law it would be the Dutch. On the other side there is no much chance the patents law to be applicable. It will probably result in an endless amount of lawsuits between the big companies in style "it was me who invented the paper clip". Finally, I am sure that the open source community will form its movements to try to patent as much software as possible... After all if we can not change the rules, we shall act according to them. And if this weaponry can be used against the open-source movement, then probably there are enough opportunities in the law, so it can be used against the big corporations.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nobody said computers were going to be polite.

Close