Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
What happens next:What happens next:Posted Sep 24, 2003 20:48 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (subscriber, #7544)Parent article: Text of the proposed EU patent directive We all deserve a pint for what we've achieved, then it's back to work, albeit at a more relaxed pace. The Council is made up of one Minister from each member state. The Minister is not a set position, each country chooses a relevent Minister for each meeting, so we don't know who we have to talk to yet. Three things can happen: b) They can accept the directive with all amendments c) They can accept the directive with some amendments If this happends, the semi-amended directive will return to the plenary for a "Second Reading". This is likely to happen but we must make sure it does happen, and that the spirit of the amendments remains intact. In the Second Reading, the plenary cannot suggest new amendments, it can only defend the ones it had already. Ciaran O'Riordan P.S. James, thanks for making this consolidated text available, I forwarded it to the fsfe-ie list but forgot to credit you, I'll make a note of it in my next post
(Log in to post comments)
What happens next: Posted Sep 24, 2003 21:13 UTC (Wed) by sumC (subscriber, #1262) [Link] Is it possible to see who voted against it?I'm interested to see how the swedish MEP:s voted. /Mats
voting results Posted Sep 24, 2003 22:25 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (subscriber, #7544) [Link] Here's a text version:http://mond.at/swpat/voting.txt It's probably not the format you want, the amendments are referenced by number so you'll want to crossreference it with the amendment texts: HERE (They are in OpenOffice's "MS Word" format) Or you may find it quicker to crossreference with the FFII voting recommendations: HERE Also, the MEPs are referred to by name and party, not nationality, so you might have to get their names from: HERE Ciaran O'Riordan
What happens next: Posted Sep 24, 2003 21:16 UTC (Wed) by phgrenet (guest, #5979) [Link] Why do you say that the directive is bad as it is? It excludes patents on pure software and business methods. It just re-enforces Art. 52 of the EPC.
it's Good Posted Sep 24, 2003 22:29 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (subscriber, #7544) [Link] > Why do you say that the directive is bad as it is?I didn't say it was bad. (?) Are you refering to my comments about scenario (a)? Scenario (a) is that the directive is adopted *without* the plenarys amendments, which is bad. The amemdments that the plenary adopted are great, couldn't be better, but the Council doesn't have to accept them.
What happens next: Posted Sep 24, 2003 21:18 UTC (Wed) by j_heald (guest, #15398) [Link] Ciaran wrote:> This is highly unlikely since after 78 amendments were adopted, the Actually, what amazed me doing the consolidation was how *little* contradiction there is. The EU said it wanted a directive that could patent a new computer-controlled steel mill (if it makes better steel), or a technically superior computerised device like a mobile phone, but not 'pure' software doing routine data processing. It seems to me that MEPs have been very careful picking and choosing amendments (or astonishingly lucky), and that is exactly what they have come up with.
What happens next: Posted Sep 25, 2003 0:00 UTC (Thu) by wweber (guest, #11678) [Link] Interesting: "Software for Hardware" is what will be patentable. I left that field in the right nick of time!
What happens next: Posted Sep 25, 2003 0:45 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (subscriber, #7544) [Link] > "Software for Hardware" is what will be patentableSoftware *with* [innovative] hardware will be patentable. A hardware invention will not be excluded from patentability just because it uses software. Software on it's own, whethere it's "for Hardware" or not, will not be patentable. (What type of software isn't for hardware?)
What happens next: Posted Sep 25, 2003 0:55 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Good point. Now you'll see hardware manufacturers like IBM and Motorola submitting pure software patents wrapped into "this is a piece of hardware" crap. I've seen such patents in Australian patent application database. For instance, Motorola applied for a patent on a device+software that checks its own ID and then downloads the software for itself (application date in 2001).If that kind of thing flies, one might expect that things like up2date would be infringing on that patent. The intentions of the legislator sometimes don't matter when the case is heard in court...
What happens next: Posted Sep 25, 2003 8:21 UTC (Thu) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link] "Now you'll see hardware manufacturers like IBM and Motorola submitting pure software patents wrapped into "this is a piece of hardware" crap."Yes, but as I see it, the directive also ensures that red hat can distribute up2date (in europe, of course) as long as it has nothing to do with the hardware that is patented. Put another way: If you distribute software on a CD, you cannot be infringing on a hardware patent. henrik
What happens next: Posted Sep 25, 2003 8:47 UTC (Thu) by RobDavies (guest, #9930) [Link] That's the reason why the amended directive is a good thing. NationPatent Offices have been lax in awarding patents for obvious ideas, ones with prior art, and finally in many cases simply because software or a network and computing is used. It looks like the text makes it clear that should not happen.
What happens next: Posted Sep 26, 2003 0:55 UTC (Fri) by wweber (guest, #11678) [Link] (What type of software isn't for hardware?)The phrase "software for hardware" is how a EE explains "firmware" to desktop computer literates.
|
|||||||||||