Software Patents In The European Union Continued... 255
Christopher Reimer writes "O'Reilly Policy DevCenter has a nice overview concerning the legalizing software patents in the European Union. From the article: 'The Computer Implemented Inventions Directive (CIID), which seeks to clarify the issue, is still being fought over in the EU and may or may not result in legalizing them. For small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and in particular, free software projects, there is much to lose.'"
Lights, Camera, Inaction (Score:5, Interesting)
Any response from your public "servants?"
Re:Lights, Camera, Inaction (Score:5, Interesting)
Touchy topic, but many swedish citizens want to leave the EU.
Re:Lights, Camera, Inaction (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Lights, Camera, Inaction (Score:2)
Software patents will make software more expensive and lower quality, and will hit these companies (banks, telcos, insurance companies, retail chains) hardest of all.
In
Re:Lights, Camera, Inaction (Score:5, Interesting)
That was on the 1st of March. So far, I have had exactly 1 response, from Edward McMillan Scott, and that consisted of a standard form letter, indicating that the Conservatives were *for* the proposed Directive on Computer Implemented Inventions, because it would "offer [the patent office] secure legal grounds for refusing a patent for an invention involving pure software".
The letter ended up by stating that the European Parliament had voted to restart the process, indicating that he (or more likely the secratary who selected the form letter response) hadn't actually read my letter, which was to protest about this vote to restart being ignored by the Commission, as reported on Slashdot.
To date, I haven't received so much as a "thank you for your letter" from any of the others.
This was the first time I have ever been motivated enough to write to my representatives. Considering the complete lack of a response, it may be the last.
I can see now why direct action is so appealing to so many these days. It's the only way to get anything done.
Re:Lights, Camera, Inaction (Score:5, Informative)
"My position is as follows:
* I am not in favour of the patenting of software as exists in the US.
* Europe needs a uniform legal approach to stop the drift towards extending patentability to areas, which would not have been traditionally allowed, and to stop patentability of pure business methods, algorithms or mathematical methods.
* Software products as such, must not be patented.
* Opensource software must be allowed to flourish and the Commission must ensure that this Directive must not have adverse effects on opensource software and small software developers.
* Patents and the threat of litigation must not be used as an anti-competitive weapon to squeeze out small companies."
I'm much more encouraged by those views. Let's just hope they translate into actions.
Re:Lights, Camera, Inaction (Score:2)
And what does that mean? The EPO took it to mean software that "does not have a technical effect". What does that mean? The EPO took it upon themselves to lower the bar below sea-level. Apparently, (an IBM EPO patent) clearing a screen is a 'technical effect'.
The trouble is that the majority of MPs and virtually all MEPs (in the UK) just don't have a clue about what is going on and those that do, want to keep it that way because they are in favour of s/w patents.
Whenev
Re:Lights, Camera, Inaction (Score:3, Informative)
A majority from the opposition forced our representive (who is in favour of software patents) to "vote no" at the council meeting this last monday.
But he got around the command by NOT forcing a vote...
People are still pissed at that. I know that i am
So, we'll have a vote on a EU constitution later this year and unless someone convinces me otherwise, i'll assu
Re:Lights, Camera, Inaction (Score:5, Interesting)
In reply I was forwarded a press statement that says
1. It isn't over _we_ haven't decided.
2. What is with the notion that the process is undemocratic. We the parliment decide and everything that has gone before is normal procedure.
3. Patents can only be applied to software that is part of hardware. Business logic can not be patented.
NOTE this is my reading of a press statement in French and in politician language.
Now I bet that it will take a lot longer than those trying to push patents on everything under the sun would like. And I hope that in the end basic programming ideas and business logic will not be covered by patents in Europe as this political group says in its PR.
Re:Lights, Camera, Inaction (Score:2)
Re:Lights, Camera, Inaction (Score:2)
Of course this is true. The council would never ignore an instruction from parliament to restart a process or break its own rules to force through a controversial point that several countries have objected to. Could never happen.
Re:Lights, Camera, Inaction (Score:2)
Re:Lights, Camera, Inaction (Score:2)
I emailed the MEP's for my part of the UK and seem to have spent the week so far
trying to answer the questions of Bill Newton Dunn wnewton@europarl.eu.int
who has had questions such as
If the EU does nothing, will that leave the USA, which already has such laws, free to hoover up all Europe's freely available software and patent it for themselves, leaving us obliged to pay royalties to Bill Gates and co for work that Eu
Re:Lights, Camera, Inaction (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Lights, Camera, Inaction (Score:2)
The problem is, not only is the representation rather small, but also the way the laws are passed and approved in the EU defy a
Re:Lights, Camera, Inaction (Score:5, Informative)
Follow the money (Score:5, Insightful)
And for the attorneys much to gain...
Re:Follow the money (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, the very fact that government is considering these expansions of power is a benefi
Leave the EU (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Leave the EU (Score:3, Interesting)
Leave the US [wass: Re:Leave the EU] (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Leave the US [wass: Re:Leave the EU] (Score:2)
We did that once. It started in South Carolina and spread to the rest of the Old South. Then we had a n
Re:Leave the EU (Score:2)
Re:Leave the EU (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree. The European Parliament is a relatively young institution that has recently begun flexing it's muscles against the Commission. Last October all the different nations and all the different political parties came together and successfully blocked Rocco Buttiglione's nomination as Justice Commissioner, even though the Parliament technically doesn't have that power.
The Parliament as an institution is showing an interest in extending it's authority, and has so far had it's views on this directive ignored. It's possible that the Parliament could shoot it down out of pure bloody-minded, turf-war politics.
Re:Leave the EU (Score:2)
The system is rigged.
The Kzinti solution seems applicable here (Score:4, Interesting)
- Ringworld (Larry Niven)
Comforting (Score:5, Funny)
Let's hear it for consistency!
It's a matter of scale. (Score:2, Interesting)
Cover the EU with prior art (Score:3, Informative)
Linux runs everywhere, and it works ! Let no-one say (in the future) that they invented some part of it, claim it's novel, and encumber it with a patent.
Torrents available here http://home.btconnect.com/chrisandcarolyn/torrents / [btconnect.com]
Re:Cover the EU with prior art (Score:2)
If we had had EU patents this project would have been sunk, and there were no checks done at the start.
The only problem for me is Arlene McCarthy is my MEP.
we don't want them that's for sure (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA: "If more programmers and SMEs approach their MEPs and go beyond the single letter, we may yet win."
But how do we as IT people explain the general public this would be a disaster to European economy? What could start some emotion going for this issue? The customer is also going to be victimised! Low quality and low security software galore probably. But do they know?
Somehow I know this concerns everybody, not only people in the industry. Because democracy is being ignored for something a lot of people don't understand doesn't mean they can get away with it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:we don't want them that's for sure (Score:2)
What makes you think european unions like small and medium size companies? Its annoying to deal with them and there is no publicity in making a good deal. Big Companies on the other hand
Re:we don't want them that's for sure (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:we don't want them that's for sure (Score:2)
That should be easy. Inform the European public that the companies that will end up owning all of these patents and stifling future development will be American. It sounds like a troll, but if you want to mobilise the European public; telling them that the US is coming to patent everything under the sun will probably assist your cause.
Definition, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Definition, please. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Definition, please. (Score:2)
Is the invention still novel and patentable if you rip out the software and replace it by some other controlling mechanism?
Rather than making a distinction, you could allow the patents, but have a law that says that merely publishing software or running software can never be a patent infringement.
Re:Definition, please. (Score:2)
Now that's a very good idea! Someone care to mod to mod the parent up? It would seemingly solve the entire issue about 'technical effects' etc.
Re:Definition, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
The real threat of software patents is that they are used to lock up interfaces. No patent office would patent a new dimension of bolt threads so that a company can then make devices that require their own fasteners. ALL software patents are exactly like this and this is the real reason they should be disallowed.
Re:Definition, please. (Score:2)
But they would probably would patent a "device made with the exact dimension to fit a bolt that can be used to fasten or loose the named bolt".
One easy solution (Score:2)
Perhaps people are trying to tackle the whole thing from the wrong end.
Re:One easy solution (Score:2)
That was sadly reversed by the EU Commission in its second reading.
What the hell (Score:5, Interesting)
If this isn't the case, how are the people who patent stuff in the EU that's already been patented in the U.S. going to have a leg to stand on?
I'd be really interested to know if the people pushing for software patents had any connections with U.S. based corporations... I smell somethin fishy...
Re:What the hell (Score:2)
Of course they do.
If software patents are legalized in Europe, the biggest winners will be large U.S. corporations. Apparently that's what the European Council wants.
Re:What the hell (Score:2)
Re:What the hell (Score:2)
Why is that, may I ask? Is there some treaty in place that causes the US patents to also apply in the EU?
And what do we get in return: does a european patent also apply in the US?
As for US connections, do you remember Bill Gates' trip to Europe the other day? The one where he met with all those people involved in the swpat decision process?
Do we really want to get rid of software patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, to be clear, I'm not a fan of software patents. A lot of these patents that I see enforced, are for trivial things that shouldn't have been patented in the first place, like "one click" shopping. And what about general things like sorting algorithms, if bubble sort was patented, it would have done serious harm to just even teaching the profession.
Having said that, I see that most people on slashdot want to get rid of software patents, but what I'm wondering is, why only software? I think you are either for patents or against, and that computer scientists basically "disarming" themselves is not a good idea.
Unless I'm missing something, it seems people value physical inventions more than software ones, and that doesn't make sense to me. Sometimes the software "inventions" are even more complex and influencial than your physical ones. If you say, get rid of the software patents, we're saying our work doesn't deserve the same protection as work from other fields? Just because our work is software? That doesn't make sense to me.
Maybe we should raise the bar on software patents, maybe we shouldn't let "business processes" be patented (one click for example), but I don't think it's consistent to say CS work is less deserving than work from other fields.
Re:Do we really want to get rid of software patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do we really want to get rid of software patent (Score:2)
You might be on to something there.
Last century we thought you couldn't patent life.
Then someone did (Havard U, "Harvard mouse", I think)
Let's invent a word and patent it.
-If it's declined then M$'s ISNOT patent must also be declined
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/19/1 4 26256&tid=155&tid=109 [slashdot.org]
-If it's accepted then it shows how stupid this whole "patent anything" rage really is.
What do you guys think?
Re:Do we really want to get rid of software patent (Score:2)
Re:Do we really want to get rid of software patent (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright is for speech, patents are for inventions. Software is not an invention! Software is an expression of mathematical theory. Let's look at a concrete example.
Let's say that I am a contractor and my client wants me to build a bridge across a river. I say sure I know how to do that - no problem. I don't have to worry about patent infringement when building a bridge because the concept of creating a "material object to span open space or water" is not patentable (IANAL and there are some
Re:Do we really want to get rid of software patent (Score:2)
(Notice that this means a published works may
Re:Do we really want to get rid of software patent (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe that the problem is not software vs. non-software patents, but the general quailty of software patents vs. the quality of non-software patents. It's not that software shouldn't be patentable, but that a great deal of the worst offenders are not patents on specific inventions, but entire ideas. In some cases, they're patenting the problem, instead of the solution.
One example is from the FFII wewbsite: A patent on trapping viruses [ffii.org]. After a brief glance through the description and the abstract, it seems reasonable. Except when we look at the claims, this patent attempts to claim all virtual environments used to capture viruses. If you were asked to implement this 'invention', the patent wouldn't help much, as the difficulty of the implmentation is in figuring out how to make it work, and this patent is more of an overall design.
Examples could be given for good and not-to-broad software patents, but the general feeling is SW patents are usually too broad and too easily infringed. While not allowing any SW patents might be a bit extreme, but it's better than letting them in now and letting them to cause further harm to the software industry.
Re:Do we really want to get rid of software patent (Score:2)
Think about it. Without patents, we would end up with a sort of a innovative cold war.
The funny thing is patents are there to allow innovators to get their money back. But shouln't a good invention pay for itself?
Re:Do we really want to get rid of software patent (Score:2)
So, if patents for software were related to its requirement for extensive
Because software is different (Score:5, Insightful)
For one thing, there's already a perfectly good mechanism for protecting actual software and source code: copyright.
And for another, the bar to entry is much, much lower with software. You don't need all the resources for mass production, manufacturing, duplication, marketing, or anything other than a web site.
AIUI, the raison d'être of patents is to protect the inventor: to stop a big company coming along, copying his or her invention, and using their much bigger resources to develop and mass produce the product and lock him or her out. But that's not a problem for software; the big company can't copy the software directly, and they don't have much of an advantage in mass production either. So why have them?
Re:Do we really want to get rid of software patent (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Software patents tend to be applied for on individual ideas, rather than a single invention. Take a look at Photoshop's splash screen. How many patent numbers are there for that one single program? Not only that, there are dozens, if not hundreds of "ideas" that are embodied in every program. Sorting, for instance: whether you sort emails or high scores, if your program isn't a highschool assignment, it probably uses a sort
Re:Do we really want to get rid of software patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Patents don't work for software for the same reason they don't work for literature. A computer program, like a novel, is a collection of a great many ideas taken from all over the place. The value isn't in any specific solution, but rather in the way the whole package is combined.
Imagine if a novelist had to look up every metaphore or interesting sentence structure in a patent database somewhere. On top of that, the database would be organized in such a way that the novelist could never really be sure that he'd found all the relevent patents. If you compare something to an apple, does the patent that mentions comparisons to oranges apply? They're both fruit, after all. The only way to gain reasonable assurance that a given sentence doesn't infringe would be to ask a lawyer, and even the lawyer could only give an opinion - with the final decision to be made by a court.
If novelists had to work that way, only large companies with defensive patent portfolios of their own could write books. Individuals could never afford the legal staff needed to make sure their work wasn't infringing.
Software works much the same way. You encounter a problem and you try to solve it. Every time you solve something, even the smallest issue, you might be infringing on somebody's patent. Anybody with a patent portfolio and a lot of lawyers can put you out of business.
The patent system was meant to encourage people to publish scientific discoveries rather than keeping them as trade secrets. But most software problems are such that the effort to find the patented solution in a database is more than would be required to just solve the problem yourself. There are a few rare exceptions (RSA, for example), but there's no way the handful of gems can outweigh the harm done by patents.
Re:Do we really want to get rid of software patent (Score:2)
Second, I see a computer as a tool that can be shaped (programmed) to do anything, much like clay can be shaped to be any form creating a work of art.
Now imagine if someone tried to patent the notion of forming clay to produce a physical form. Most artists would suddendly become criminals that infringe on a patent.
Apply the same thing for writing a book; imaging someone patenting a kind of story line; suddenly writers need a licence to
Re:Do we really want to get rid of software patent (Score:2)
Re:Do we really want to get rid of software patent (Score:2)
Re:Do we really want to get rid of software patent (Score:2)
I think it would actually have done good. It would also help if Visual Basic would be patented too.
Re:Do we really want to get rid of software patent (Score:2)
But to be honest I am opposed to patents in any form. They were not invented to protect inventors, but as an instrument for bankrupt kings to deal out monopolies. It is also not a suitable instrument for subsidizing research effort. Tax breaks are more suitable, more transparent, and interfere less with the m
The Simplest Solution? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know corperations in America tend to be short sighted, but if I can see that China and other countries are simply going to ignore the (software) patents and hammer ahead with technological innovation, why can't the higher ups see it?
Re:The Simplest Solution? (Score:2)
Blind greed!
They fail to see that this field is still in its infancy and developments occur daily, not very 7 or 20 years like other fields.
We are already buying tonnes of things from China.
Software will be next since they can build on anybody's work
and we're the ones restricting ourselves to what a patent says we are allowed to do.
Because the terms will be extended (Score:2)
Because the lifespans are going to be extended with little debate, I think. (The patent lifespans were rather short from the beginning.)
And because 2 years is a long time in the software field.
And because you never know whenever some submarine patent is going to come up to bite you.
I'm certainly for rewarding innovators -- yes even big corporations. The problem is that the patent and copyright system has been subverted in small pieces at a tim
Re:The Simplest Solution? (Score:2)
Re:The Simplest Solution? (Score:2)
Well, we've just been taught a marvelous solution to that problem by our american allies: we strategically relocate the treaty to the toilet, where it can serve in its new purpose as toilet paper.
Patents trouble for EU (Score:4, Insightful)
U.S vs Europe (Score:2, Interesting)
Am I right in thinking that this will cause US patents to become valid in Europe and vice versa?
Obviously open source development methods are trampled on since this doesn't make politicians enough money.
Yep (Score:4, Informative)
Quite weird actually, the supposedly pro-business right-wingers listening to their voters and actually doing something for the small guys while the anti-business socialists are very much pro-patents and don't even want to hear the other side of the issue.
NOT weird for a change (Score:2)
In the US, Republicans have done a lot to bring about new ways to expand government intrusion into our personal lives and expand protectionism and corporate welfare. I was under the impression that right-wing politicians--should they advocate any change at all--were supposed to be about LIMITING government power, socialist/nanny-state policies and such (whether they be to a
See this from another angle (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, anything that would have violated one of the unlawful patents is now legitimate prior art for blocking the re-application.
Re:See this from another angle (Score:5, Interesting)
You are so wrong.
Software patents are not legal in the EU under current laws. But we already have about 30.000 software patents here. Nobody cares (well, those who are against software patents complain, but nobody in power cares). The patent office just continues granting those patents.
And you think that if they now pass a law that would allow software patents, that would render them null and void? No, all those patents will remain, because then, they will be actually unprohibited and retroactively made valid.
Re:See this from another angle (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the EU patent system works in favour of who applies for the patent first, not who "invented" the idea first, which is IMO completely insane - I seem to remember seeing somewhere it costs 10000 to file a patent application. Most open source or small business developers can't afford this, meaning they could be sued even if they used the idea
Why should it affect open source? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, if some croporation decides to sue for patent infringement the makers of a particular piece of OSS, who do they sue? Every single developper? How are they going to round them all up and corral them into a courtroom? How are they gonna prove the actual degree of involvement of each and everyone of them?
Or are they going to sue the end-users? How could they ferret-out all the end-users of a particular piece of software?
If the going gets though, the ongoing OSS efforts will simply go underground with a vengeance, as they won't have any scruples in blatantly siphonning-off actual patents. And with easy encription and free-net to distribute information, any effort to counter OSS is doomed to failure. And any "examples" brought out by courts at the request of croporations will simply strengthen the resolve to break the vicious IP cartels. Once the idea that IP is theft enters the public's mind, no amount of repression will be able to curtail the demise of IP "industries".
Re:Why should it affect open source? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the general idea. M$ (or preferably a proxy, like SCO or someone smarter) will single out some very large users that are using Linux. They will be sued for patent infringement.
You will be hearing the word indemnification so much your ears will fall off.
The other companies will be FUDed into not considering Linux because who can offer indemnification? M$ can offer indemnification to all its customers because it is cross-licensing its patent portfolio. Can yo
Re:Why should it affect open source? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, as an example, the GPL:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other
Implementing Legislation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Implementing Legislation (Score:3, Insightful)
Another article (Score:4, Informative)
I had to mention it, as I am quoted in the article as: "Tom Grek, an IT specialist working with Bristows, a London-based technology law firm". I am an electronic engineer and longtime Slashdot reader now working in law (not quite - yet - a qualified lawyer).
Letter to Pro-Software Patent Lawyers (Score:2, Interesting)
Dear Patent Lawyer,
You have claimed, based on your experience as a patent lawyer, that software patents can help even small commercial enterprises. Could you please explain why software patents are not harmful both to society and to freedom of expression given the case of an open-source developer who, as a result of working unpaid on his/her project as a hobby giving his/her inventions away freely for the benefit of society, i.e. without any project i
Council050307 recordings (Score:2, Informative)
There also were odd problems with the sound: "Someone doesn't want me to speak and switches me off!"
Council050307 recordings [ffii.org]
Re:Council050307 recordings (Score:2, Informative)
"The outcome of a questioning of Minister Brinkhorst in out from the Dutch Parliament (Tweedekamer) und Tuesday, 8th March 2005 (the day after the Council meeting) was that he told that in his statement he explained that the Nethernlands would support Denmark if they ask for B-Item.
He was obliged to do so by a parliamentary motion from the Tweedekamer by MP Gerkens."
http://wiki.ffii.org/ConsTrans050307En
The President of the European Comission... (Score:3, Funny)
A European Commissioner's Statement (Score:4, Informative)
----------
Start of Document
----------
European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services
Statement to the European Parliament on Computer Implemented Inventions
European Parliament Plenary Session
Strasbourg, 8 March 2005
President,
the Commission is grateful for this opportunity to make a statement on the proposal on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. I already had the opportunity to debate the proposal with the Committee on Legal Affairs on 2nd February and to discuss it with the Conference of Presidents on 3rd March. I took very careful note on both occasions of the views of the European Parliament. I noted that the Parliament considers, in general, that its views were not given sufficient weight in the first reading. From the debate in the Legal Affairs Committee, I noted that there are differing views on the substance of the proposal, in particular on its content and purpose.
The Commission gave the EP's request of 24 February, which was submitted under Article 55 of the Parliament's internal rules of procedure, careful consideration. But the Commission concluded that, at that stage, regrettably, it could not submit a new proposal, as the Parliament requested. Not because the Commission wished to persist stubbornly with the proposal, but because the Council was on the point of adopting a common position.
As I explained to the Conference of Presidents, the Council reached a political agreement in May 2004 in first reading. The Council has been on the verge of confirming the political agreement in the form of a common position since December 2004. The Commission had supported the political agreement of May 2004. The Commission could, therefore, not go back on its word when the Council was in the process of confirming its common position.
The Council has now made up its mind and adopted its common position. It did so yesterday at the Competitiveness Council. Jeannot Krecké, Chair of the Competitiveness Council, already explained to the Legal Affairs Committee, the reasons behind the Council's stance. It confirmed its common position, primarily for institutional reasons. The Council wanted to avoid a precedent whereby Member States would be seen to be backing away from a deal they had signed up to in May 2004. The Council confirmed its position to show that a deal is a deal and that it was not creating a log-jam on this dossier, in an area which is key for innovation. Jeannot Krecké noted yesterday, when the Council took its decision, that some Member States had concerns on the substance of the text and that these would be addressed in the second reading.
The ball is now very clearly in the European Parliament's court. It's for you to decide how you want to play it. I don't have to remind you of the Parliament's rights: we discussed this in the Conference of Presidents. You can, of course, reject or substantially amend the proposal. If the Parliament decides to reject it, then the Commission will respect your wishes. I will not propose a new directive.
Should you decide to propose amendments, the Commission will give them due consideration. No doubt, there are improvements that can be made. You will understand of course that I cannot speak on behalf of the Council and I would urge the Parliament to engage constructively with the Council in the future on this dossier. I am ready to help in any way.
Before concluding, I would like to say a few words on the substance of the proposal since the European Parliament will now need to turn its attention to this. The Commission proposed to clarify the legal rules on patentability for software-related inventions. This does not include computer programmes or other softwar
Re:A European Commissioner's Statement (Score:3, Informative)
The telling section of the letter to the President of the parliment is this. "You can, of course, reject or substantially amend the proposal. If the Parliament decides to reject it, then the Commission will respect your wishes. I will not propose a new directive." The emphasis is mine.
It is clear now what has to be done. Contact your EU member of Parliment.http://writetothem.com/ [writetothem.com]
Do it. Do it now.
Patent Hucksters (Score:2, Interesting)
I knew it! Gates a hypocrite (Score:2)
Overview & primer (Score:5, Informative)
A primer for those of you that aren't in Europe and also for those of you who are in Europe who find the whole thing confusing...
Europe is a place to the East of the USA, across the big bit of ocean.
One of the chief issues that the central bodies take care of is 'harmonisation'. Harmonisation is about creating a level playing field across Europe, chiefly in legal and economic senses. A main tool for this is the Directive. The central body consults, then draws up a Directive which outlines a part of law, then the Directive is implemented as law in each of the EU countries, and thus the laws in each country come to some sort of standard.
The current argument concerns a draft Directive.
To understand how a Directive is agreed, you need to know who the players are...
The EU has 5 central bodies of which 3 are of immediate concern with respect to the Directive. The Commission, the Council and the Parliament. The Commission is chiefly to manage things European. The leaders of the Commission (Commissioners) are nominated by national governments and have portfolios. The Parliament is directly elected by the people of Europe in a using a proportional representation system (is this true across all of Europe? It is in the UK.) The role of Parliament is to scrutinise legislation. The Council is composed of representatives of the national governments, and as the Council web page says, this is the main decision-making body, and where the power lies - in national governments making decisions together.
So what's the process involved in agreeing a Directive and where are we in the process?
There are numerous arcane rules concerning the process by which Directives comes into being, and it depends on what the legislation covers. For the Computer Implemented Inventions Directive, a draft directive was prepared by the Commission and ratified by the Council (someone - is this right?) and then put before the various committees of the Parliament for comment and voting. Then it went before a Parliamentary plenary sitting, who voted for numerous changes of the original Council version. The legislation then went before the Council once more. They decided to ignore the Parliamentary ammendments and the requests of various parliaments of various countries to restart the whole process, and have decided to send the original Directive (with minor changes?) back to Parliament for the next stage in the process. Parliament has yet to vote.
The rules for the first and second plenary vote of Parliament are different. The second round has a much higher barrier to introducing changes - an absolute majority is required (someone?) - and if the barrier is not passed then Parliament is assumed to have no objection to the legislation, and it will become a Directive.
Understand from all of the above that it is the national governments that are driving this legislation forward.
Is there a need for a Directive at all?
The need for harmonisation has arisen because different European countries have different standards for judging the allowability of patents involving software, which means that the same patent has been allowed in some countries and not in others. Often the figure of 30,000 European software patents is quoted. (Does anyone know were this comes from?)
It's easy to see some examples of the sort of thing that has been granted - the European patent office is on
Re:Is it even worth it? (Score:5, Informative)
It is the European Commision which does what it wants..or rather what Big Business(tm) wants...
Re:Is it even worth it? (Score:2)
This new decision is from the Council, consisting of members nominally, but as we have seen not actually, responsible to their national parliaments.
Why the EU is so corrupt [blogspot.com]
Re:Is it even worth it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is it even worth it? (Score:2)
The nearest I can find (ffii's archives don't go back that far) is a reference to Parliament's Legal Affairs committee considering the question in July 2002.
Agenda [eu.int]
Register story [theregister.co.uk] (letter from Alan Cox).
Re:Is it even worth it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Being a software developer myself, I'd rather go with the 1% chance that I can make a difference, than standing idly by.
You never know...
Re:Is it even worth it? (Score:2)
Re:Is it even worth it? (Score:2)
Re:Is it even worth it? (Score:2, Insightful)
The idea of democracy is that you can express your opinions and try to get others to think as you do. So, it is worth to figh against software patents if you found that you are expanding your way of thinking.
The reason behind the power of the corporation is because they say: I represent myself and all my employees (that is not necessarily true, but the politicians do not care about it). However, in theory, we should able to:
It's TOTALLY worth it, yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Totally worth it. As an earlier post pointed out, the EP is actually highly aggravated by the actions of the Council of Ministers in approving the Directive without their amendments. Groklaw has the EP's press release [groklaw.net] on the subject and it's clear the EP is mad as hell - the language borders on the undiplomatic, which for Europe is very unusual.