Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
EU Commission Regrets... No SW Patents on the Agenda & R.I.P. MS? (Groklaw)
Groklaw reports
that software patents have been removed from the EU Commission's agenda,
then points to an article in Silicon Insider entitled "R.I.P. Microsoft?"
"Why put the two stories together on Groklaw? Because I see a
connection. I see widespread distrust of Microsoft and disgust at their
business practices. They may have been largely successful in pulling out the
teeth of the US antitrust ruling, but they are feeling now the effects of
being found guilty of antitrust violations both here and in Europe
nonetheless. If there is one thing money can't buy, it's a good
reputation. Maybe you really do reap what you sow after all."
(Log in to post comments)
EU Commission Regrets... No SW Patents on the Agenda & R.I.P. MS? (Groklaw) Posted Feb 12, 2005 0:51 UTC (Sat) by manuel.flury (guest, #7880) [Link] Is it finally ok to claim Victory or is it again too soon ?
Don't have a party yet Posted Feb 12, 2005 1:20 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Too soon. Some are claiming victory "until 2006", meaning that we would get the restart of debate, but I don't see that they yet have reason to be sure of that. There could be a definitive restart on February 17th, but given that the large companies are going to be fighting very heavily, I would expect more dirty tricks.Bruce
Don't have a party yet Posted Feb 12, 2005 2:12 UTC (Sat) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] OK, I'm USian (unfortunately in this and it seems many contexts, lately),but can anyone following this and familiar with the rules tell me if this sounds like what's happening? ... From what I've pieced together from the various articles, the parliament was originally fairly weak, apparently designed so, so the various nation governments would have a larger voice than the parliament, the most directly elected of the three branches. However, observations are that parliament has been getting stronger, to the point it's now almost co-equal with the other branches, anyway. According to this line of thought, due to a number of factors related more to politics than this specific directive, once the momentum seemed to be enough behind changing this thing, quite a number of MPs voted for the changes even if they didn't really care, simply because it was a way they could express the independence of parliament. Of course, the council fought back, not just due to the big money behind software patents, but again, due to the jostling for dominance between the three branches. Now, if this line of thought continues, then having the council keep trying to pull every trick they have to get this thing thru to the parliament's second reading, is beginning to look more and more underhanded, even to MPs that would normally be pro swpat. Thus, at this point, so the one article I was reading anyway held, even if the council /does/ get it rammed thru in some fisheries meeting or some such obcure and illogical venue, there's a far better chance now than anyone ever would have thought possible of actually getting the necessary super-majority to vote it down, simply because many MPs resent being treated as if they were rubber stamps, having all the amendments they added dropped and all the underhanded stuff pulled, with the council trying real hard to go its own way /regardless/ if the wishes of the new members and all. The article said the super-majority required is so huge it wasn't thought possible, but with this directive, it might actually happen! They didn't put it in so many words, but it seemed like they thought the chances could be better than 50/50 it would now get voted down, particularly since it would mean the JURI restart request was being flat ignored and they were trying to ram it thru anyway! Obviously, therefore, it's still better that it not get to that point of the second reading if possible, but if it did, and that super-majority was actually achieved, that would be a pretty resounding demonstration of the will of parliament, and it could effectively put the nail in the coffin for further action in that direction, for many years to come, far longer than simply rejecting it and actually getting the restart, which could then go either way again, would do. Perhaps this sort of argument, among others, was what finally persuaded Poland to yield and say it'd no longer block it moving forward. Thankfully, Denmark seems to be willing to step in now. So, anyway, was this article I read even remotely reasonable, or is that all wishful thinking? Duncan
EU Commission Regrets... No SW Patents on the Agenda & R.I.P. MS? (Groklaw) Posted Feb 12, 2005 1:21 UTC (Sat) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] I wouldn't count any chickens yet, but things are looking more and more like we have defeated the council's text. Of course the EPO is still issuing crappy patents by the bucketload and powerful players are working out how the hell they are going to get them legalised. The pro swpat people still believe in what they are doing.
The fight will go on for years yet but I think the outcome is now guaranteed to be better than it would have been without FFII taking a stand. Wether we can really get to a state where swpats are generally no longer granted or enforceable in the EU remains to be seen. Most of the money is still on the other side, but even that is changing as institutions like banks, governments and health providers start to realise swpats are not in their interest either.
EU Commission Regrets... No SW Patents on the Agenda & R.I.P. MS? (Groklaw) Posted Feb 14, 2005 9:17 UTC (Mon) by rmstar (guest, #3672) [Link] Claim victory and rejoice, for another battle has been won.
The war, however, is far from over.
EU Commission Regrets... No SW Patents on the Agenda & R.I.P. MS? (Groklaw) Posted Feb 12, 2005 4:57 UTC (Sat) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Well...against my (maybe puny) efforts to the contrary, I had to buy my spouse a copy of XP Pro and Office 2003 Pro. She just can't seem to get over th the Linux thing the way I have......
...and then also, there's a great deal of muddle in the corporate world----a lot of folks went to Novell to escape IBM Iron, and then to Microsoft to escape the possible NOS monopoly that Novell appeared to be in process of creating......
...and now, they're being encouraged by the vanguard to escape Microsoft, and go to....what? Freedom?
That would be interesting indeed. Is Joe Sixpack and his Boss ready for freedom?
The whole patent thing Posted Feb 14, 2005 4:58 UTC (Mon) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link] Don't know about the rest of Europe, but England's been waiting for this freedom thing since the signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede. (That was back when the English took their ancient rights a little more seriously.)There have been many attempts to create a politically stable European Union, over the past few thousand years. The central problem is that the nations involved are too culturally diverse to function for the common good. Special interests control everything. Which is why special interest groups (such as the software patent lobby) can have so much influence. It does not help that Europe is too busy competing with itself to realize that there's an outside world that's walking past it. Europe, as a single body, can only work if Europeans specialize, thereby getting the maximum quantity and quality for the minimum effort. But if you streamline the system like that, turn the continent into a gigantic collection of high-end production lines, what would be the value in software patents? Or, indeed, patents of any kind? There would be no market for the IP. Finally, that leads me to the real reason IP exists today. Too many fingers in too few pies. If people thought they could make money off the actual products, they'd be doing so, so they're dreaming up schemes for taking other people's share of the pie to keep things going. (Hey, which brings in more money over the Internet? Products or advertising? Simple. Advertising. Why are most/all sites cheap or free? Because the content isn't where the money is.) With the exception of the RT-Linux "defensive patent", Linux has largely avoided the whole IP mess on the kernel side. There's been enough creativeness for it to have a pie all of its own. *BSD wrestled free through the magic of 4.4-lite, which butchered all the AT&T-donated code, and despite bleeding-edge work on network management, IPv6 and security, it, too, has largely had a pie all of its own. Neither has suffered from the lack of "IP protection". I therefore put it to LWN's readers - and anyone else who might vaguely care - that IP has not encouraged or financed R&D. Rather, IP has killed R&D, as it becomes economically viable for companies to live off the ideas about what products could look like, rather than from the products themselves. Furthermore, I also put it to you that R&D is the enemy of IP. That the more R&D there is, the more there is to share, and therefore the less value or return there is for protecting that share. R&D leads to diversification and variation. IP leads to consolidation and unification. They really are natural enemies and the enforcement of either will eventually eliminate the other. The question, then, is which do you want?
The whole patent thing Posted Feb 15, 2005 18:37 UTC (Tue) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] ...what would be the value in software patents? Or, indeed, patents of any kind? ...I tend to disagree that all patents are all bad. I think that all patents have mainly, yep, roughly, two shortcommings: a) they are based on MONOPOLY b) the price policy in general does not encurage the sales of the licenses, further development("inventing"), financial risktaking and "inventions" transfere to everyday use. The previous clause included the ignorance of sequential development. Solution? Very roughly speaking, all patent royalties should form a FIXED, maximum percent, of the END SALES price of the product. If the "invention" is so good that it's possible to sell the procuct with a high price, then all the "inventors"(patent owners) get higher royalties. If the "invention" isn't good enough to allow the product to be selled with high price, then the product will be selled with lower price and the patent owners will also get their fair share. As the royalties form a FIXED PERCENTAGE of the final sales price, it is also financially SAFE for the producer to try/experiment with a new product/brand. As the royalties form FIXED PERCENTAGE of the final sales price, the scheme does not punish people, who want to "innovate": take part of the sequential development. And of cource, if someone comes out with an "invention" that REALLY has market value, then the revard and financial feasibility is guaranteed: think pharma reasearch. OK, of cource, the previous text didn't suggest anything about the behaviour fo the patent system(US PTO, EPO, etc.), but those are just nitty-gritty details.
|
|||||||||||