Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||||
European software patents may be adopted on Feb. 17
The FFII site has a
translated article from the Polish press agency stating that Poland
will no longer resist the adoption of the software patent directive in the
European Council. If Poland backs down - and no other country steps up in
its place - the Council could adopt its version of the patent directive
without regard to the restart motion which passed the legal affairs
committee on February 2. And that would mean US-style software
patents in Europe.
(Log in to post comments)
Here's what is to be done at the moment: Posted Feb 8, 2005 15:28 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] People have to convince their Council representative to ask that this directive be taken off the A-list (like Poland has been doing so far).Justifications for taking it off the A-list are that it completely disregards the input of the parliament, that the external situation has changed drastically, and that the Council's text no longer has majority support. For a more info on the arguments to use, take a look at IFSO's letter: http://ifso.ie/documents/juriletter1.pdf (Sorry, I don't have a text/html version) That letter was sent last week to Ireland's MEP on the JURI committee, so the request was different but the argument to be made is virtually the same. To get your council member to take action, you have to send a letter to them, and to their advisors. Their advisors will be a national body, for example, in Ireland its the Department of Enterprise, Trade, and Employment. Finding who to send your letter to is often the hardest part of lobbying, but please don't let this be a reason to do nothing. Take a guess and phone that person office, you'll get a secretary and they'll tell you if that office is in charge of that directive. If you've got the wrong place, the secretary will probably be able to tell you the right place. Even if you send the letter to the wrong place, it might get passed on. If you send to both your (guessed) political representative and his national advisor department, you're likely to get one right anyway. A second Todo item is to convince the Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Charlie McCreevy (he's Irish, but not in the same party as Harney) not to reject JURI's request for a restart. Also, groups like IFSO, FSFEurope, and FFII could always use donations.
Here's what is to be done at the moment: Posted Feb 8, 2005 15:44 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] That letter I linked to is 2 and a bit pages, if you're in a rush most of the userful info is on page 2.
Here's what is to be done at the moment: Posted Feb 8, 2005 21:54 UTC (Tue) by kveldulf (guest, #27777) [Link] Maybe there's still hope. This evening the Spanish Senate has voted unanimously that the Spanish Government should oppose the directive. unfortunately there was no explicit recomendation of treating the directive as B-item instead of A-item (approved withot discussion). We'll see.
In any case, if Spain pushes for a B-item treatment of the directive, "The Polish government has however given instructions to its diplomats that they should support any other country's initiatives for delay or revision (B-item) of the agreement". That would be at least two governments.
Here's what is to be done at the moment: Posted Feb 8, 2005 21:59 UTC (Tue) by kveldulf (guest, #27777) [Link] BTW, for those who read spanish, the agency report about the vote in the Spanish senate is here:http://www.europapress.es/europa2003/noticia.aspx?cod=200...
Why is the Commission in such a hurry? Posted Feb 8, 2005 16:17 UTC (Tue) by dns (subscriber, #4239) [Link] It's important to understand your enemy.
One thing that I have not picked up in all the stories on
I realize that lobbying by powerful interests are at work, but
What am I missing, please?
Why is the Commission in such a hurry? Posted Feb 8, 2005 16:43 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > I have not picked up in all the stories on> this battle is just why the Commissioners are so determined > to get this thing into force
That's his/their job. To get jobs finished, get work done, move on to solving the next problem instead of keeping the parliament bogged down in this one directive.
The legislative procedure was initiated because there was legal uncertainty. There will continue to be legal uncertainty until the directive is put into force.
We have to make the Commissioner understand that the Council's text would not bring clarity, and it would bring disasterous consequences. He might also be operating under the misconception that the current problems could be fixed at a later point. We have to dispell that misconception too.
Why is the Commission in such a hurry? Posted Feb 8, 2005 18:48 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] It seems like the parliament managed to agree months ago on a directive which would unambiguously prohibit software patents (the amended version of the current directive, which was then stripped of its amendments). Could the parliament rush through getting an anti-software-patent directive (essentially the former amended version, except with the amendments incorporated from the start) voted on, and thereby give the commission something it could adopt to gain clarity? It seems clear to us that the parliament is not bogged down, but has rather settled on a position contrary to the current version of the directive, but this is clearly not the case with respect to the legistlative process.
Does the parliament need a request for a directive in order to make one (which would require that the process be restarted), or can they produce a directive to implement changes they think should be made (in which case they could get software patents banned without waiting for the current directive to be killed)?
Why is the Commission in such a hurry? Posted Feb 8, 2005 18:58 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Directives start with the European Commission. The parliament has very little power actually, and it's the only democratically elected body in the legistlative process. (That's "the democratic deficit" of the EU)
When the Council or the Commission disregards the parliament, we (the public) have to complain about the democratic deficit. We also have to make the Council/Commission see sense, but because they're not elected by the public, they don't make themselves very available to the public.
European directives are multiyear processes that involve the Commission, the Parliament, and the Council (and some other less important groups/stages).
It's a mess, but the good news is that we're winning. We just have to keep knocking down each hurdle.
Why is the Commission in such a hurry? Posted Feb 10, 2005 9:10 UTC (Thu) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] One thing that is very clear right now is that a lot of people don't have a very clear idea how the system works. You say we're still winning but judging from the reactions people don't think so.
I saw a comment on Slashdot ask why a body such as the Council of Ministers exists if there's a Parliament. The fact of the matter is the Council was first as a diplomatic union of the states involved. They essentially agreed on Directives which by treaty were then applied to to national laws. There hasn't really been the will to give up a whole lot more mpower to the EU level. The parliament came later.
Fact of the matter is, the parliament still has to agree to whatever reading the Council wants (although in practice this means the people have to turn up) and if you can stop it there it's still stopped...
Why is the Commission in such a hurry? Posted Feb 10, 2005 19:38 UTC (Thu) by ajk (subscriber, #6607) [Link] Note also that the Council of Ministers is not that much different from an upper house of a bicameral parliament. It represents the member states (like the United States Senate) and it is not elected by the people (like the House of Lords in the United Kingdom - the Council is actually composed of direct representatives of the member state executives); laws must be accepted by both the lower house (the Parliament) and the upper house (the Council of Ministers), which is standard procedure in bicameral legislatures.
The division of powers between the houses could be better, but tension between houses is a part of any bicameral system.
Why is the Commission in such a hurry? Posted Feb 8, 2005 21:06 UTC (Tue) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] I understand your point, but how are software patents related to fish and wildlife?
Why is the Commission in such a hurry? Posted Feb 9, 2005 21:32 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Sticking directives into the next available meeting is normal if the Council has already come to agreement. (These are A-list directives, to be adopted without discussion)
The purpose of not adopting directives at the same meeting as agreement is reached is probably to give the Council a waiting period to make sure they don't regret their decision. Now we have to tell them they should regret their decision and it should be brought back to the Council discussion stage.
(Because we can't be sure we'll achieve this, we have to simultaneously tell the parliament to call for it to be brought all the way back to the First Reading stage. These are our only two options, IIRC, so we have to try them both.)
Why is the Commission in such a hurry? Posted Feb 8, 2005 23:48 UTC (Tue) by beejaybee (guest, #1581) [Link] "The legislative procedure was initiated because there was legal uncertainty. There will continue to be legal uncertainty until the directive is put into force."
Sure. But there's another solution - announce that the directive will _never_ be put into force.
First problem is, the whole EU decision making process is undemocratic - even more so than the US; the whole commission consists of unelected beaurocrats and _failed_ politicians.
Second problem is, Big Business (read Micro$oft, amongst others) has lots of money to spend on junketing, and these Eurocrats like being junketed. In fact if their snouts were any deeper in the trough they'd drown. They haven't managed to get their budgets audited for decades, and some of them have had to pass laws to avoid legal action for corruption in their own countries.
Third problem is, Dubya's friends (including one Tony B. Liar, alias Words of Mass Distraction) want this appalling legislation passed. Real world problems are simlpy Not An Issue to politicians in the "enlightened" "democracies" of the Western world.
Conclusion, someone with vested interests in a United Europe has been threatening to invade Poland again, and this time the British and French are (together with the USA) aligned firmly with the Powers of Evil.
Personally I think the only thing that might draw attention to this and similar EU outrages is for a major proportion of the population of Europe to claim political asylum somewhere where the Government is more responsive to public opinion. Perhaps Iran, or North Korea.
OT - the EU "democratic deficit". Posted Feb 9, 2005 12:43 UTC (Wed) by bockman (guest, #3650) [Link] First problem is, the whole EU decision making process is undemocratic - even more so than the US; the whole commission consists of unelected beaurocrats and _failed_ politicians.Mostly agreed. EU is more a diplomatic union rather tha a democratic union. But is it so because people of EU nations _wants_ it to be so. I'm afraid that there are still too many cultural and ecomonical differences between EU countries to consider feasible a real union, even one in which the States would keep most of the power they currently have. The majority of people of the various EU countries just don't want to be ruled by "foreigners" even for matter of common interest. The EU parliament is just a token of good will. Therefore each decision has to be made through diplomacy, which is a lot less transparent and allows Big Powers to play as they wish.
Why is the Commission in such a hurry? Posted Feb 9, 2005 21:37 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > there's another solution - announce that the directive will _never_ be> put into force.
That would be awful.
The current unclarity has given the EPO an excuse to accept 30,000 software idea patents. We need the loopholes fixed so that software ideas are not patentable. It's debatable whether those 30,000 patents are enforceable, but the only place such debates matter are in the courtroom - which too expensive for every individual software writer, and the vast majority of european businesses.
Why is the Commission in such a hurry? Posted Feb 8, 2005 19:49 UTC (Tue) by rmstar (guest, #3672) [Link] I realize that lobbying by powerful interests are at work, but they have to have a lever, or argument that the Commissioners are buying, to override their natural instinct not to spend political capital for nothing...What am I missing, please? The people in favor of patents and radical intelectual property are probably quite scared of what is happening. If software patents do not become a reality in europe, the situation might begin to get seriously bad for the patent system as a whole, which is a mess already in other areas (actually, I think it is somewhat shortsighted to fight only against software patents. The system is a complete nightmare in many other areas too). In any case, I imagine that becaue of this the level of pressure from related international bodies is PRETTY F...ING HUGE! The arguments the comission members are hearing might well be in the "that would mean war" range.
Why is the Commission in such a hurry? Posted Feb 8, 2005 23:43 UTC (Tue) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] Now, where do people(here) take the assumption thatthe commission even wants to do anything well and good for the European average citizen?
I'm sorry if my
Personally, I'm so tired of it all that sometimes I think that
Sorry, I just tend to get tired.
Why is the Commission in such a hurry? Posted Feb 9, 2005 12:14 UTC (Wed) by rmstar (guest, #3672) [Link] Personally, I'm so tired of it all that sometimes I think that why don't people just let the system BURN DOWN by itself. OK, it'll be 50 years or so, but if I get my salary from doing some design work for a company that designs some sub-parts(chip parts, software, whatever) to some nasty giant, then I can live by.What makes you think that you will be able to get by? No. Let us go on fighting. If we lose, then I want them to be marked by their victory. I want them to pay for it dearly. I want them to limp away taking with them the full political damage that their behaviour will draw upon them. If anything, that might make the dark age shorter. ...and besides, we have not lost yet. There is still hope.
Why is the Commission in such a hurry? Posted Feb 12, 2005 15:19 UTC (Sat) by Wout (subscriber, #8750) [Link] I think the Commission are being lobbied by companies that stand to lose out when Linux (or better: free software) achieves world domination. As commercial software cannot compete with free software, the companies have to somehow outlaw it. Software patents seem to be the only way to do that. Once Microsoft and the like can use software patents in both the U.S. and the E.U. to stifle free software, they may have a chance. Just doing it in the U.S. is not enough. In fact, they are probably holding off using their patents against free software in the U.S. until software patents in Europe are in place. Using them now would give the anti-software patent lobby a strong argument against them.
The Commission is asked to hurry as every day of delay strengthens the position of free software. More people use free software every day. Once enough of the european economy (and population) relies on free software, attempts to outlaw it via software patents will be rejected by society. By then it would be too late for them.
Personally I suspect there is also lobbying from the U.S. government regarding software patents. Microsoft alone brings large sums of money in to the U.S. every year. Once everyone in Europe moves to Linux (BSD, ...) that income will cease to come.
European software patents may be adopted on Feb. 17 Posted Feb 9, 2005 8:16 UTC (Wed) by jeroen (subscriber, #12372) [Link] "And that would mean US-style software patents in Europe."
No, that would mean a second reading in the European Parliament, which will likely reject the whole thing if that happens.
European software patents may be adopted on Feb. 17 Posted Feb 9, 2005 10:25 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] and it can be thrown out by absolute majority, which means thatthe MEPs must TURN OUT to the reading, which might not happen.
European software patents may be adopted on Feb. 17 Posted Feb 12, 2005 15:29 UTC (Sat) by Wout (subscriber, #8750) [Link] Two points to consider regarding 'absolute majority' (two thirds) in the european parliament:
1. Every absentee is counted as a vote in favour of the Commission. So 67% of the parliament members must show up AND vote against the Commission's version of the patent law in order to stop it.
2. The required number of members of parlement to achieve an absolute majority seldom show up.
|
|||||||||||||