|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

FFII: EU Ambassadors vote to back Software Patents

From:  James Heald <j.heald-AT-ucl.ac.uk>
To:  "LWN.net" <lwn-AT-lwn.net>
Subject:  EU Ambassadors vote to back Software Patents
Date:  Fri, 07 May 2004 15:03:38 +0100


-- FFII News Release -- 7 May 2004 --
+++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++
-- For immediate release --


COREPER approves EU Presidency software patents text

EU Ambassadors vote to back Software Patents
-- Final confirmation by Ministers within 2 weeks


2004/05/07
for immediate release


The EU Council of Ministers seems determined to prove that the EU is a 
democracy only on paper.  This Wednesday, the Irish Presidency managed 
to secure a qualified majority for a counter-proposal on the software 
patents directive, with only a few countries - including Belgium and 
Germany - showing resistance.  The new text proposes to discard all the 
amendments from the European Parliament which would limit patentability. 
  Instead the lax language of the original Commission proposal is to be 
reinstated in its entirety, with direct patentability of program text 
fragments added as icing on the cake.  The proposal is now scheduled to 
be confirmed without discussion at a meeting of ministers on 17-18 May, 
unless one of the Member States changes its vote.

In a remarkable sign of unity at a time of imminent elections, members 
of the European Parliament from all groups across the political spectrum 
are condemning this blatant disrespect for democracy in Europe.


Details
-------

The powerful COREPER committee of EU member states' Permanent 
Representatives in Brussels has provisionally agreed on a new draft for 
the controversial Software Patent directive, overruling concerns from 
the German, Belgian, and Danish delegations, and the Slovakian 
non-voting observers.

The new draft rejects all of the European Parliament's limiting 
amendments, and is described by FFII as "the most uncompromisingly 
pro-patent text yet".

The Coreper text also goes further than the original European Commission 
text of 2002. In 2002 the Commission had agreed, in difficult 
negotiations between DG Internal Market (Bolkestein) and DG Information 
Society (Liikanen) not to allow program claims. Now it seems that DG 
Information Society has rolled over to the united pressure of Bolkestein 
and the Council's patent administrators.

A leaked document from Bolkestein's DG Internal Market suggests that DG 
Information Society no longer objects to program claims. This concession 
by Liikanen is needed in order to rush the Council working group 
proposal through the ministers' session as an "A item", i.e. a consensus 
point which does not need any discussion by the ministers.

Technically, the decision by COREPER on Wednesday is only a "forecast" 
of the final decision, to be confirmed at the Competitiveness Council of 
Ministers on 17-18 May. Until that date, Member states can still change 
their minds (and their votes).

If confirmed by ministers, the text will form the basis for the 
Directive's second reading in Parliament, after the EU elections.  EU 
rules make it far more difficult for the Parliament to make changes at 
second reading.

Support for the text at a political level in some states is still said 
to be quite soft; and decisions brokered in Coreper do fall apart (last 
year's discussions on the Community Patent, for example).

FFII is therefore urging supporters to make their voices heard *now*, 
especially software SMEs who make up the majority of the IT industry (eg 
over 80% of IT jobs in Germany).  In particular supporters should try to 
mobilise organisations of which they are members, urgently try to meet 
or contact local MPs and MEPs, and also Commissioner Liikanen's office 
at DG Information Society.


Proposals slammed by MEPs from all sides
----------------------------------------

* "Parliament Overruled by Patent Office Administrators"
	-- Anne Van Lancker (Socialist MEP, Belgium).
* "Council Ignores Elected Representatives"
	-- Piia-Noora Kauppi (Conservative MEP, Finland).
* "Council and Commission Failed to do their Homework"
	-- Pernille Frahm (Nordic Green/Left MEP, Denmark).
* "Patent Administrators Not Interested in 'Harmonisation and 
Clarification' "	
         -- Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Green MEP, France).
* "Council Moves Highlight Lack of Democracy in the EU"
         -- Bent Hindrup Andersen (Euroskeptic MEP, Denmark).
* "Irish Presidency Protecting US Companies from EU Competition"
      	-- Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (Liberal MEP, Netherlands).
      	
      	
Anne van Lacker (SPE - Belgium):

	"Parliament Overruled by Patent Office Administrators"
	
	"The Council not only ignores the European Parliament in this matter, 
but adds to the insult by going even further than the Commission: in 
addition to making the usage of patented algorithms and business methods 
in computer programs an infringement, they also propose to forbid their 
publication, by allowing direct claims to information entities (also 
known as "program claims").

	"Given that the current Council proposal was written behind closed 
doors by patent office administrators, this unworldly outcome should not 
surprise anyone, unfortunately.


Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE group, Finland):

	"Council Ignores Elected Representatives"

	"If the Council is trying to look for a compromise with the European 
Parliament on the proposal for patenting of computer-implemented 
innovations (software patents), it should base its work on the final 
decision taken by the plenary session of the Parliament, not on that of 
the Commission or of the Legal Affairs Committee. Judging from the 
papers produced so far by the Council's working party, it seems that the 
Council is not taking the will of Europe's elected legislators into 
account".
	

Pernille Frahm (Vice-chair, NGL group, Denmark):

	"Council and Commission Failed to do their Homework"

	"The patent administrators in the Commission and Council are abusing 
the legislative process of the EU.

	"Their convoluted and misleading Patent Newspeak, negotiated in 
intransparent backroom dealings, is an insult to the European 
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of 
Regions and the innumerable experts and stakeholders who have engaged in 
serious investigations on this directive project with us. Not only did 
the Commission and Council fail to do their own homework, they are now 
also attempting to throw away all the hard work that the elected 
legislators did for them, without even trying to respond to the concerns 
which have been raised".
	
	
Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Chair, Greens/EFA group, France):

	"Patent Administrators Not Interested in 'Harmonisation and 
Clarification' "

	"The Council working party has so far completely failed to address the 
problems which the European Parliament's Cultural and Industrial Affairs 
committees tried to solve. They behave in the same way as the Legal 
Affairs Committee behaved last year, and we can expect that they will 
fail in the same way.

	"It is clear that the national patent officials in the Council do not 
want "harmonisation" or "clarification". They merely want to secure the 
interests of the patent establishment. If they don't get what they want, 
they simply bury the directive project and try to find other ways to get 
around the existing law, whose clarity is so painful to them".
	
	
Bent Hindrup Andersen (Danish June Movement/ EDD group, Denmark):

	"Council Moves Highlight Lack of Democracy in the EU"

	"The approach of the Commission and Council in this directive is 
shocking. They are making full use of all the possibilities of evading 
democracy that the current Community Law provides. First they ignored 
94% of the participants of their own consultation, without given any 
justification apart from the claim that the remaining 6% represented the 
"economic majority". Now they are completely disregarding the vote of 
the European Parliament, and by the way also of the Economic and Social 
Council and of the Council of Regions. They are doing this because they 
are used to success by doing this. The EU is constructed this way. It 
makes unaccountable bureaucrats the masters of legislation. The problem 
is compounded by the complete lack of democratic checks and balances in 
the European patent system. EU and Patents combine into a particularly 
toxic mixture. Europe's citizens urgently need to take up this issue and 
learn the lessons before it is too late. They should in particular not 
allow this kind of structure to be perpetuated by a European 
Constitution this year".


Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR group, Netherlands)

	"Irish Presidency Protecting US Companies from EU Competition"

	"I'm under the impression that the Irish Presidency has buckled under 
the interests of American Companies. Those big American Companies will 
profit from software patents, but it is a very bad deal for innovation 
in European SMEs. Additionally, the Council is showing contempt for 
parliamentary democracy. We must make sure that after the elections 
there will again be a majority in the European Parliament that is 
willing to show its teeth".

	
Underlying documents
--------------------

*  The Council proposal documents 8253/04 and 8253/04 ADD from April 6 
are not accessible "due to the sensitive nature of the negotiations and 
the absence of an overriding public interest" according to the Council's 
General Secretariat.
 
http://register.consilium.eu.int/...

*  However FFII has obtained a copy of the latest proposed text, 
including the "footnotes" with member states' comments:
	http://vitke:mipri@swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/cons0401/SRC/st09051.en.pdf

* Analysis of the text by Philippe Aigrain:
    	http://www.sopinspace.com/~aigrain/en/analysis-compromise.html

* Minutes of internal negotiations to decide the Commission's line:
     	http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/cec0405/

* Political analysis and instructions to the Austrian delegation (in 
German):
	http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere/europarl0309/bmvit0405/index.de.html

===============================================================================

Media contacts

mail:
     media at ffii org
phone:
     Hartmut Pilch +49-89-18979927 (German/English/French)

     Jonas Maebe +32-485-36-96-45 (Dutch/English)

     Erik Josefsson +46-707-696567 (Swedish/English)

     Thierry Coutelier +352 406776 (French/German/English)

     Benjamin Henrion +32-498-292771 (French/English)

     Dieter Van Uytvanck +32-499-16-70-10 (Dutch/English)

     Tomasz Marciniak +48-61-8779-208 (Polish)

     Stepan Kasal +42-0-257323410 (Czech)

     James Heald +44 778910 7539 (English)

     More Contacts to be supplied upon request


About the FFII -- www.ffii.org
------------------------------

The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) is a 
non-profit association registered in Munich, which is dedicated to the 
spread of data processing literacy. FFII supports the development of 
public information goods based on copyright, free competition, open 
standards. More than 300 members, 700 companies and 50,000 supporters 
have entrusted the FFII to act as their voice in public policy questions 
in the area of exclusion rights (intellectual property) in data processing.


Permanent URL of this Press Release
-----------------------------------

A longer version of this release can be found at:

http://swpat.ffii.org/news/04/cons0408/index.en.html






	
	
	
	
	
	







to post comments

Shall they learn the hard way?

Posted May 7, 2004 14:56 UTC (Fri) by libra (guest, #2515) [Link] (3 responses)

There has been attempt to explain why it is a mistake to go for patents in the field of computers. Now if they do not get the clues and do not understand why it is bad they deserve to learn it the hard way.

That is they deserve the chaos and damages to innovation that will result of such a choice. Of course it will damage us not to be able to innovate as we would like, but I think the governments will suffer more from that choice than the community.

So sad they do seem to be going for such a mistake to learn.

Shall they learn the hard way?

Posted May 7, 2004 16:09 UTC (Fri) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] (1 responses)

No, government will not suffer more than the community, for government
is an instrument of the community.

What that really mean is that the society will change to accommodate for that decision,
for the worse.


Government is an instrument of the community?

Posted May 10, 2004 8:22 UTC (Mon) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link]

Oh come on, do you really believe this? Look around you and point at a single example of where community wouldn't be better off without government. Government is a parasite, not even a symbiont.

P.S. Sorry, couldn't resist. Spring, and all...

Shall they learn the hard way?

Posted May 8, 2004 7:22 UTC (Sat) by joshk (guest, #20608) [Link]

Perhaps governments do not want to stop projecting the image that they are omniscient and Always Know What's Best for you.

Case in point: Jack Valenti.

FFII: EU Ambassadors vote to back Software Patents

Posted May 7, 2004 16:49 UTC (Fri) by lacostej (guest, #2760) [Link] (2 responses)

Which country has a good balance between democracy and software patent unfriendlyness?

I would think twice staying in the country I am currently in, if there are better place to live in.

FFII: EU Ambassadors vote to back Software Patents

Posted May 7, 2004 18:31 UTC (Fri) by bbencic (guest, #9213) [Link]

The problem is that if the "bad" directive is voted, all european countries
will suffer from the situation. This means if I want to leave Belgium because of this, I have to leave Europe ... but to go where ?

FFII: EU Ambassadors vote to back Software Patents

Posted May 8, 2004 2:14 UTC (Sat) by dbharris (guest, #19820) [Link]

Anybody know about Canada's patent laws? (Sadly, despite the fact that I'm Canadian, I have no idea myself.) Canada tends to be more "European" than the United States, so it's possible the patent laws are decent.

Since I'm not in the EU, I have to ask...

Posted May 8, 2004 4:48 UTC (Sat) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] (5 responses)

Why does the EU even have a parliament, if the actions of that parliament can be overruled at the whim of an unelected council that is not directly accountable to the people of Europe? This hardly strikes me as a progressive or democratic arrangement. Perhaps the EU itself needs reform, not just its patent policies?

Since I'm not in the EU, I have to ask...

Posted May 8, 2004 12:33 UTC (Sat) by ecureuil (guest, #3507) [Link]

This council represents the European national governements which are
elected.

If the commission and the council rejects the law voted by the European
Parliament there will propose a new text in second reading to the
Parliament and there is a compromise mechanism to try to find a middle
ground between the Commission position and the Parliament position.

It won't happen before June when Europeans elect a new Parliament. They
will certainly be a huge increase in the next Parliament of populist
anti-european parties. What will be their position on Patent law ? My
guess, is that it is a much too complex problem for their little closed
minds. The Commission is also going to fall at one point or another as
Romano Prodi looks more and more interested to run for office in Italy.

What will be the next steps for the Software Patent directive ? It can be
buried and left to the next commisison if it seems that there is not
enough consensus or the commission
could try to push it through a new untested Parliament hoping that they
will undo what the precedent Parliament did.

U'm from the EU(Estonia) and AFIK...

Posted May 9, 2004 18:15 UTC (Sun) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] (3 responses)

..the main problem of the EU is the lack of democracy. AFIK
the governments have almost nothing to do with it, since the dicision
will be taken by a council of ministers at the given field and
at this case, the council of ministers are basically an ordinary,
nontechnical, noncaring, locally unrelevant group of clearks,
who don't understand the issues, that are related to software patents
and who have a mentality of thinking: "well, let's ask the patent
lawyers, after all, they are the experts at that given field".

So the ministers just take what's feed to them, without having even a glue, what's going on.
Naturally, that issue could be solved by a prime minister or a
pressure from a local parliament, but as the topic is just TOO TECHNICAL
FOR THOSE ORDINARY OFFICE CLERKS, none of the other politicians care.


There will always
be people, who like to turn some situation to account, so the root of the problem is:
THE LACK OF DEMOCRACY in EU.

U'm from the EU(Estonia) and AFIK...

Posted May 9, 2004 22:30 UTC (Sun) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link]

I apologize for the terrible spelling mistakes. Generally I tend to spellcheck my texts a little more. I just wrote it in a hurry.

EU and Democracy

Posted May 10, 2004 10:47 UTC (Mon) by Felix.Braun (guest, #3032) [Link] (1 responses)

governments have almost nothing to do with it, since the dicision will be taken by a council of ministers at the given field

I'm sorry but this statement makes no sense. The Council of Ministers -- as it's name implies -- is composed of the member State's competent ministers. Hence, the Council represents national governments which are all democratically elected and subject to democratic review by their national parliaments.

Of course, it is true that representatives of the executive branch of government usually don't have that much of a say in the legislative process. This is why it is said that the EU has a deficiency of democracy. The democratic scrutiny is weakend by one more level of indirection.

However, this does not apply to the present case, where the Council of Ministers and the EU Pariliament have to co-operate in the legislative process. Even if the -- democratically elected -- ministers should vote to back software patentability, the EU Parliament would get another chance to oppose this bill in it's second reading, albeit with stricter requirements of majority.

EU and Democracy

Posted May 11, 2004 22:55 UTC (Tue) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link]

Fair enough. Put together two sides:
side 1: Parliament
side 2: Council

Now, theh two sides have to do something and each of them has it's own,
subjective, opinion and motives. Would the discussion be fair, if one side,
let's say, the Parliament, has to ask the other side, what to do about it, but the other side, let's say, the Council, does not have to ask the Parliament anything to do take action regarding to the given issue?


Copyright © 2004, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds