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This discussion has been archived.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.
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Interesting)
Hurray (Score:2, Interesting)
Politics do work! (sometmes) (Score:5, Interesting)
WOO HOO!
Re:Not quite (Score:1, Interesting)
* passing the patent law as it was: BAD
* passing the parliament's version: GOOD
* not passing anything: bearable
As it looked likely that the GOOD guys were getting close to victory, all the people formerly supporting the BAD option decided to vote for the NOTHING option as a better outcome than having the parliament's version approved. And I guess the GOOD guys saw they didn't have quite enough votes to force their version through so they went for the NOTHING vote too.
That's why the margin was so large.
So while it's better than it could have been, it's not a major victory. The state of software patents in Europe remains basically undefined as neither the law version in favour of software patents nor the version against software patents was approved. So look forward to lots more legal arguments in the years ahead.
On the positive side, it shows that the good guys *almost* won a complete victory. So maybe next time....
Re:Not quite (Score:2, Interesting)
European laws and regulations are clear at the moment: software patents are not allowed. That means in any country.
The "harmonization" (both within the EU and with WIPO) arguments are falacies the pro-swpat crowd used to push their agenda.
The only harmonization that would have occurred if the commission's version had passed would have been between the law and current big-business and EPO practice, the latter having overstepped its authority and redefined what the law means to them to grant the former the patents they seek. Unfortunately judges and jurys tend to care more about what the law says than about what vested interests want it to mean. Hence this directive project...
How about our poor American friends? (Score:3, Interesting)
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: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!
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 suggested:
But it's interesting that Bill Gates recognised publicly that if the current patent regime had been in place when Microsoft was young, they never would have made it!
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.
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?
RTFD (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:The EU Rocks! - plz mod up (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Effect of activism? (Score:1, Interesting)
If it weren't for FFII, this directive would be accepted two years ago.
Absolutely!
The FFII has done a fantastic job in coordinating and managing the anti-patent efforts!
You're great guys!
My only regret is that the demonstration in Strasbourg was announced too late and I didn't have time to arrange to be there. I watched the pictures of the protesters with envy (sigh).
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
The EU is as (or more) democratic than it's member states. The bigest problem is some times goverments say one thing at home and vote the oposite in Europe and then try to say Europe is imposing something on them.
Re:Yellow T-shirts in parliament (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting... During the Brussels demoes last year, parliament security was very strict about the "no protest T-shirts within the parliament" rule...
The colour refers to the FFII comparing the European Commission to a banana republic.
Actually, the yellow T-Shirts were used long before the "no banana union" slogan. AFAIK, yellow was chosen because it is a bright color.
However, the banana peel hanging on the pedestrian's traffic light just opposite the European Parliament is there because of that comparison, hehe.
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:Democracy in the EU (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Victory! (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Who lost? (Score:2, Interesting)
Warning, the article is pretty disgusting. ~Knaldgas
BT video of the EP press conference (Score:2, Interesting)
You can download the full European Parliament press conference after the vote with this torrent [thepiratebay.org] (AVI file (DIVX), 48 minutes).
Magnet URI for Azureus (remove the space before the last two chars):
It's very interesting because it shows that the MEPs really know what this is all about and most of them have a position surprisingly similar to the FFII [ffii.org]!
Josep Borrell (EP President) and Michel Rocard (MEP) speak very clearly about what's wrong with software patents, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, Microsoft, etc.
Unfortunately the first 4 minutes are only translated in Italian, but all the important things are in English.
Please after completing the download continue to seed as long as possible.
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.
Re:It's possible that certain types of patents are (Score:1, Interesting)
The fact that there are many layers of abstractions and interfaces between the world of pure mathematics and your daily work involving computers (programming, playing games, MP3's, whatever) does not change this fact. That these abstractions allow software to be used by people with no understanding of mathematics does not mean that software (and the inner workings of computers in general) is not mathematical "under the hood". Those programs are all bits. So are the graphics in those games. So are those MP3's. They are all being manipulated according to mathematically-defined rules.
People can certainly cook without knowledge of chemistry but this doesn't change the fact that cooking *is* chemistry, albeit in a high-level and abstracted form. Maybe I am an idiot, but I don't think this statement doesn't make me one.
And let's not lose sight of the topic here: patents.
Let's take your cooking analogy further. What if you could patent cooking methods? What if you were a baker who was put out of business because you were sued by someone who held a patent on a method of raising bread, and that patent was so broad that it covered the actual underlying *chemical processes* involved? Not just a patent on a particular bread oven (a physical invention), but the actual process...
A cooking patent could turn the whole chemical industry upside-down!
*That* is the danger with pure software patents. By allowing patents that cover software you are in reality allowing mathematical concepts to be patented. And allowing "ownership" of mathematics could have far reaching implications on almost every aspect of our daily lives.
Consider: "Claim I. A chemical process (software) for using an oven (computer) to convert dough (input) into bread (output)
Okay, maybe this whole cooking analogy is somewhat flawed, but hopefully it's good enough to give you some food for thought. Sorry, couldn't resist!