EU Software Patent Law Moves Forward 309
Zygfryd writes "Just when we were all celebrating, the Polish Press Agency (PAP) reports that the Patent Directive is not likely to return to the first reading as the Commission may ignore the Parliament's vote on restarting the process. Revisions are said to be still possible, but under political pressure the Polish government stated they would no longer oppose the directive's adoption and support the former agreement made in May. Polish diplomats will, however, support any opposition initiated by other countries on the February 17 meeting." At the same time, drseuk writes "The Spanish Senate has just voted against Software Patents. This should hopefully require the Spanish EU representative to vote against any attempts by the Council of Ministers to ignore the will of the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee."
Demonstration (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Demonstration (Score:3, Interesting)
Despite doing a lot of distantly EU and Commission-related work, I honestly haven't a clue what's going on with this patents thing. I do know that the Commission is very pro-Open Source and pro-small-business, and I think half the reason I'm working on various EU-funded projects is because I'm definitely not the expensive, proprietary route.
I just hope that the higher-ups all realise what impact patents could have on software develop
Re:Demonstration (Score:2)
The Wikipedia article "Proposed EU Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Directive" [wikipedia.org] has a concise but fairly thorough history of the political backwards-and-forwardses so far.
Re:Demonstration (Score:2)
Re:Demonstration (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, no they can't: if the directive is withdrawn, they have to wait at least two years before proposing a new directive. And after that, Poland and everyone else who's now being forced to swallow that hideous Council text would be free to object to it. There's no way such a text could ever again be supported by a qualified major
Re:Demonstration (Score:3, Informative)
It would indeed be funny if the Commission hadn't written in the explanatory memorandum that this was actually the goal: prevent a drift towards US practice, prevent business method patents and whatnot... Same goes for the Council, for that matter. We are
hmpf, maybe another thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ofcourse, this would involve knowing the adresses of all the ministers (of the counsel) involved, or at least trying to hand it over to them as they enter the building.
But it might be a neat idea that could be worthwhile. Ofcourse, someone has to do it,
Re:B-topic? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not entirely sure about that. As Polen has demonstrated, not all countries agree with it any longer (see also Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany, which have been under parliamentary scrutiny, the fact that the % of vote-power changed because of the enlargement, etc.) It leaves little doubt that, if it were to be discussed and voted again by the coun
Thursday, not Tuesday (Score:4, Informative)
That's appearantly next Thursday, not Tuesday. Thursday the 17th of February, 2005. Mentioned just in case someone who won't be attending still wants to know...
Re:Demonstration (Score:4, Informative)
Political pressure from whom? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Political pressure from whom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Political pressure from whom? (Score:5, Informative)
These companies claim to represent "the" European IT industry and that they need patents on "computer-implemented inventions" (which generally are pretty much the same as what would be called software patents in the US). In reality, SMEs represent a much larger part of the European economy (both IT and non-IT, and software patentability obviously goes much further than just IT), they are heavily opposed (see e.g. UEAPME [ueapme.org] and CEA-PME [ffii.org]).
The larger companies are of course much better organised regarding lobbying, so it's mainly their voice which is heard at the top levels. Slowly, we are changing this though.
Re:Political pressure from whom? (Score:4, Informative)
Oh please... (Score:2)
That's not only an insult to the US, it's an insult to the EU!
Re:Oh please... (Score:3, Insightful)
The US and EU are geographical areas, so I can't insult it, but I know what you mean. However, the insult (if it is that) stands.
You may not like to believe this, but in the Real World, all the other countries are trying to kiss the arse of the gov. of the US of A (who after all have all the nukes and WMD, and have shown they aren't afraid to use them).
So
Re:Political pressure from whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
He, also seems to be the one influencing our good friend, Dubya.
And when Spain changes it's mind... (Score:2, Funny)
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Though I am afraid I don't know as much about how all of this works as I should, it seems this entire mess ought to be a real wake-up call to the people of Europe that they have given too much power too quickly to an entity without enough democratic safeguards. Either the EUs power needs to be scaled back, or the democratic influence needs to be expanded to give the EU responsibilities to the people in proportion to the powers it holds. Unfortunately I fear that this is an issue that the average person will not understand well enough to realize the significance of what has happened.
Hey, Europe, do you want to be a significant software player, or do you want America to have the ability to artificially lock you out of the market? Because the ONLY people who benefit from this patent directive in ANY way, and the only people who are promoting it, are American companies... and they are NOT promoting it for YOUR benefit.
The EU system has been shown to be such that American companies can engineer and pass EU-wide legislation for their own benefit and there is apparently nothing either you, or your elected local governments, can do to stop it.
Could stop it but don't want to... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the problem is that you, your elected local goverments, et. al. could stop this if you wanted to badly enough to actually try, instead of just moaning about it.
Those who want software patents are taking positive steps ( $$$ ? ).
What are YOU doing?
Re:Could stop it but don't want to... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what you get... (Score:2)
Power concentrates in the hands of a few people who answer to those with the most money.
Europe should have learned from our example in "these United States". An ever growing centralization of power has not served the cause of liberty nor the common man well. Men are corruptible. Thus the more you concentrate power, the fewer people you need to corrupt in order for things to turn to shit.
Re:Could stop it but don't want to... (Score:2)
Re:Could stop it but don't want to... (Score:2)
Re:Could stop it but don't want to... (Score:2)
The context of the word, positive, in your post (which I don't BTW agree with) was that you were saying one side (for the directive) are taking positive steps and another (against) are not.
As the word, positive, was being applied to both parties, you must have meant something more (and at a higher level) by the word than just "for whichever side they are on".
And, FYI, the correct answer was "Arthur Dent, Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
</response>
Re:Could stop it but don't want to... (Score:2)
Re:Could stop it but don't want to... (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember my brother-in law telling us about how he watched a group of police assemble in Wapping at the time that News International bought the Sun, a "newspaper" in the UK. The resulting purge of print workers from the Wapping factory led to demonstrations of striking workers one of which was marching past his flats at the time. He had a perfect view of the whole demo as he lived on the 5th floor and could see nothing apart from a peaceful march in progress.
The police stormed around the corner and piled into the marchers starting a very widespread fight that was reported on the news as evil protestors attack police shock.
The same happened at the Poll tax protest in the 80's when a Police van hitting a pram in Trafalgar Square triggered a riot (seen the film from CCTV at the point the riot was triggered). Further into the demo more Police came pouring out of South Africa House (despite the fact that sanctions were in place against the aparthied regime Maggie was a great friend of SA) but this time their were enough "normal" middle class people there to see what was going on and the "evil commies start riot" line didn't stick.
Funnily enough I feel sorry for the police who, bound by the job, have to put up with being painted as uniformed thugs after carrying out the politicians dirty work. Conversations with many coppers on duty during demos have shown that they generally don't want to end up in a punch up as it sours the taste of the overtime cheque they get.
The repeated use of start a fight and then blame the protestors worked well through the 80's but Maggie overdid it and the strategy was finally seen through. Still, in most cases the government just went ahead and did what they wanted anyway leading people to believe that regardless of what you do it will make no difference. 2 million protest against invading Iraq (biggest march in English history) because no-one believes the "evidence" of WMD - Government goes ahead anyway and refuses to apologies when it turns out that there was no evidence.
Politicians know why voter turnout is around 30% i.e. no-one believes that they work in the public interest anymore. Blair himself is in power not because people believe he's the best man for the job but because he's percieved as the least worst of an appalling range of choices. The patent issue just demonstrates the accuracy of this belief and should, despite the best efforts of those of us who still give a shit, the law go through it'll just strengthen the apathy and feeling of helplessness.
The truly shocking thing is that two of the countries who stand to gain most from the success of Open Source and Linux e.g. France and Germany seem so willing to play along.
Re:Could stop it but don't want to... (Score:2)
Re:Could stop it but don't want to... (Score:2)
Subsequently government ignored parliament and went right ahead.
It's absolutely not clear what to do in a situation like this. We do have the right democratic authority on our side, both locally and European, but on the grand scale of things, the software patent issue is not something to make parliament force government. It's
Commission critised before (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the commission grew too strong and the countries objected, so a co-decision process was created to bring more democracy into the EU.
The Parliament and Commission are supposed to agree a compromise under the co-decision process.
The Council of ministers can bypass this (which they did thanks to Brinkhorst telling porkies).
JURI has concluded that Commission are misleading Parliament and the wording they want DOES make software patentable. Commission still claims it does not.
Commissions response to Parliaments request to restart in a more honest transparent way seems to be a diplomatic "FUCK YOU".
Its no longer about patents its about accountability, democracy and the Commission walking all over the co-decision process.
If the Commission can walk all over the Parliament like this then the Parliament has to be strengthened. It is the only democractic part of the EU.
Re:Brinkhorst is a Dutch EU commissioner (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oops! (Score:2)
Re:Brinkhorst is a Dutch EU commissioner (Score:2)
He's evidently a total scumbag and the small party he's from has in my view lost all credibility as a movement that values democracy.
Re:WTF (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, the EU Council is made up of representatives of the 25 elected governments. The Parliament is directly elected by the people, the Commission is appointed by the governments, and the Council is the national governments. (ie : the Agriculture Council is made up of the Agriculture Ministers/Secretaries from each member state, and so on). The problem isn't that there are no democratic safeguards in the EU,
this is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
Ignore me, I have nothing constructive to say, I just want to punch someone in the face (preferably Mr. Prodi)
Democratic? (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm...
This is a joke (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess this is where a fascists would-be dictator steps in and uses this case to showcase his agenda, namely that democracy == corruption.
Yes, democracy=corruption, (Score:2)
Unfortunately we have been moving steadily toward a direct democracy. This means we are losing the whole system of checks and balances, protection of the minority from the majority,fiscal restraint, etc.
The historical pattern seems to be Republic-->Democracy-->Dictatorship-->Revolution (or Collapse)
Re:This is a joke (Score:2)
Why panic? Well, there's this "Lisbon Strategy" which is supposed to make the EU the most competitive knowledge economy by 2010. And it's completely and utterly failing. Many politicians have this naive belief that "more patents = more innovation". So allowing companies to get software patents, will automagical
And this is democratic how? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And this is democratic how? (Score:4, Informative)
The parliament does have some power. It can still vote this whole directive down, and there's at least a chance that it will if only out of anger at being ignored. I think it can dismiss the EU commission as well, though I doubt that's going to happen. It would be satsifying.
Who exactly are the ministers accountable to?
Their own national legislatures and electorates.
A novel device for creating corporate legislation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time the EU government demonstrates that it rejects patent law, it springs up again immediately. Why not? Just a cost of doing business, until it finally passes. Meanwhile, people without a profit motive get "opposition fatigue" - some of the outrage at first being confronted with these artificial monopolies goes away merely with repeated contact, though the opposition remains. Something like a "three strikes and you're out" rule for laws, where a policy repeatedly fails in its process, should be applied. At least such failed policies attempts should produce a new policy statement, to the effect that no such policy is in effect, despite much deliberation. To be considered the next time such a policy is attempted.
And how can it be possible that the Spanish EU rep can misrepresent the Spanish Senate decision for Spain? Or that Dutch traitor last year? That sounds like sedition to me. What's the power hierarchy here? The parliament exerts its power, merely to suggest something to an unelected bureaucrat, who's unaccountable when ignoring it? The whole contraption is completely geared in favor of corporate gaming, and against any sensible representation of the people.
Weak parliament is the problem (Score:2, Informative)
All the power resides in the hands of comissars and the council. They, in turn, are career bureaucrats chosen - undemocratically, mind you - by the member states.
Re:Weak parliament is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Weak parliament is the problem (Score:2)
And we managed to elect Mr Chirac not only once, but twice!
We are talking about democracy, or the lack thereof, in the EU. The problem here is that democracy means the majority sets the agenda. And if the majority does not care, you can as well just forget it.
Face it, geeks are but a tiny minority. We're just small change. We don't matter.
[i]All it is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing[/i]. Or for most people to not care. Hell, even most decision makers don't h
Re:A novel device for creating corporate legislati (Score:2)
"Il fascismo dovrebbe più appropriatamente chiamarsi Corporativismo perché è una fusione tra Stato e potere corporativo."
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini, Encyclopedia ItalianaRe:A novel device for creating corporate legislati (Score:2)
Re:A novel device for creating corporate legislati (Score:2)
Re:A novel device for creating corporate legislati (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the decision was arrived at only this week. Nevertheless, the Spanish representative was the only one that voted against the Council's proposal last May. Abstention counted as votes against, but Spain was the only country that voted no. So rather than misrepresent the decision, the Spanish rep foreshadowed it.
If anything, the Spanish representatives in the EU have done as much as the Polish on
Checks and Balances (Score:5, Interesting)
Because of that appearance, could someone tell me what the "check and balance" is in the EU system against abuse of power by the actual EU vs the populace? Here in the US, as broken as it is, if someone ticks the populace off enough they have to worry about re-election...
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, let's not talk about the republican and democratic party then. They seem to be there no matter what. I know they aren't a person but in Europe, maybe except the british, parties change.
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:2)
Even in Britain it happens... every now and again. Until the 1920s the two main parties were Conservative and Liberal; since the 20s the Liberals have been replaced by the Labour Party. I suspect it won't happen, but it occasionally looks like the Conservative party might drop off the political map altogether.
At a more local level, however, we do have some measure of proportional representation, and this has led to some ... interesting ... occurances. In Scotlan
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:3, Informative)
In Scotland, the Conservatives are mainly supported by voters who have good earnings and wish to keep their money (company directors, property owners). Labour are mainly supported by those with poor earnings (the benefits culture located in the inner cities). The Liberal Democrats are supported by professionals (educated to degree and abov
UK perspective (Score:2)
Re:UK perspective (Score:2)
Re:Be more ambitious! (Score:2)
(i know france wasn't a colony, but its a convenient stop for tea and biscuits on the way to africa.
Re:Be more ambitious! (Score:2)
Personally I cannot understand why on earth we given it back to them in 1945
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:2)
Anything that seriously pisses off any three of Britain, France, Spain, Germany and Italy generally doesn't happen. Or only two, if they're France and Germany.
The near-total lack of any firm boundaries on Brussels' power is a major annoyance for the British right wing. There's a draft constitution being put to the member states at the moment that will correct this, setting out t
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:3, Insightful)
The EU is an ECONOMIC union. This has been deeply embedded within its history. The EU only focuses on international industry and economy, and it is completely indifferent to what happens to people and small companies.
As such, it pushes globalisation, it makes laws that enable multinational co
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:2)
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:5, Informative)
At first (decades ago) the parliament was selected by the national governments and it was supposed to just monitor the decision making. The actual decision makers comprised the commision, whose members were selected by each local (national) government and whose main task was to propose Europe-wide legislation but to do so without consideration of local / national interests, and the council, which was the organization comprising the actual member governments and who had to approve any new legislative proposal.
With time it was decided that the members of the European Parliament should be directly elected by European citizens (which has now been the case for quite a long time). In addition, it has gained the power to sack the commision (though not individual members, only the entire group) in a vote of misconfidence should it want to. Meanwhile the EU as such has been expanded from a purely economic organization to a sort of quasi-government involved in all sorts of issues, including foreign policy, economic policy, environmental protection, labour issues, law enforcement, etc. The parliament has been granted more and more powers and actually has veto power over some, but not all, of the EU policy areas (in those that it lacks veto powers, it's supposed to have an advisory role).
At this point, an overview of the most important institutions might look like this:
1) European Commision. Members (one per country for small countries, two per country for large countries) selected by national governments and supposed to work for what is best for the EU as a whole. Members have to disavow strictly national interests and concerns. Has the role of proposing new legislation for Europe as a whole.
2) European Council. Comprises national governments and / or their diplomatic representatives. Concerned with the "national" interest. Has veto power over new legislation. In many policy areas a single country can stop an EU law, while in other areas a qualified majority (defined differently depending on policy area) is sufficient to pass any law. Small countries have more votes per person.
3) European Parliament. Directly elected by EU wide elections every five years. Organized in EU-wide political party groupings that correspond to the national political parties (for example, liberals, greens, conservatives, social democrats, communists, independants, etc). In some policy areas has veto power over new legislation. In other areas has merely advisory power. Small countries have a higher percentage of representatives per citizen (sort of like vote distribution in the council) to reduce the risk of large countries trampling all over small ones. Not unlike the vote distribution aspect of the US electoral college, I suppose.
4) European Court of Justice. Overrules national courts and is empowered with interpreting law and treaties / constitutional issues and resolving conflicts. Each country has exactly one judge although judges are of course expected to be legal professionals and not represent their nationality.
5) The European Ombudsman, tasked with investigating abuse by and within EU institutions.
What I think has happened with the patent issue, is that the Council members (i.e. national governments) have decided on their own to go ahead with the patent proposal, bypassing the other EU institutions and making it national law immediately (which would be subject to national parliaments, though). This may seem strange but if we remember that the council is just a collection of the national governments it sort of makes sense, they would be able to do this even if the EU didn't exist just like other groups of countries sometimes get together to form treaties and laws. It admittedly is a problem, though.
Ultimately what happens in the EU is something that national governments and EU parliamentarians have control of. Accountab
EU constitution (Score:2)
http://europa.eu.int/constitution/futurum/constit u tion/index_en.htm [eu.int] (PDF).
I found this line "HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS" in a word document through google [google.com]
I rather go for the version hosted by EU, instead of one found at Kent University.
Thank Spain (Score:2, Interesting)
I knew this would happen... (Score:4, Interesting)
These politicians are constantly pressured by the corporations, and that's all they hear. They are told its "good for business and the economy" and then they announce they support "A broad software agenda to increase jobs in the EU" and most people who know nothing about software patents think their government is doing a great job, instead of just selling out.
It really is time for a revolution...
Re:I knew this would happen... (Score:2)
What's "the side with no profit motive"?
Organizations like CEA-PME [ceapme.org], which represents more than half a million European enterprises, or UEAPME [ueapme.com], which represents more than 11 m
Council of Ministers (Score:2)
any attempts by the Council of Ministers to ignore the will of the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee.
Can anyone explain to me why the EU has established this 'Council of Ministers' and what role it has in making law? It seems to me to be undemocratic.
Re:Council of Ministers (Score:2)
Not from the UK. And not from a lot of other countries either. They are usually political appointees, failed politicians, industry bigwigs or civil servants who happen to be the Prime Minister's mate. In our case, it is Peter Mandelson [wikipedia.org], a Labour Party spin doctor and recipient of large interest-free loans amongst other dubious things.
Spain already voted against software patents (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the Spanish government opposes software patents and voted against them last May this decision won't change the majorities in the EU council. It would be much more important if both the German and Dutch government finally respected the decisions of their parliaments.
Re:Spain already voted against software patents (Score:2)
Here in Germany, the Bundestag (German parliament) will ratify its position on software patents in the evening of Feb 17. It is the second last item on the agenda [bundestag.de] of a Bundestag meeting which is scheduled to last from 9:00am to 9:45pm.
This is actually a major reason why the EU council put software patents on the agenda of its Feb 17 meeting: in the morning, the German minister is no
Re:Spain already voted against software patents (Score:3, Informative)
I don't believe that these two events are directly related. The German representative (whoever that will be) is not bound by the decision of the Bundestag anyway.
a moment of enlightement (Score:3, Insightful)
Just imagine the situation that a governement is doing something you are convinced is terribly wrong, and you cant find a way to change their mind, you might not have any other choice than using violence. I'm certainly not saying violence is good, don't get me wrong with that, but these days it seems more and more an alternative. I expected such things to happen in, I don't know, Arabia (seems like i'm a little influenced by propaganda as well) or something like that, but even in Europe... I'm truly losing my belief in the world
Who the fsck is behind this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Who is the person pushing them? How can we build a defense? Why do I feel helpless about this?
No doubt this is all funded by the eu, and whoever is behind it has little to pay, but any aim of repealing this would cost a lot.
WHat is the point of having a parliament, and who is putting political pressure on
How about we stop letting them play behind masks, and make everyone put thier cards on the table for a change. Anyone who opposes a controversial law is always in the lime light, but those pushing it through for thier own gain, you never read about them.
I met a Polish person on a server playing MTA:VC (multi player GTA), I said I loved them, and chased them around trying to hug them. I ended up stealing thier car and running them over with it, but it is the thought that counts.
Vexilla regis prodeunt Inferni (Score:2)
Definition of a software patent (Score:3, Interesting)
I do not, however, know how one can clearly distinguish between software and non-software patents.
It is not as easy as one might think. Many things we call "software patents" do not mention software or even computers. This didn't use to be the case. They used to insist that an example hardware system be described in the patent, perhaps as a "preferred embodiment". Now many patents simply describe an algorithm. Whether that algorithm is carried out by computer, sliderule, abacus, or pencil and paper is often not explained.
A further complication arises when software is a part of an invention that also has hardware components. There are many such inventions today.
Unfortunately, "I know a software patent when I see one" probably wouldn't cut it in the courts. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could comment on this problem.
Algorithm (Score:2)
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines algorithm as "a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end, especially by a computer".
Now if we get rid of the computer part, as these definitions suggest, we are left with a hugely broad definition that would apply to a vast array of patents, many having nothing to do with software. It's not far off from disallowing patents altogether.
That wou
Re:Algorithm (Score:2)
Any patent concerned with the making of something ("A Method Of Attaching Bumpers to Sports Utility Vehicles" - okay I made that up).
Any patent that involves human interaction. Human interaction is allowed in a patent so long the the tasks are well defined and don't require expertise. If the judge figures he/she could do it, it's generally okay.
You
Re:Definition of a software patent (Score:2)
Yeah, I know what software is, thank you very much. The question is, what is a software patent, and that is not simple at all.
Are we to disallow the patenting of any invention which involves a computer as one of its component parts? Remember that running a computer, in and of itself, is not useful and therefore not patentable. That's just moving electrons around.
There is almost always some physical component to a "software patent". I
Chain Reaction (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Chain Reaction (Score:2)
Dead end of capitalism as we know it (Score:3, Insightful)
Capitalism and free market can be done only in theory - when people are mostly driven by money. Hoverer, I have my own theory on this. Most big coorporations are not driven by money, but by people with low self-esteem who wants power by any cost. If they have been motivated by money, they have already stop all this after first, second milion. But no...
I guess that is where it has a big problem - our society tends to forget what human being really is - it is NOT ONLY an animal driven by his basic needs, but complex intelligence creature which needs are much more difficult to deal with.
This creature needs attention, care, peace, and yes...that stupid little thing love.
Personally I think behind each crime against humanity, each greedy, stupid demonstration of power like this is one, small tortured soul which has lost it's way to love.
Ok, it was outright sentimental, but it is what I think about it
Re:Dead end of capitalism as we know it (Score:2)
While you may be right that this is a sign of the end of Capitalism as we know it, your condemnation of Capitalism is way off base. Patents, copyrights, etc. are the antithesis of "free market".
The corporations are trying their best to get the governments to kill free markets and support legalized, goverment enforced monopolies.
Corporations use and abuse the "free market" to steal ideas, undercut competition, and protect their markets under a free market system until they become dominant, then they try
Re:Dead end of capitalism as we know it (Score:2)
Yes, all that stuff (patents, copyright extentions, bought laws) is actually anti-capitalism, anti-free market. And that is where lies problem - all these coorporations are meant to be part of this system, yet, they are mostly driven by forces who are against it - they accept the rulles of free market as long it works for them. Simply capitalism and free market heavily conflicts with "strongest survives", it has it's own paradox - free market without control can destroy itself in
This is the part that gets me, (Score:2)
In the hopes that with more power the politicians and bureacrats will be less corrupt?
If you accept that man can be corrupted does it not make sense to minimize the power that politicians can hold over the people?
Better IMO to keep the playing field of power limited to money. At least that way state sanctioned violence and authority cannot be abused.
You know... (Score:2)
"The American republic will endure until the politicians find they can bribe the people with their own money."
-Alexis de Toqueville
Use your imagination as to how you could apply this statement to modern Europe.
-Erwos
Re:You know... (Score:2)
"The American republic will endure until the politicians find they can bribe the people with their own money."
I don't get it - where's the catch? I generally only see politicians in the receiving end of the money.
-Alexis de Toqueville
Ahh, that name brings me back...
Take note of Rousseau's words (Score:4, Insightful)
Donate today! (Score:3, Informative)
Donate money to FFII today:
http://ffii.org/money/account/index.en.html [ffii.org]
well . . . (Score:2, Funny)
Spain already voted against software patents (Score:2, Informative)
"Spain voted against the directive and Belgium, Italy, Denmark and Austria all refused to support it. In previous negationations, Poland, Austria, Latvia and Germany had all expressed reservations."
Spain hasn't changed its mind. Spain already voted against software patents.
Re:Yet again another proof... (Score:2, Funny)
Settle down... One step at a time: first, learn how to spell "its". This will help others take you more seriously. Changing the whole world order is a bit further down the track...
Re:Yet again another proof... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:They just don't give up... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Software patents are bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is true. Microsoft and similar companies only lobby for software patents out of altruism. They are desperately trying to help small companies against themselves. Really.
Unfortunately there is a conspiracy amongst economists to deny the benefits to small businesses. *Boo* *boo* the evil economists. Fortunately the good and just patent lawyers come to the small companies' defense *hurray* for the patent lawyers. They too are acting out of altruism and not lining their own pockets. Really.
Re:Software patents are bad? (Score:2)
Re:Software patents are bad? (Score:2, Interesting)
Occasionally "the little guy" will stick it to the "big, evil corporation" and win, but 99/100 times, it's going to be the corporation protecting its investments. And, as EOLAS vs. Microsoft illustrated, even when the little guy wins, the new
Re:Software patents are bad? (Score:2)
Re:Software patents are bad? (Score:2)
Too bad you patent lawyers completely screwed up the system by pushing software patents for years and years before you even allowed anyone with appropriate experience into your club. When was it that a degree in computer science finally became an acceptable qualification?
So the result is that the patent office has been spewing patents on completely obvious techniques, on trivial modifications to well-known techniques, and in some cases even o
Re:Software patents are bad? (Score:2)
Kind of off of the subject, but a computer science degree is generally only an acceptable qual to take the patent bar if it is given by the university's school of engineering -- if the degree is offered by, say, the school of mathematics, then the degree itself does not qualify, and if you want to take the patent bar, you need to qualifu under track B, which means a certain number of physics and chemistry courses, al
Re:Software patents are bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
You,obviously, have not read the vast amount of literature on the Web which simply shows that s/w patents are very anti-innovation.
You, obviously, are completely unaware of the fact that small and medium-sized companies do not have the time, money or resources to check that every two or three lines of code may not be infringing on a patent.
Re:Software patents are bad? (Score:2)
You do realize that there are law firms -- good ones, even -- that will take a patent infringement case on contingency, if a small company has a good patent and wants to assert it against someone against whom th