Software Patents Circumvent European Parliament 378
Tom writes "Despite the european parliament's vote to exclude software patents, the patent lobby is pressing forward and patentability of software is on the agenda of a workgroup whose advise the european council will likely follow.
The european council is at odds with the parliament concerning their stance on software patents. The patent lobby is facing a narrow loss in the parliament, which has voted against software patents, but now circumvents democracy by convincing the council. If they succeed, software patents could be coming to Europe before christmas." <update> The links above seem to have stopped working for me - however, ffii is carrying the news as well.
I think it means (Score:2, Informative)
not
Whose advise
Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU.. (Score:5, Informative)
Don't you hate it when you correct a mistake with a mistake? :)
Actually the only institution that can propose legislation is the European Commission. Both the council and the parliament can amend though.
What I'm wondering is how they think to get this past parliament. "sneaking" it into the text or not, the subject is one where the EP has co-decision right. Which means it's shouldn't become law until the EP has voted on it
Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if I don't see it as likely we'll ever get that far down the shit hole again, a dismantled Europe doesn't stand an economic fighting chance against the US or China.
The solution isn't to go back, but to go forward and fix the system. Simplify and empower the EU.
Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU.. (Score:2)
Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU.. (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is precisely why the EU is the least democratically accountable institution in Europe today. In every sitting national government on the European continent today, legislation is created and passed by a (presumably) democratically elected parliament, or that house of a bicamel parliament that is directly elected. In many cases, European governments are formed either directly out of the elected body of parliament itself (as in the British model) or out of some more complex relationship that certainly includes the directly elected house of parliament and a democratically elected executive (such as the French system).
By contrast, the European Concil is a body appointed by national governments, that has the authority to directly legislate. While the EU Parliament can approve or "rubber stamp" an act of the EU Council much like the "soviet" era parliament, if it chooses to reject a council law, the Council is given the power to override Parlaiment unless a super majority (66%) chooses to oppose it.
Indeed, the EU transational governance is not very different in functional arrangements and democratic principles to that that of the old Soviet Union. And they wish to further ratify this defective system through a constitution that retains this principle undemocratic form of governance as well as expanding the power of the EU into a true European Government.
As noted, the original council draft on European patents was rejected by the European parliament. In a democratically functional society and government this would in effect have been a veto. It is to the shame of Europe and to the very principles of democratic governmance that this alone was not enough to kill the council directive, and that the will of the elected parlaiment, and most importantly of all, the ONLY democratically "legitimate" and accountable institution in the entire EU, can so easily be rejected.
Personally I do not believe Europe is ready for transational Governance. There is no true transational political expression today, perhaps with the exception of the "Greens". By contrast, when American federalization occured, there was already well established and popular trans-state political movements and proto-parties, such as Federalists, etc. By contrast, when we look at the EU parliament, it is composed of people elected from strickly individual national political parties. There are no "European Socialists", for example, though there are members of the French socialists, Finland national party, German Social Democrats, etc. This lack of true transational European political expression I believe is why Federalising Europe is impractical at this time, and certainly helps to explain why some believe they could bully through an undemocratic and defective institution onto European nations like the EU system of today.
Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU.. (Score:2)
Well, actually, I think there is, as expressed in the parliamentary groups in the EU parliament. The parties cooperate more than we get told.
However, the media mostly utterly and completely fails to report EU politics (they only report national EU politics), and the local governments have a tendency to blame 'the EU' for things they themselves voted through council or lobbied the commission for.
It must
Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know, but I don't think it is soon enough since I think it's long overdue. "Power to the Parliament", now that is a great slogan!
Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU.. (Score:5, Interesting)
However, European elections are nowadays largely a nationwide affair, so there's no need for a public view of an European level party. The infrastructure for european-wide parties is there, but not the need.
I can't imagine federalism wouldn't provide the parliament with more power so, even for that effect alone, it would be a Good Thing(tm). Europe is more prepared for federalism than for the current undemocratic, bureaucratic model of government.
Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I also remind you that the Dutch government explicitly *ignored* a decision of the Dutch parliament on how to vote (which was binding iirc. It was on /. a few months ago but I don't remember exactly and I'm lazy so perhaps someone else could look it up). Me thinks we should be less concerned about what is wrong with the EU and more about what is wrong with our national governments. (doesn't mean that there aren't enough things that are wrong with the EU. Unfortunatly the constitution which would solve some of them -e.g. a more powerful parliament- has no chance of surviving the British referendum)
Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You clearly went to the political party school of logic. Political hacks appointed into the job by a very small coterie of senior politicians giving a pat on the back to one of their own (who doesn't ever have to have been elected to any post at any time) does not mean the council has any democratic credentials. They might vote amongst themselves but 25 appointed (and very possibly corrupt if history has any say) special interest individuals coming to a conclusion does not fill me with unbridled confidence...
Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU.. (Score:5, Insightful)
In case of the software patents directive, those faceless bureaucrats are the same people that conduct the day to day operations of the European Patent Office. The same EPO that introduced software patents. They are mostly delegates from the various national patent offices.
And of course, the ministers don't decide how to vote on texts by themselves, they have advisors. You can have two guesses who those advisers generally were in this case.
Because the Council operates so intransparently, it's very difficult for the national Parliaments to keep their governments in check. Further, the Council itself does not operate democratically at all. Just look at how Poland is being bullied by the Dutch Presidency to accept a directive it does not like at all.
Because the MEPs are directly elected by local people and their reports are fully public and their way of working is quite transparent. They obviously aren't all saints, but in general they are quite reachable by "common people" (unlike governmental ministers, let alone governmental bureaucrats). I also remind you that the Dutch government explicitly *ignored* a decision of the Dutch parliament on how to vote (which was binding iirc. It wasn't binding, but the government said they would abide by the result. However, they made a peculiar interpretation of it which does not oblige them to change their vote after all. There are definitely also problems there. Many people doubt whether it will improve more than it will hurt. For example, one of the articles in that European Constitution simply states "Intellectual property shall be protected", without further specifying in any way what this intellectual property is. So forbidding software patents may actually become unconstitutional under that text. Maybe allowing free thoughts will become unconstitutional as well, since you may be using thought processes that someone else used before and he has a constitutional right to "protection" of those.Re:Whoever posted this doesn't understand the EU.. (Score:2)
I believe you are correct that many EU directives do further require enabling legilsation in individual countries under the present system, thankfully, but this is not always the case. In the case of Software Patenting, for example, the council directive would make legal existing a
glad to see (Score:5, Interesting)
hey Europe... Hope you like corperations telling you what you can and can't do, because unless you guys get VERY vocal right now, they will own your arses in a matter of weeks.
Re:glad to see (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:glad to see (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:glad to see (Score:2)
Rob. (a frustrated Francophile)
Re:glad to see (Score:2)
Re:glad to see (Score:2)
Amen brother. What's this called? An Oligarchy? Rule by the powerful few that thing they are better than others? In this case it's people who run big corporations who think they have the right to make money by hook or by crook.
It will be interesting to see how this goes in the U.S. too. Rest assured that if there's any big monied interests that give heavily to the Republican Party or at least have to the Bush family that we will see a diminishment of rights for the common folk, i.e. legislation or di
Re:glad to see (Score:5, Insightful)
I just hope the EU doesn't pass the patents law, it's the only hope for fixing it in the USA. If the EU enacts legislation that gives them a clear competitive advantage and costs the US Government revenue (spelled TAX DOLLARS) then the US might abolish it's patent crap as well. If the EU folds, then darkness will simply cover the Earth or all IT innovation will go to the 3rd world or China.
Re:glad to see (Score:2)
Re:glad to see (Score:3, Informative)
Solutions do tend to come naturally depending on the problem in programming. And frequently the same prob
Re:glad to see (Score:5, Insightful)
The public wants many useful, novel, nonobvious inventions to be made. Furthermore, they want the inventions to come to market in the form of products, so that they can truly be taken advantage of. But they also don't want to pay anything if at all possible, nor suffer any restrictions with regards to the inventions or products, or if that's unavoidable, then they want to pay and be restricted as little as possible. And the inventive work of others should not be interfered with at all, or if at all, as little as possible.
These are the multiple, equal, competing interests of the public, and the idea is to find a balance between them where these public interests are best served. Since very often increasing or decreasing the degree to which one is satisfied will have a disproportionate effect on another, it's fairly tricky. Furthermore, whenever one implements a patent system, it should be as simple and unrestrictive as possible in order to accomplish any overall gain in public good. And the public good must always be satisfied more than it would be if there were no patent system at all, since otherwise the best solution would be to abolish the whole deal.
In the realm of software, there is already a tremendous satisfaction of the public interest without any real involvement of software patents. Therefore, unless they will make things better still -- by causing there to be more invention, and more productization, and lower costs and restrictions -- they're a bad idea. And software has been going along amazingly well without patents, and seems to be doing worse when patents are employed. So it looks like software at least is an unusual environment where patents are harming the satisfaction of the public good rather than promoting it.
What is wrong with someone saying "this is my product, and if you want to use it you gotta play by my rules".
Because they have no leg to stand on. If a caveman came up to you and demanded $100 every time you used fire in some way (to smoke, to cook, to drive a car, etc.) you'd ignore him. And he couldn't do anything to stop you from using fire, even though he invented it.
The inherent nature of inventions is to spread and to be used by anyone who wants to use them and understands how. There is no natural right for the inventor of fire to be able to prevent other people from using fire. People can use fire against his will. And do.
Because this might frustrate inventors, and because we want them to invent stuff, and not just mope around, (actually we want all the stuff on that list above) we set up an ARTIFICIAL system whereby we might WILLINGLY not use their inventions if they don't let us, in order to prop them up.
Basically patents are a form of subsidy. It's like dirt farmers. In order to maintain what are seen as good prices on crops, and to avoid overproduction, the government pays farmers to not grow anything. If we let competition take its natural course, they would grow stuff, there'd be a glut on the market, and many farmers would go out of business. Clearly, they have no natural right to be paid for not doing anything. Hell, I wish that I could get a handsome salary for just sitting around. But we pay farmers because it serves our own best interests (since we feel we want small farmers and fairly stable prices). If we stopped feeling that farm subsidies were a good idea, they'd stop getting paid.
Same deal with patents: inventors have no natural right to control their inventions (other than to not make them or reveal them in the first place) but MAY have artificial rights granted if it serves the best interests of those who are granting the rights. And the grants don't have to be made.
Re:glad to see (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. Since the relevant clause in the Constitution deals with both patents and copyrights, I think it's fair to draw from both areas of caselaw.
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc., 428 F.2d 555 (5th Cir. 1970).
Your quote only describes what the PTO does. Not why, or even why we have a PTO in the first place!
As far as patents and public interest - most people could care less other then the fact that they want to get everything for free (thats too bad, because life doesn't work that way).
Nevertheless, getting everything for free would be ideal. While we can't have that unfortunately, we try to balance getting everything and getting it for free.
I think the caveman example is bad - for multiple reasons: 1) his patent expired 2) you cannot patent something you did not invent - and fire was not a man-made function.
1) He's a caveman. He never would've had a patent to begin with. But if you believe that patents solely should exist for the benefit of the inventor of the patented technology, then it is impossible to support their expiration.
2) If our patent system had been there, he could have patented fire. This is because he's uniquely gotten ahold of a controlled and limited form of fire made by man, and that doesn't exist in nature. The same reasoning is how you can patent substances that are particularly pure or easily gatherable, etc. where they nevertheless do exist in nature. Happens in the biotech field all the time.
It serves our interest to help them because if we don't - soon you will find that only major corporations own the farms (i personally hate KFC).
That's right -- and similarly, we only have a patent system to serve our own interests.
Here is a question: If an inventor should not have a right to collect a profit (as he see's fit) for something that he spent his time/money creating ---- why should someone who works at McDonalds serving hamburgers make a profit?
Apples and oranges, my friend.
Patents, like copyrights, are NOT awarded for labor. Whether an invention is made by a five year old in the course of fifteen minutes, or whether it's made by hundreds of scientists and engineers working together on a years-long billion dollar project, the patents they get are not materially different.
And an inventor who spends a fortune in time and money to invent something that has already been invented -- even if he didn't know about it -- gets ab
Re:glad to see (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh yes it is.
For starters the idea of a natural copyright is in direct and total opposition to the somewhat better idea of a natural right to free speech. And it gets worse from there, particularly in that all the moral rights countries are hypocritical and allow the rights they're talking about to lapse, etc.
I would love to see the idea of natural copyrights totally die out. I would immediately do the jig of happiness.
without turning a copy over to the National Archives
Libra
Re:glad to see (Score:3, Insightful)
The Constitution said:
"To Promote the Useful Arts And Sciences"
THAT is what Patents are for. Not to guarantee someone profit, or even an ROI for R&D costs.
IMNSHO, if it doesn't PROMOTE innovation, a Patent or Copyright should NOT be granted.
And if it doesn't do so for a USEFUL Art or Science, also, a Patent or Copyright should NOT be granted.
PERIOD.
It's clear to me, from the language in the Constitution that the purpose of Patents and Copyrights is to benefit the public.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lobbys (Score:3, Interesting)
You gotta admit that its a tour-de-force that they're pulling on us year after year.
Why are they legal in the first place? Politicians (human beings) + Money = possibility for Corruption, isn't it?
Re:Lobbys (Score:5, Interesting)
"Before today it was possible for generous people to look charitably at this text as an example of a tragic mistake, not malice. But not with this last-minute maneuvering. Only the most committed opponent to the democratic process would believe that the proper response to the widespread consensus that there is something profoundly wrong with the Council's text, is to race it through with an A-item approval the week before Christmas in a Fisheries Council Meeting. The bad smell coming from Brussels has nothing to do with the fish."
whining on /. won't help (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:whining on /. won't help (Score:2)
But even my elected representative (one of Blair's babes) ignores everything I send [OONA KING!! Yes, you! I hope you are reading this]. Or they are so intellectually challenged that the phrase 'software patent' means something to do with underwear for sick people (so what's all the fuss about?)...
Re:whining on /. won't help (Score:2)
As have I. It is rather saddening to see how utterly useless many MPs are, Labour MPs in particular. My MP is Labour, at least he forwarded my letter on to Lord Sainsbury, to which I received a form reply, but he avoided actually taking a position against that of the government, irrespective of the persuasiveness of my arguments.
Sometimes I really wonder why these people bother getting in to politics just to be the puppets of their party whips...
Re:whining on /. won't help (Score:3, Interesting)
I wrote my governor, signed a petition, and alerted as many other people as I could of this horrible bill. And you know what happened? Our illustrious governor SIGNED THE FUCKING BILL INTO LAW.
Now, if any community wants to roll its own FTTH or wireless mesh network to provide cheap broadband, they have to have paying c
Re:whining on /. won't help (Score:2)
But at what speeds? And at what cost? If a community wants to roll out 10Mb symmetric fiber with static IP to every home for $15/month, asks Verizon for permission, and they say "Oh yeah, we'll give them 512/128kbps ADSL with a dynamic IP and bandwidth caps and harsh user agreement for $50/month" how is that fair?
And what determines "provide service" does that mean "start installing the service" does it mean "have one paying customer"??? This whole thing is disgusting.
Re:whining on /. won't help (Score:2)
If the telco (this excludes comcast, btw) says no to the community
Since when do I, a citizen of the US, have to ask some corporation whether or not I can or cannot do something for my community? Doesn't that seem seriously screwed up to anyone else? I don't even care if I can do it after the corporation tells me no, I should not have to ask some corporation for permission first. I don't even care if, when they respon
STOP SPREADING THIS CRAP: Whining DOES help (Score:2, Insightful)
Whining teaches Slashdotters what tactical moves the opposition has taking, what the stakes are, and what is expected from us to overcome the hurdles that are put in front of us.
Lastly, whining is an effective way of getting caring people's sympathy. Some people need to hear the whines of injustice
Re:whining on /. won't help (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing has made me as cynical about politics as that did. Of all the people in the world, I'm supposed to have influence over her living as I do in her constituency, and it turned out that I had just as much influence as somebody living in Mexico.
Re:whining on /. won't help (Score:3, Informative)
Do Not Send E-Mail To Politicians(tm).
You will be ignored. Use the phone, send a snail-mail letter or show up in person. E-Mail by citizen is regarded as spam by most politicians.
Re:Lobbys (Score:2)
Because Politicians + Money = Corruption, therefore Corruption + Suggestion of stopping bribery = No Can Do. Also if you get into power the chances of becoming corrupt increase exponentially: Probability = Money^(Power). Its a bad system and the only way to stop it is to get into power and start making some of that lovely money - you'll soon forget about all this corruption bull-crap.
Re:Lobbys (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, each of them could spend 30 minutes writing a letter to their lawmaker, but shouldn't they be able to all donate $15 and send a single, well-spoken member to make their point in-person? And what then is the difference between this single member of the group and a profess
Re:Lobbys (Score:3, Insightful)
Bill Gates' net worth is ~$29.5 billion. Let's assume he'll use half of that to ensure that Microsoft keeps its software dominance, because that means a jump in stock price and more money for him in the long run. That's about $15 billion or $11.3 billion euro. To match that kind of lobbying money, every man, woman and child in the EU (That's all 306.9 million of them) would have to contribute
Re:Lobbys (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone said it before; "Democracy sucks. 51% of people can legally dispossess to the other 49% of their properties, and even of their lives". With lobbies it only sucks more. One man alone (with the help of lawmakers) can disposse
Sigh. (Score:4, Interesting)
It pains me to see Europe slipping down the same slope. Learn from our folly, yeah?
Re:Sigh. (Score:5, Interesting)
In case you didn't notice, most "modern" democracies are just feudalism in disguise. Does the fact that politicians wear... Business Suites maybe clue you in? Or how about that in the US all leaders are the ridiculously rich? Or that money == power in these countries? The new feudalism is business owners == the land owing aristocrats, peasants == employees!! Ever noticed you can't get rich being an employee? Unless you run a big ass company, or wait... Own a business.
And government is just there to cater to business, not the "people". Once in 4 years the peasants have a chance to elect someone from a tiny little rich group. We have no recourse if we elect a lier or looser. The government is open every day for lobbyists and the rich and powerful, but only once every four years for everyone else.
This is modern democracy for you, this is what the US wants everywhere in the world, including the EU. Because they are the richest, they will rule it. Via the wealthy, via the big corporations.
See Noam Chomsky for some more enlightenment.
The price of freedom.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The anti-patent lobby in the EU has achieved great things, but the pro-patent lobby is extremely determined even in the face of a clear democratic mandate against software patents in the European and many national Parliaments. They know the system, they seem to have the support of many unelected Eurocrats, and they can and will exploit every possible loophole to legalise the over 30,000 illegally granted patents in the EU. This is yet another example of this.
The important thing is to keep up the pressure. When this topic has come up on /. in the past, there are always a few nohopers, who think any opposition to software patents is futile and we may as-well give up. These defeatists are the greatest allies of the pro-patent lobby, and they are wrong, as what progress we have made has demonstrated.
In short, keep fighting, don't give up, we have won a number of battles, but the war is far from over.
Re:The price of freedom.. (Score:4, Informative)
If you live in the EU, drop another quick email to your MEP and national parliamentarians. It doesn't have to be a long rant against patents - just point out the massive opposition, the threat to jobs and the duplicity of voting on software patents at an environment or fisheries meeting without even a vote.
In the UK there will likely be a general election next year. Contact your MP now [faxyourmp.org.uk] it costs nothing bar a few minutes of your time. You can get contact details for your MEP here [eu.int].
Re:The price of freedom.. (Score:2)
Suggest that anybody with 10 minutes go now to faxyourmp, and write a letter about this. Every little step to support the cause. Include a link to this ZDNet UK article if you need backup.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,391
Re:The price of freedom.. (Score:3, Informative)
See here [europarl.org.uk] (for the UK at least, others simply can go here [eu.int] and click on their country's flag to get their list of MEPs).
Re: The price of freedom.. (Score:2)
An editor that checks links? (Score:4, Funny)
God, I hate being right... (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130588
Re:God, I hate being right... (Score:2)
EU Failure (Score:5, Interesting)
I find that this is just another example of how the EU is circumventing democracy. Instead of an enlightened body which supposedly has the needs of the body of European nations it encompasses in mind, the EU is quickly turning out to be nothing more than another bureaucracy set out to protect only its own best interests.
Even beyond that, however, there is another issue at stake. If a law is passed which standardizes software patents, all of the individual countries which make up the EU will be forced to accept it. So, say that, for example, the government of Germany would rather not accept software patents. Too bad, they'll have to anyway, despite the fact that the majority of the people there may not want it. So much for the will of the people.
So, for all of you globalists out there who saw the consolidation of Europe into a single entity as a good thing, it looks like you're reaping what you've sown. The EU is quickly becoming just another big, centralized, corporatist, United-States-esque government.
Re:EU Failure (Score:2)
That is its purpose: to make sure that business can proceed unrestrained by democracy. The EU is run by the unelected councillors who know that one day they will be looking for cushey jobs in industry as non-execs and "advisors". Thus, they have no interest in doing anything that in any way hampers their future employers' greed.
The parliament might actually take things into its own hands and disband the council, and that is
Re:EU Failure (Score:2)
Re:EU Failure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:EU Failure (Score:2)
Re:EU Failure (Score:2)
Can they just leave the EU? This is not meant as a troll, just an honest question from someone (okay you guessed it, I'm American) who doesn't particularly understand how the EU works. I'm also fully aware there are a vast number of consequences to leaving the EU and Germany isn't going leave just over software patents. I just find it interesting that so many of these posts bashing the EU seem beyond this sm
Re:EU Failure (Score:2)
However, leaving the EU means leaving the common market. Within the common market there are no import taxes. When leaving, the EU can impose import/export taxes against the secessing country. Since this is a pretty
Re:EU Failure (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:EU Failure (Score:3, Interesting)
You bet your bippy China, Saudi Arabia, et al would clean up their act if we could do that.
Instead, the WTO is letting people like Monsanto prevent poor farmers from saving a portion of their crop or trading it with others (like they've done for thousands of years) because they've patented
Re:EU Failure (Score:3, Informative)
Patens has not been approved! The parliament voted no, and now the patent lobby is TRYING to convince the EU to do it anyway!
IF they manage to do it THEN there is something wrong - but up until now, the democracy seems to actually work.
So if you want to badmouth EU - at least have some better arguments, instead of saying things that are not true.
Disclaimer - I am definately pro-EU, but I DO see valid aruments against it - just none that are worse than the benifits.
Re:EU Failure (Score:2)
Nothing to do with the EU (Score:2)
The Council of Europe is a totally separate *intergovernmental* organisation and has no relationship with the European Union apart from having Europe in its name.
Take a look at their web site (http://www.coe.int). This is what they say:
-------------
The Council of Europe is the continent's oldest political organisation, founded in 1949. It:
groups together 46 countries, including 21 countries from Central and Eastern Europe,
has appl
Re:Nothing to do with the EU (Score:2)
Some corrections and overview (Score:5, Informative)
The big news is however that the Council Presidency is basically trying to circumvent the Council itself. In May, they reached a political agreement on the most pro-software patents text seen in EU legislative circles until now. At the Council meeting in May, Poland first abstained, then Germany and the Commission introduced some fake compromise amendment, and after a break Poland was not consulted again about its position, because there was a qualified majority in place even without its support. They confirmed [ukie.gov.pl] afterwards their position did not change because of the bogus compromise amendment.
Recently, Poland confirmed its position [slashdot.org], after everyone in a meeting with HP, Novell, Microsoft and others confirmed that the text of the Council of Ministers allows pure software patents (contrary what is often claimed). And apart from Microsoft and the Polish Patent Lawyers association, everyone agreed that software patents would be bad for the Polish economy. Because the voting weights changed on 1 November (due to the joining of all the new member states to the EU), Poland's support suddenly became necessary and thus the qualified majority was officially broken.
Other notable events since the political agreement of May are the fact that in July the Dutch Parliament asked its government to change position [slashdot.org] from being in favour to abstention, and at the start of this month all parties of the German Parliament did the same [nosoftwarepatents.com].
So the Council currently has an ugly text on the table which is no longer supported by a qualified majority in any way, but by means of diplomatic pressure on Poland and others the Dutch presidency (lead in this case by Minister Brinkhorst) is trying everything it can to push it through nevertheless.
Re:Some corrections and overview (Score:2)
Re:Some corrections and overview (Score:2)
Telindus is now an integrator/services company. It provides services for e.g. the Flemish government. Another company that does so
Re:Some corrections and overview (Score:2)
I've also talked to a quite highly positioned person at Alcatel, but they take a very, very pro-patent stance since they feel it's a thing that can protect them from Chinese
Re:Some corrections and overview (Score:2)
It's true it's very difficult to mobilise companies. Maybe showing them them the presentation linked here [ffii.org] can help. And otherwise, maybe showing them this [espacenet.com] will wake them
More Craziness (Score:2)
Please do verify what I wrote, I have the feeling I may be mixing up things.
Re:More Craziness (Score:2)
Indeed, you are. The Dutch minister had said there was an agreement over the text between the European Parliament and the Council, so that there was no problem to support it. Afterwards, this was shown not to be true, so the Dutch Parliament voted a motion [ffii.org] asking the Dutch government to change into an abstention. The government claims it's fulfilling this motion, why in fact it is not.
This gets me so totally angry (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never been so angry at these crooks in government before now. Dutch parliament rejects software patents, European parliament rejects software patents, they'll hurt the Dutch software industry very badly (I believe the total number of software patents held by Dutch IT companies is 3) and now the fuckers want to avoid all of that by adding it on to some fisheries decision.
Help me, fellow Dutchmen, how can we make this as public as possible as quickly as possible? I've never done anything active in politics before, but this must go into the spotlight! Give me some hints...
Re:This gets me so totally angry (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This gets me so totally angry (Score:2)
For now I've mailed an explanation, some links and a request for advice to some journalist friends. Not much time...
Antidemocratic conduct by EU Council (Score:2, Informative)
1950: What if we had Software Patents back then? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:1950: What if we had Software Patents back then (Score:3, Funny)
So we'd have 2 of the best applications ever written and no microsoft? Well this isn't looking so bad after all.
Stance on software patents - English link (Score:3, Informative)
About the addendum... (Score:2)
Here's the Link to my post [slashdot.org] (for more info).
You know it will happen (Score:2)
Re:You know it will happen (Score:2)
Did what I could... (Score:5, Informative)
I wrote to the people who are supposed to 'represent' me, and asked them how the hell our country (the Netherlands) could be behind this push for Software Patents, when a majority of parliament is against it.
A couple of months ago saw a petition voted in to have the minister of foreign affairs retract his support for software patents. And now aparently not only are we voting yes, we're also behind pushing the Polish to give up their resistance to these patents?
Even worse, this minister is from a party which supposedly is the most vocal supporter of the european -democratic- proces, demanding more power to the european parliament, and less to the council. (Great way to show it guys, now I know why I voted for you
So a call to all dutch Slashdotters, write an email to your representatives. Not much time left to act.
CDA:
cda.publieksvoorlichting@tweedekamer.nl
voorlichting@pvda.nl
VVD:
Vragen stellen aan tweede kamerleden [www.vvd.nl]
D66:
http://www.d66.nl/contact [d66.nl]
(not a complete list, I know)
How very nice of you... (Score:3, Informative)
Link 1 - in English [eu.int]
To 'Link 2 [eu.int]', there doesn't seem to be a corresponding English-version - from my vauge german skills, but mostly deductive skills - I'd say the document is some sort of addmendment to this org. Link 2 - in English [eu.int]
But maybe someone could translate 'Link 2 [eu.int]'? ... it's only 5 (five) lines.
PS. Linux ppl, use Acrobat's reader ... the native PDF readers seem to have trouble with these PDF's...
Re:How very nice of you... (Score:2)
Re:How very nice of you... (Score:3, Informative)
Without warranty on correctness:
Corrigendum to the draft of the rationale of the council
Subject: Common position of the council concerning the enactment of a guideline of the Eurropean parliament and the council about the patentability of computer-implemented inventions
Number 17 (page 5) gets the following version:
"Paragraph 2 was added to reveal that the range of protection of a patented invention may under certain circumstanc
thanks. (Score:2)
Re:How very nice of you... (Score:2)
Are
Who are we kidding? (Score:2)
Sigh... where is my anti-globalization protesters helmet. Perhaps the swiss police know...
If anyone is still confused (Score:3, Informative)
In co-decision, Parliament has some measure of veto over the Council - it is the strongest of the arrangements between the parties. Council has sent the draft directive to Parliament. Parliament could adopt the proposed legislation - whereupon it would have taken effect in the EU, instead it proposed amendments.
The amendments have then gone back to Council which now has a choice. It can choose to accept Parliament's amendments and produce a compromise directive. Or it can override Parliament - but only by a unanimous vote by the members of Council. This is why the Poles are being strong-armed.
If Council rejects the Parliamentary amendments and fails to vote unanimously, the legislation must then head towards conciliation and arbitration which is brain-bleedingly complicated since the Commission becomes involved.
So all is not lost, the insitutions are working, although I have to wonder about the fisheries involvement. I would have thought those ministers have their own problems at the moment.
HTH.
Mike.
Re:If anyone is still confused (Score:5, Informative)
There, the EP can only amend the text that returned from the Council with absolute majorities (nr_of_MEPs/2+1 must vote in favour in order for an amendment to be accepted, regardless of how many MEPs are actually present for voting).
Next, if the EP accepts the text without amendments, the directive is approved. It can also be downright rejected. Finally, if it's accepted with amendments it goes back to the Council for a second reading.
I don't know the exact rules in the Council for second reading, but if they accept the Parliament's amendments the directive is again approved, and if they amend it, it goes back to the EP for the third reading.
In the third reading, the EP can only say yes or no. If they say no, then conciliation happens.
An item at a Council session can either be a A-point (formality for approval) or B-point (discussion point). Because the Council reached a political agreement in May, it's technically possible to bring it as an A point on the Council for formal adoption of a Common Position (which would mean official acceptance by the Council).Such an A-point can happen at any Council formation. So even though the competitiveness formation is responsible for the swpats, if they bring it on as A-point they can indeed have it signed at the Fisheries Council session.
and everyone wonders why i am going into IP law (Score:2)
Re:Silly question... (Score:3, Informative)
The parliament has said so, but it has not quite the clout it should have in a democratic country.
It can still vote the proposed guideline down, which might result in no EU_wide rule about software patents at all.
But the parliament lacks the power to make laws on its own, which is probably the greatest flaw in the power structure of the EU. If it had that power, this year's decision would be final and
Re:Silly question... (Score:2, Insightful)
So your solution to rampant government power is... to give the government more power! Brilliant!
Seriously, though, if this were done, what would happen when a pro-patent Parliament is elected? Then you would probably be clamoring for Parliament to be stripped
Re:Silly question... (Score:3, Informative)
No, to redistribute the power.
No. The reason we want more power for the parliament is that it's the only part of the EU that's directly elected. They are also the most transparent part, the most responsive part and
Re:Silly question... (Score:3, Informative)
It would have a profound impact, because the Council's make up depends on election systems that in many important countries favors the large established parties, followed up by the process of choosing the cabinets, which means that the Council is highly unrepresentative of the general political landscape in the EU.
The Council is an artefact of
Re:Silly question... (Score:2)
The EU has X amount of power right now, and remains X. It's a question of who controls the EU, the parliament, the commission or the council of ministers.
The democratically elected parliament is a better option than an anonymous elite of bureaucrats, IMHO.
Re:Silly question... (Score:2)
Re:One of the problems of the EU (Score:2)
I know mine. Unfortunately, one of them is Arlene McCarthy. What a Labour MEP is doing supporting this legislation is baffling, though she is a keen suppporter of our corporation loving Prime Minister.