EU Says No To Software Patents 525
Moggie68 writes "European parliament has . struck down the proposal for a directive that would have brought US-style software patents into EU." Here's another story on the decision.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
EU Says No To Software Patents
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.
Victory! (Score:5, Interesting)
The patent lobby tried to sneak in software patents through the back door, by claiming that it was only about harmonization, that the directive wouldn't change anything, etc, etc. They failed.
The issue has led to the most intensive lobbying campaign ever in Brussels (from both sides). Whatever their position on the issue "as such" may be, there is not a single member of the European Parliament who now thinks that this is "just a small technical matter that can safely be left to the patent experts to decide on".
If the patent lobby wants to continue working for the legalization of patents on software and business methods (and they will), they will have to engage in a serious debate about the benefit/harm of such patents. And since they don't really have any arguments that can stand scrutiny in daylight, they will have a very difficult time.
Sure, the FFII would have preferred a directive that reaffirmed the ban on software patents in Article 52 [european-p...office.org] of the European Patent Convention, and led to greater harmonization in Europe. Alas, that didn't happen, because the patent lobby got cold feet and preferred to kill the directive rather than risk a vote in Parliament that they would probably have lost.
But at least we didn't get a bad directive that wiped out Article 52 and forced national parliaments to introduce software patents against their will. The situation now is that software patents are illegal in Europe (as they always have been according to the EPC), but that we still have a European Patent Office that needs to be reined in so that it starts to follow the law.
But the law remains unchanged, and computer programs and methods of doing business are not considered patentable inventions.
Today was a great day in the battle for a free and open information infrastructure, and for a favorable business environment in Europe for enterprises that use or produce software.
Not quite (Score:5, Interesting)
The UK PTO in particular has quite a hard on for patenting, and it is a UK Labour MEP who has been pushing hardest for patents.
Re:Not quite (Score:4, Insightful)
"Patents will continue to be handled by national patent offices
At least it shows that politicans do not just blindly follow. If this continues, it will be difficult for national politicans to accept something the EU has rejected (more than once, this was a re-write wasn't it?)
Not quite - bis (Score:5, Informative)
see The Register article here
"According to the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, conservative MEP Klaus-Heiner Lehne is trying to establish a majority of MEPs to vote for a rejection of the Council's "Common Position", even before any amendments are discussed.
The FFII says it is no coincidence that supporters of the Common Position, like Lehne, are now calling for the directive to be dropped. It claims that parliament is close to establishing a majority of MEPs in support of the amendments tabled by Michel Rocard. The amendments would put limits on patentability, it argues, and so the directive should only be rejected if the 367 votes needed to pass the changes cannot be found."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/05/patent_di
So in effects the cancelling of the law is not so much a victory as a move by the opponents to pospone the problem until they have a better chance of passing it under their own terms, US style....
Also I totally agree with your view on the grey area actual patents are in, but article 52 http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/e
We just need someone to enforce the existing rules....which is an other problem altogether...
Re:Not quite - bis (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft, Nokia and co will try again, in a few years time. Except that they won't do anything as overt as trying to pass a pan-European directive. They'll work quitely, behind the scenes, on the ministers of individual European governments. Pure-software-patents will be legalised, once country at a time.
Once this process is complete, they may then go for another pan-European directive, that really would merely 'harmonise' the EU countries' patent laws. Only by then, it will be to late, since the damage will have already been done at the level of individual countries.
Don't let it get that far. Keep your ears open and stay on the lookout for any pro-pure-software-patent legislation that may reach your parliament.
#include
Re:Pre-emptive strike (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad outcome: CIID passed as tabled by the Commission and their backers, Microsoft, Nokia, etc.
Good outcome: CIID amended to prohibit software patents (~367 majority required)
Neutral/okayish outcome: CIID defeated at second reading; patent situation remains as is (software patents prohibited by European Patent Convention, but individual countries allow them anyway)
Today, the good guys couldn't be sure of the 367 votes necessary to pass their amme
Re:Not quite (Score:3, Interesting)
My understanding is that quite a lot of this can get through the back door, although whether this means a lot of it would stand up in court is unclear.
Re:Not quite (Score:3, Informative)
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has quite useful information as usual. In particular, it addresses the issue of art 52.3 that I left out ( a few posts up someone also mentions this ): the as such provisio, that leads to the dreaded discussion about whether software is 'technical'. No UK lawsuits are mentioned though, and I can't find any.
52.3: The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the s
Re:Not quite (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope: "Patents will continue to be handled by national patent offices
Source [bbc.co.uk]
RTFD (Score:3, Interesting)
and then
Re:RTFD (Score:3, Insightful)
When you use harmonization as your reason to argue for a point, you cause me to suspect the quality of the point for which you are arguing.
For some purposes, it's nice to have uniform rules, but uniform bad rules are worse than a patchwork of rules. With a patchwork you can find the place that you consider optimum, and operate from there.
OTOH, centralized control is an inherrent evil. Not a pure evil, as some good can come out of it, b
Re:Not quite (Score:5, Insightful)
The emphasised phrase is legally and semantically meaningless in the context of deciding whether a patent should pass review. It is nothing more than a lawyerly weasel-phrase used to slip pure software patents under the radar.
The 2001 consultation was a complete sham, little more than a pro-pure-software-patent PR exercise. This has been widely discussed on anti-software-patent forums.
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154904&cid=12
Re:Not quite (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Not quite (Score:5, Informative)
The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.
They're not "actually illegal" in Europe; they can still be granted by national patent offices. As the person you were replying to stated.
Re:Not quite (Score:4, Informative)
Go look at the patent they gave ARM under *the current rules* - they've allowed ARM to patent C pointers (yes, void *ptr) when used to emulate register sets in CPU emulators.
The UKPO is full-on for software patenting, and the fact that you think otherwise means you've bought into their hype. Go look at what they actually *do*, not what they say.
Re:Not quite (Score:3, Informative)
"Today we - you! - saved patentability of computer implemented inventions. Nothing that was patentable yesterday will be unpatentable tomorrow and vice versa.
At the 11th hour the European Parliament resoundingly rejected attempts by the anti-patent groups to narrow the scope of patentability for high-tech inventions. Your businesses are safe.
Of course we do not have a harmonised EU-wide syste
Re:Victory! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just that, but it was a great day for European democracy, with the EU's elected body asserting itself totally over the unelected, untransparent Council.
Re:Victory! (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe the real crooks here are the Commission, not the Council, but your point is just as valid in that case.
Democracy in the EU (Score:3, Interesting)
The council is composed of the ministers of each member states. So to say it is undemocratic is the same as saying the elected governments in each state is undemocratic.
The commission is more like the civil service in member states, it's members are apointed by the member states governments. I do not know of any country where the civil service is elected. This is why the commission hasn't been given the powers to bring in laws on its own, with out the aproval of the council and the European parliment.
T
Tripple and quadruple indirect democracy (Score:4, Interesting)
The commission consists of people apointed by the local governments.
In both cases the best we can hope for is a tripple indirect democracy.
This is ok as long as the directly elected representives can propose and reject legislation. This is the case in the national parliaments, but in the EU parliament they cannot propose legislation, and the rules have deliberately made it very difficult for them to reject legislation. This is actually the first time the parliament have managed to get enough votes to reject a law.
Re:Victory! (Score:2, Insightful)
Just think about that for a moment.
648 votes to 14. That's how utterly wrong this bill was. There can't be many bills which have taken such a beating in the history of the EU, can there?
Now as European Citizens it is out duty to write to the 14 fuckwits who voted for the bill and ask them simply "Why?". Then make sure they loose at the next European Elections.
Re:Victory! (Score:5, Informative)
You got it badly wrong here. The voting shows, that it is an important issue and both sides try to play on safety. Both sides voted against the bill.
The anti-patent side because they feard the bill without proposed amendmends.
The pro-patent side because they feard the amendments.
What this voting shows, is two things:
1. It is an important issue, we need a clear bill on this issue!
2. The amendmends would have turned the bill upside down, and since the amendments do nothing but drawing a firm line between software and not software it is very clear, that the pro-patent site wanted software-patents, also they always claimed they want to exclude software from patent law.
Crusade against an insignificant minority (Score:3, Insightful)
648 MEPs all voted to reject the directive, but for how many different reasons? This number probably includes both supporters of software patents who feared an amended directive (for no good reason, I should add) and those who were angry at the Council for scrapping all the amendments already made by the Parliament back in 2003. I don't think it means 648 MEPs are decidedly opposed to software patents.
Re:Victory! (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent lobbyists will be back, if not in the EU then in every national parliament. Congratulations to the FFII, in stopping this and putting the spotlight on the software patent issue. It's a huge achievement.But this is only the first battle.
It's worth a lot of money to Microsoft and front organisations like the BSA to shut down competition using patents, hopefully with the issue now more widely known they will find it increasingly difficult to spread lies and buy off politicians.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
It really is dead, at least for now (Score:4, Informative)
Except that the Commission said in advance of today's vote that they wouldn't be attempting to push this through any further if it was voted down. In the absence of that, I believe there is a minimum 3 year gap before the same issue can be considered again.
Re:Victory! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is truely... (Score:2, Insightful)
It ain't over untill the fat lady sings. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It ain't over untill the fat lady sings. (Score:4, Insightful)
Tonnerre
Re:It ain't over untill the fat lady sings. (Score:2)
The whole directive is outta the window. The only possible new patent law has to be drafted, discussed and re-introduced -from scratch-.
The score (Score:5, Funny)
PWNED!!!
A sad day for innovation, indeed (Score:3, Funny)
Holy crap! Does it mean companies will have to be satisfied with EU-wide patent protection only for computerized inventions ranging from complex CAT scanners to ABS car-brake systems instead? Now that seems like a real threat to European innovation; these companies
Historic day for Europe! (Score:4, Insightful)
Today we're a bit closer to freedom
Re:Historic day for Europe! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to rain on the parade or anything, but aren't we exactly as close as before? I mean it's still exciting that we aren't further from freedom than yesterday...
~p
Re:Historic day for Europe! (Score:5, Informative)
Well done!! (Score:5, Insightful)
For the time being I can rest assured that working as a programmer I do not have to watch my every statement.
Note (Score:5, Interesting)
Although this definitely counts as a victory, it's not the best of all possible outcomes.
That would have been having the right amendments accepted, turning a bad law into a good one. (And having the law in place for all of the EU would have meant that it'd be impossible for the big software lobby to still push this through in individual countries, something which they're now likely to try.)
The battle has been won, but the war is far from over.
Re:Note (Score:3, Insightful)
Hopefully the next proposal which is going to happen sooner or later is better from the beginning. I hope that in next time, SME's and OSS-community are represented when the initial drafts for the directive are made.
This time the rejection of the whole proposal was better than amending it into lawyers' wet dream.
Is it over? I doubt it, but we're closing in (Score:5, Insightful)
Responding to the rejection the European Commission said it would not draw up or submit any more versions of the original proposal. .
Sounds like excellent news, but I doubt they'll give it up just yet, but this is a major setback (another one) for them.
For those saying this was a "total victory" (Score:3, Interesting)
This will be back for consideration, and sooner than most people realize.
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Interesting)
What we really need is a directive to *ban* software patents on the EU level...
Re:Unfortunately^2 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Informative)
The European Patent Convention from the 80s already prohibits patents on "programs for computers". The catch is that the EPO doesn't follow it, although it should.
Doesn't that make the patents toothless? (Score:5, Interesting)
The European Patent Convention from the 80s already prohibits patents on "programs for computers". The catch is that the EPO doesn't follow it, although it should.
Doesn't that provide a slam-dunk defense for anyone accused of infringing a software patent? It seems that if you were sued for infringement you could just point out to the court that the patent was erroneously issued. After a couple such cases, the precedent would be firmly established and future defendants would hardly have to do more than show up.
Further, it would seem to deter holders of such invalid patents from pressing their claims, because pressing a claim would just get the patent invalidated. Since a valid but unenforceable patent is a (very) little bit more useful than an invalidated patent, holders would have to think twice about filing "harassment" suits that they know they'll lose.
Obviously, it would be better if the EPO didn't issue those patents.
Re:Doesn't that make the patents toothless? (Score:3, Insightful)
No [ssrn.com]
EU Press Release (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a link to the offical EU press Release:
http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-/
Some really good comments in there from some clued in and angry MEPs...
Pablo
Power to the Parliament! (Score:2, Insightful)
VLC (Score:2)
Effect of activism? (Score:2)
Re:Effect of activism? (Score:4, Informative)
If it weren't for FFII, this directive would be accepted two years ago. I've followed this debate from the first proposal of the Commision: if Hartmut Pilch wouldn't have been there - nobody would have even noticed or understood the implications of this directive.
FFII has proven to be more mature and professional then the professional EU lobbies, that have been doing this for decades. I am so glad to be on this team and to see this historical victory.
Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a pretty big majority. To be honest, I expected the bill to slip through, or at least be a pretty close call either way based on what people have been telling me about the responses they have recieved from their MEPs.
I realise this wasn't really the best outcome, but it's a damn sight better than seeing that brutal directive sneak it's way into EU law.
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have received replies from every MP I have written to.
Dr Caroline Lucas (Green Party) - against the legislation, and mentions Richard Stallman and Alan Cox.
Daniel Hannan (Conservative) - for the legislation, claiming problems in US are exagerated and there is little evidence of large companies using patents against smaller ones
Nirj Deva Dl (Conservative) - for the legislation, though at the end states he will insist on a 3 year 'review' clause
Edwards McMillan-Scott (Conservative) - for the legislation, repeating many points above. States that the legislation does not affect the development of open source software.
Nigel Farage (Independence Party) - against the legislation, saying it benefits multi-nationals over the SMEs.
Ashley Mote (independent candidate) - against the legislation. Strong words and even if the legislation passes he suggests battling it through UK parliament.
Peter Skinner (Labour) - against the legislation. Very well informed as to EU parliamentary positions and he VERY clearly states why Labour is against software patents. Talks about Open Source, and even says he is supporting a UK campaign for a defense fund to protect small companies from litigation abuse by "dominant market players".
So it appears from my responses that the Conservative party are for software patents, and everyone else against. Can anyone else who received replies from their MPs attach a summary below mine. It will provide a useful resource for which way to vote at the next European parliamentary elections.
Phillip.
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Informative)
Tom Wise (UKIP) - against the legislation: "UKIP and its MEP's are fundamentally opposed to this proposal and will do all they can to prevent it coming into law. You should also address your comments to the British government, as they will also be involved in deciding a position"
So please write to your MP too!
South West UK response (Score:4, Informative)
lib dems: Email back about how they were very unhappy about the way the council was ignoring parliament, possibly planning to take a stance simply for the power-struggle between parliament and council, rather than for the merits of patents. Though I guess if they had been in favour of the legislation, they would have gone with it.
UK Independence Party: a letter in the post (!) back complaining about how the EU was always interfering, it was our right to set our own patent laws, etc. I don't know if they were in favour or not; their ideology was in the way.
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's clearly not the case with you, though. You know exactly how other people should vote, and if they don't vote that way, they're wrong.
Uhuh.
It's possible that certain types of patents are ba (Score:5, Informative)
"You don't patent a mathematical formula, for software is merely a connection of a mathematical formula," said Michel Rocard, the former French Prime Minister who was in charge of steering the parliament debate.
Rocard, a deputy for the Socialist group, said patents worth tens of billions of dollars (euros) were potentially at stake and, in terms of impact on businesses, the bill was the most important piece of legislation the assembly has ever dealt with.
The patent system seems to work best when patents cover things. It seems to cause real damage when it covers such things as mathematical knowledge and software. Broader than just those two, though, is the application of patents to "systems" wherein the thing being patented is just a step of instructions. It is a far cry from a tangible item to a way to do something.
Some 178 amendments to the bill were tabled by lawmakers before the vote. In the end parliament decided to vote down the law, fearing the amendments would dilute it and make it an inadequate compromise.
"It was a mess. Better no directive than a bad directive," said Tony Robinson, spokesman for the Socialists.
Unfortunately, that seems to mean that the topic may come up again, only in a more streamlined and possibly more palatable bill. It is nice that OSS advocates are crying foul against the patent system, but the real change will come when private businesses understand the threat posed by an all-encompassing patent system.
Re:It's possible that certain types of patents are (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that the underpinnings of all the abstractions the average programmer uses are mathematically based.
I don't think we can patent the basics of logic either, so even when the syntax actually doesn't have any numbers, it's basic reasoning is still mathematical.
And honestly, I can't think of an actual programming language that doesn't use mathematical operators of some kind. Even VBScripting uses it in some bastardised fashion.
It sounds like the ostrich head-in-the-sand argument. I can't see it, hence
Re:It's possible that certain types of patents are (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think that all of maths is simple arithmetic? I hope you realise that apply is a mathematical operator : this is what you would refer to as "calling a method". Defining a function is an equation. Do I really have to spell it out for you? Everything in your programs is mathematical. Not necessarily arithmetical. Please learn the difference.
Practically all programming language semantic research is couched in the terms of category or set theory. That you don't know this doesn't mean it isn't so. Look it up if you have more than a passing interest in your career.
When a patent claims something like the "method of drag and drop", it is claiming that all possible symbolic forms that implement this method are infringing. These forms, like every program you have ever written, are mathematical. The big issue is that the form is not being claimed as in a copyrighted work or a physical patent: it is the very concept of solving the problem that is being claimed. Once you have spotted a problem, you immediately control all possible solutions.
Re:It's possible that certain types of patents are (Score:3)
The concept of drag and drop is not mathematical. It is a concept. You are patenting the concept,
That's exactly what mathematics is about. Concepts. It is the science of concepts and abstraction, purely mental things (that, by coincidence, can be run on hardware). In this case, the highlevel concept of "drag and drop" is transformed by the programmer to the lowlevel concepts in a certain programming language. A purely mathematical process.
I know that CS research has a mathemetical basis, but this ha
Re:It's possible that certain types of patents are (Score:5, Insightful)
This is possibly the most idiotic statement I have ever read. In what way is software not entirely a mathematical field? Have you the slightest inkling of what computer science is?
Software, in all its forms, from the highest level Haskell to the tightest x86 machine code, from the elegance of Scheme to the pure sickness of Befunge, is represented as regular groups of symbols encoded in a numerical form. The abstract machines that give meaning to these symbols can also be encoded in any of these forms . The presence of hardware is incidental : everything that has been done or can be done with software is performable by a purely mental process. How anyone can believe this does not qualify as a field of pure mathematics is beyond me.
In summary, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I think a better statement might be
"This isn't 3000BC where mathematics is simply solving mathematics problems."
Re:It's possible that certain types of patents are (Score:4, Insightful)
A pure mental process that is based on consistent symbolic manipulation is extremely difficult to paint as anything but maths. What do you think it is ? Interpretive dance? Woodcraft?
I would love to know what you believe mathematics is. I'm guessing that you think it is arithmetic.
And as to your MS : the standards for getting a degree in this field are shockingly bad. I know people with even less clue than you who have degrees in CS. I have one too, but I don't think that it alone proves anything. Your statements show that you are very confused.
Re:It's possible that certain types of patents are (Score:4, Insightful)
So you really do beleive that mathematics is just arithmetic. I think this is where the disconnect is: mathematics is by its very nature the process of abstraction that you use to get away from any other representation you already have. It is not just adding and dividing, or other simple operators you learned when you were two.
Look up some fields of more abstract maths: category theory, topography, etc. Are you going to advocate promoting a small field of discrete maths to being "not maths" merely because we can make machines to perform that maths easily? Or that some people who use the machines don't understand them? If so, then arithmetic is not maths, because a lot of people use calculators, and don't know how to divide numbers without one.
Re:It's possible that certain types of patents are (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it is to do with the way things are taught : I strongly believe CS needs to be taught both top down and bottom up at the same time. All too often an approach known as "Java is all the world, and all the world is Java" is used in preference to showing people everything from AND gates to dependent
Re:It's possible that certain types of patents are (Score:4, Insightful)
If I have the rules to the machine, abstract or physical, and I have the code, then I can laboriously perform the instructions. Are you seriously denying that this is the case? Can you imagine doing one instruction?
push 20h
Can you imagine doing the next one?
call 401010
Oh look, by induction, you can imagine performing the whole program. Big fucking surprise.
I never said it would be easy or fun, or that it would finish in a single lifetime. But clearly it can be performed as a mental process.
On to planes. Planes, and all other mechanical devices, work because they obey physical "laws". These laws are mathematical generalisations that we have tested against the world for a long time and failed to disprove. The maths does not generate the laws, it is merely a statement about them. That we can use the maths to design other physical items does not mean that these items are suddenly pure maths. They simply obey the same "constant conjunctions" that we have observed for everything else in the physical world. Read some Hume, ingrate.
Your logical fallacies are unbeatable. Keep it up.
Videos of the vote (Score:5, Informative)
Please provide name and location of the 14... (Score:2)
The black list? (Score:4, Interesting)
Too bad the EU constitution was rejected, it would have given more power to parliament instead of the comission which is composed of appointed bureaucrats instead of elected representatives.
Mixed blessing (Score:3, Insightful)
One very good outcome of this is that the average European Joe Schmoe is now more aware of the issue and the MEPs are more aware of the sentiments within the industry. No more will the pro-patent lobby be able to sneak software patents in through the back door. That, in itself, is a huge victory.
A huge thanks to everybody who helped defeat the directive, be it with a single short e-mail to an MEP or actively spending hundreds of hours on the issue.
Thank you!
No victory, just unresolved (Score:5, Insightful)
EPO (the European Patent Office) still have given out several thousands patents for software (and they continue to do so). These are not void until they are tried individually in court.
Så, basically there could be three results:
1. The directive was accepted with the possibility of software patents (which would be preferred for pro-patent-people)
2. The directive was accepted without the possibility of software patents (which would be preferred for con-patent-people)
3. The directive was dropped
The latter is the case. So there are no general guidelines. Of course this still means that bunch of patents wouldn't hold in court, but that road is much longer than a general guideline preventing the patents in the first place.
Politics do work! (sometmes) (Score:5, Interesting)
WOO HOO!
FFII press release (Score:5, Informative)
From jmaebe ffii.org Wed Jul 6 15:15:16 2005
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:03:50 +0200
From: Jonas Maebe
To: news ffii.org
Subject: [ffii] European Parliament says no to software patents, yes to innovation
**European Parliament says no to software patents, yes to innovation**
Strasbourg, 6 July 2005 -- The European Parliament today decided by a large majority to reject the software patents directive. This rejection was the logical answer to the Commission's refusal to restart the legislative process in February and the Council's unwillingness to engage in any kind of dialogue with the Parliament. The FFII congratulates the European Parliament on its clear "no" to bad legislative proposals and procedures.
This is a great victory for those who have campaigned to ensure that European innovation and competitiveness is protected from the threat of software and business process patents. It marks the end of this attempt by the European Commission to codify into law the US-style practice of the European Patent Office. We believe that the Parliament's work, in particular the 21 compromise amendments, provides a good basis on which future legislative projects can build.
Rejection provides breathing space for new initiatives based on all the knowledge gained during the last five years. All institutions are now fully aware of the concerns of all stakeholders. However, the fact that the Council Common Position needs 21 amendments in order to be transformed into a coherent piece of legislation indicates that the text is simply not ready to enter the Conciliation between Parliament, Commission and Council. We hope the Commission and Council will at least respond to the concerns raised by Parliament the next time, in order to avoid this sort of backlash in the future.
Jonas Maebe, FFII Board Member, comments on the outcome of today's vote:
"This result clearly shows that thorough analysis, genuinely concerned citizens and factual information have more impact than free ice-cream, boatloads of hired lobbyists and outsourcing threats. I hope this turn of events can give people new faith in the European decision making process. I also hope that it will encourage the Council and Commission to model after the European Parliament in terms of transparency and the ability of stakeholders to participate in the decision-making process irrespective of their size."
The FFII wishes to thank all those people who have taken the time to contact their representatives. We also thank the numerous volunteers who have so generously given their time and energy. This is your victory as well as the Parliament's.
Background Information
Free ice-cream for patentability
http://wiki.ffii.org/CampIcecream050601En [ffii.org]
Software patent lobbyists add boats to their arsenal
http://lists.ffii.org/pipermail/news/2005-July/000 297.html [ffii.org]
Pictures of the boating
http://gallery.ffii.org/Strasbourg050705 [ffii.org]
Permanent link to this press release
http://wiki.ffii.org/PrReject050706En [ffii.org]
Contact Information
Hartmut Pilch and Holger Blasum
FFII Munich Office
info@ffii.org
++49-89-18979927
Rufus Pollock
FFII UK
rufus.pollock@ffii.org.uk
+44-7795-176976
Jonas Maebe
FFII BE
jmaebe@ffii.org
+32-485-369645
Dieter Van Uytvanck
FFII BE
dietvu@village.uunet.be
+32-499-167010
About FFII -- http://www.ffii.org/ [ffii.org]
The Foundation fo
Gray area getting slightly whiter though (Score:5, Insightful)
The EPO (European Patent Office) has granted patents on algorithms for years, despite the fact that they are illegal under the current European legislation [european-p...office.org]. And it seems that the fight will go on there (cf. this article [bloomberg.com]).
However, considering today's vote, the patent offices can not anymore claim that their interpretation of the law have a political backup.
--Go Debian!
How about our poor American friends? (Score:3, Interesting)
Votes against (Score:3, Insightful)
If anyone has a list it would certainly be useful when the next elections roll around.
Cheers,
Noims.
Re:Votes against (Score:3, Informative)
- Zuzana Roithová, Czech, http://www.roithova.cz/ [roithova.cz]
Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe:
- Sarah Ludford, UK http://www.sarahludfordmep.org.uk/ [sarahludfordmep.org.uk]
- Bill Newton Dunn, UK, http://www.newton-dunn.com/ [newton-dunn.com]
Socialist Group in the European Parliament
- Emanuel Vasconcelos Jardim Fernandes, Portugal
Independence/Democracy Group (Against EU):
- Nils Lundgren, Sweden, http://www.junilistan.nu/view.asp?id=43 [junilistan.nu]
Union fo
How do I find out how they voted? (Score:3, Interesting)
I searched some on the webpage but couldn't find any list on this.
Anyone know where I can find it so that I decide on who will get my vote next time?
Looks like we DOSsed this bill out of existence (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the slightly worrying meat of the matter (from TFA):
So it seems that the bill was not voted down because the anti-SWPAT people were able to persuade the voters of the rightness of their cause, but that it was spammed with amendments until it collapsed under its own weight.
Still a good thing, of course, but it would have been nicer to have this stupid idea explicitly faced down.
They won't give up (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the US needing patent reform? Yeah, it's pretty clear to "us" from our perspective, but the average joe doesn't care one way or the other but the moment they hear "they are trying to stop us from patenting things" the public will conjure up images of Ben Franklin and Thomas Edison tinkering in their home laboratories and think how un-American it would be to prevent people from patenting stuff. It has to be shown how it hurts them before the public will care about this and telling them "hey, you could have had much cooler and cheaper stuff..." it's a particularly effective argument since it's essentially viewed as speculation rather than fact.
It's easier to see in Europe what the potential harm to their market would be -- the U.S.'s head start in patent portfolios would make the sting pretty obvious.
So then I wonder, what angle or spin would be most effective against the general public to help them understand the need for patent reform in the U.S.?
But who voted YES? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But who voted YES? (Score:5, Informative)
That goes in particular for Zuzanna Roithova, who co-ordinated the breakaway group in the Conservative (PPE) faction, in favour of our amendments against her own party line.
It also goes for Andrew Duff (one of the 14 abstainers), who brought 70% of the Liberal (ALDE) group round to our position.
It wasn't necessarily good guys that voted NO; and it wasn't necessarily bad guys that voted YES.
Can I suggest you write and thank your MEP? (Score:3, Insightful)
So now leverage this result in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
Especially if presented as a case for helping small businesses (the engine that drives the economy) it seems like at least a few people in congress would be willing to champion a second look at the mess we have today, when presented with some rational arguments why they might want to roll back the power of software patents as they stand.
This further helps the EU as well, as it turns the battle into one of multiple fronts instead of just letting pro-patent people focus on the EU until they break.
A hope for the future of software! (Score:3, Insightful)
I produce roughly 20000-25000 lines of code every 4-5 months, and I hate the thought that I can be accused of stealing someone elses idea every time I write 10-20 lines code - in fact it insults me. Lets hope europe will some day move to illigalize software patent on a national level. I want fredom to develop thank you! Not this thing the pro-patent politicians call "protection". It only protects big companies with big patentportfolios from having to compete by way of building the best products.
Curses! Foiled again! (Score:5, Funny)
So close! We almost had them!
The directive is dead, long live the new directive (Score:3, Informative)
Well, gues what: the FIRST SIGNS are already there. Here is a comment I stumbled upon already:
"During the debate on Tuesday, Commissioner Joaquín ALMUNIA told MEPs: "Should you decide to reject the common position, the Commission will not submit a new proposal." Attention now moves to the proposed directive for a Community patent, currently in discussion in the Council, mentioned by a number of MEPs as the appropriate legislative instrument to address the issue of software patentability."
So, now, it's not the CII anymore, but something weasily called the 'community patent'. Let's be very watchful on these sudden outbursts of 'helpful' patentreforms, and deny anyone to amend something to the point that it becomes a second software patent directive.
Re:Victory (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally my only problem with software patents is the length. I think that an 18-36 month patent is reasonable but anything over that is not.
Next: the US (Score:5, Informative)
NOW is the time for everyone in the USA to start protesting against the same practices in the US. No software patents anywhere!
(Of course, the US will lose significant competition against european companies who will be much more at liberty to innovate... this hurts YOUR business)
Re:Next: the US (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to compete with Europe, I think "harmonization" with their patent policies is exactly what we should be fighting for now.
Re:Next: the US (Score:5, Insightful)
And the guy with the biggest Nuclear bombs still feels he has God on his side.
A major battle is over but the war is continuing.
Microsoft have already started! (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in March, in the week that Microsoft successfully lobbied the EU Council of Ministers to oppose the EU Parliament's version of the directive, and import the US software-patent regime to Europe, guess what else they did.
A mere four days after trying to foist software patents on Europe, they announced that the US system needed to be reformed. Of course what they had in mind is not necessarily what the rest of us want - though they are aware of some of the problems. They sug
Re:Next: the US (Score:3, Interesting)
No the main problem is people think we are *or ever were* intended to be a democracy when infact we are a republic!
Re:Next: the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy is not about votes, but about influence. It doesn't matter if everyone can vote if the vote doesn't mean anything, or if how people vote is largely influenced by the funding available to the various candidates, or if the election system is biased towards certain candidates.
The election system is the first flaw - by penalising votes for outsiders it creates an entrenched situation where only very rich people (i.e. Ross Perot) or the two major parties have a fighting chance of winning. That in itself means that even if the majority of Americans in advance of the next election wanted a major change, and a candidate matched what they wanted, that candidate would be unlikely to stand a chance because most voters would see it as too risky.
The funding available has a similar level of importance - remember the level of support Perot was able to get? It was a direct result of having access to funding that enabled him to reach a large audience. Try picking a random candidate from the last two elections and asking people on the street if they know who he/she was, and most of them won't know. That means that effectively, the office of President is closed to anyone not palatable to a majority in one of the major parties, or wealthy enough for a major PR blitz.
It's tragic that so many people believe blindly in a system just because they are a allowed a vote. People were allowed to vote under Saddam Hussein as well, and we all know - regardless of whether or not we support the war - that those votes were worthless. No other comparisons intended - just an example of how being allowed to vote says nothing about whether or not a country is democratic.
That said, at the moment I live in the UK, which has an election system about as shitty as the US one (i.e. Labour holds an absolute majority in parliament despite not getting anywhere near the majority of votes, thanks to one man circuits), as does France and a number of other European countries, most of the above apply in varying degress to many other countries as well.
Re:Next: the US (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that, as Douglas Adams put it (paraphrased), the people who would want to take positions of power are precisely the ones who should never be allowed to wield it. People who crave power will inherently become corrupt. The people who should be ru
NOT a dupe (Score:3, Insightful)
Thus, there existed the chance that they might get a change of heart etc. and vote YES instead...
We already had prematurely celebrated the Patent Directive dead once already - when Sweden etc. said it wanted to move it from a A-point to a B-point, but then was basically ignored by the Council during the meeting - and the Directive was passed to the EP for second reading.
NOW we can say that the Directive, in i
Re:The EU Rocks! (Score:3, Interesting)
It may hurt, but it is the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. Just think of how Canada feels: we have to live beside them...
Re:The EU Rocks! (Score:3, Insightful)
No it isn't. Yes there is some truth there, but quite a few exaggerations and obmissions, too.
I doubt that the US "... murdered more humans in a 50 year period than anyone else before ..." - WW2 cost roughly 50 million lives.
And while the US-Americans could certainly do with taking some responsibility for the actions of their government and look honestly at the crimes which were commited and mistakes which were made, other countries should do the very same.
The US mi
Re:The EU Rocks! (Score:3, Informative)
1. The US has started (and "encouraged") more wars and murdered more humans in a 50 year period than anyone else before in recorded history.
Nope, sorry. Try again. Think "Hitler".
Re:I think I speak for most of us when I say (Score:5, Insightful)
The only sad thing is the feeling of surprise this generated...