What happens next:
What happens next:
Posted Sep 24, 2003 20:48 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #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:
a) They can accept the pre-amendment directive
If this happens, the procedure ends. No more voting, the (bad) directive gets adopted. This would kill us. We have to make sure the Council don't do this.
b) They can accept the directive with all amendments
If this happens, the procedure ends. No more voting, the (good) amended directive gets adopted. This is highly unlikely since after 78 amendments were adopted, the directive contradicts itself in places.
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
Posted Sep 24, 2003 21:13 UTC (Wed)
by sumC (guest, #1262)
[Link] (1 responses)
/Mats
Posted Sep 24, 2003 22:25 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
Posted Sep 24, 2003 21:16 UTC (Wed)
by phgrenet (guest, #5979)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 24, 2003 22:29 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
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.
Posted Sep 24, 2003 21:18 UTC (Wed)
by j_heald (guest, #15398)
[Link] (6 responses)
> 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.
Posted Sep 25, 2003 0:00 UTC (Thu)
by wweber (guest, #11678)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Sep 25, 2003 0:45 UTC (Thu)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (4 responses)
Software *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?)
Posted Sep 25, 2003 0:55 UTC (Thu)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (2 responses)
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...
Posted Sep 25, 2003 8:21 UTC (Thu)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link]
Posted Sep 25, 2003 8:47 UTC (Thu)
by RobDavies (guest, #9930)
[Link]
Posted Sep 26, 2003 0:55 UTC (Fri)
by wweber (guest, #11678)
[Link]
The phrase "software for hardware" is how a EE explains
"firmware" to desktop computer literates.
Is it possible to see who voted against it?What happens next:
I'm interested to see how the swedish MEP:s voted.
Here's a text version:
voting results
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
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.
What happens next:
> Why do you say that the directive is bad as it is?it's Good
Ciaran wrote:What happens next:
> directive contradicts itself in places.
Interesting: "Software for Hardware" is what will be patentable. I left that field in the right nick of time!What happens next:
> "Software for Hardware" is what will be patentableWhat happens next:
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).What happens next:
"Now you'll see hardware manufacturers like IBM and Motorola
submitting pure software patents wrapped into "this is a piece of
hardware" crap."
What happens next:
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
That's the reason why the amended directive is a good thing. Nation What happens next:
Patent 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 type of software isn't for hardware?)
What happens next: