|
|
| EU Patent News - Gates Visiting EU Parliament & Denmark Throws Some Helpful Tacks On the Road |
 |
|
Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 11:01 AM EST
|
LWN has the best explanation of the next steps in the software patent debate in Europe I've seen yet. At least, I can understand it. I can't vouch for accuracy, because I have no experience in EU law. But I think you'll find it of interest, and it's the first time I grasped the process in my mind clearly. At all, actually. On February 2nd, the article says, JURI is set to decide whether or not to restart the procedure. I also have some news. Two Groklaw readers in Denmark say it's in the papers there that Denmark is joining Poland in trying to slow the vote down long enough for a restart, hopefully. That's the good news. Here's the bad. Guess who is headed to Europe and arrives the day before the JURI meeting on the 2nd? Bill Gates himself. This is getting to be like an old James Bond flick.
Our Danish friend says: "Danish newspapers report, that Denmark will now oppose placing the
software patent directive as an A-item on Council meetings until the 8th
of February.
This is due to election for Danish parliament, that will be held at the
8th of February.
"Maybe it will help Poland's position, and also give EU Parliament the
necessary time for the restart process."
If you read Danish, you can confirm it here and here. Ole translates the key sentence in the story like this: "The question of software patents was on the agenda during the meeting of the European subcommittee Friday, where minister of foreign affairs Per Stig Møller insured that Denmark will block acceptance of the directive prior to the Danish Parliament election." Another reader wrote to his MEP in Ireland, Avril Doyle, and the communication he got back from a staffer told him that Gates will be visiting the EU Parliament on February 1, next Tuesday, to meet with a "select group" of MEPs on the issue of software patents and "other issues". Let me guess. Like how to ram software patents down everyone's throat before they have time to gag, maybe? Followed shortly thereafter by the destruction of Microsoft's pesky Linux competition through patent infringement lawsuits, perchance? The rest of the letter was the usual, all about how necessary it is to have some sort of "compromise" and here is the path ahead from her perspective:
"As regards the democratic process, the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions falls under the codecision procedure. This means that the Parliament and the Council have equal decision making powers in passing the legislation. After the Council's Common Position is produced, the Parliament will have another opportunity to amend the bill before the Council examines it for a second and final time. Mrs. Doyle will have the opportunity to submit amendments to the legislation when it is referred to the Industry, Research and Energy Committee for an Opinion. The timetable has not yet been finalised, however I am informed that the Parliament´s Second Reading is due for adoption in June of this year.
"If you have any suggested amendments, or would like any further information from our side, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please be assured that Mrs Doyle is actively involved in finding a good compromise on the patenting of computer implemented inventions, one that is not based on the US patent system."
Her position is that she is against the patenting of "pure software", but "recognizes the need for certainty and for a clear legal framework to be set down by legislators rather than established purely on a case-by-case basis," and says: "Software patenting is not something that can simply be ignored" because of WIPO. And by the way, a press release attached to the email she sent him was in -- you guessed it -- Microsoft Word format.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 11:12 AM EST |
| So they are easy to find! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 11:14 AM EST |
| <A HREF="http://www.example.com">Clickable link</A> [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT M$ opens its XML standards for Office 2003 due to MA (Massachusetts) Pressure - Authored by: webster on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 12:20 PM EST
- OT Old James Bond Films - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 12:48 PM EST
- OT: Activists Urge Free Open-Source Software - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 01:03 PM EST
- OTSupport for Linux in the financial services has more than doubled - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 01:46 PM EST
- OT (?) Bill Gates praises China - Authored by: bmcmahon on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 07:18 PM EST
- OT Bill Gates is betting against the U.S. dollar. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 08:11 PM EST
- OT Bill Gates is betting against the U.S. dollar. - Authored by: rweiler on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 08:22 PM EST
- OK - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 10:26 PM EST
- OK - Authored by: rweiler on Monday, January 31 2005 @ 12:44 AM EST
- OK - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2005 @ 02:42 AM EST
- OK - Authored by: TerryC on Monday, January 31 2005 @ 08:07 AM EST
- Re: Iraqi War - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2005 @ 08:51 AM EST
- Rates up? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2005 @ 03:13 AM EST
- OK Its not low taxes as such, it's debt. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2005 @ 05:02 PM EST
- Ermmm... isn't this close to stock manipulation? - Authored by: Darkelve on Monday, January 31 2005 @ 04:52 AM EST
- OT: Gates Doodles - Authored by: LarryVance on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 10:25 PM EST
- UK Patent office meeting in December - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2005 @ 04:21 AM EST
- What would happen? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2005 @ 11:26 AM EST
- OT Astroturfing - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 10:35 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: webster on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 11:21 AM EST |
In urging MEP's to reject software patents is it accurate to say that software
already enjoys copyright protection in Europe? Would that be effective?
Copyright protection is precise and clear. Patent protection leads to a
coinflip battle between two vague descriptions with the patent holder getting
three flips.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 11:46 AM EST |
It's disgusting. I'm so disgusted at the a** kissing Gates is doing that I
can't think straight. Gotta mull this over... Europeans beware... your democracy
has been compromised.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 11:49 AM EST |
What is wrong with the compromise that Stallman and others proposes?
Copyrights, should be the foundation to software. And may I say that the only
compromise is one where the debate is about the term of copyright protection for
software. A program idea is only functional once it is actual code that works.
There is no way, in a patent's typical description language, to EXACTLY decribe
the ACTUAL working of any piece of code. The code speaks for itself! There is
no other way to say what a program does without the code being the only factor
in the examination of the description. A lawyers wording to try to describe
what happens is going to fall dramaticly short of any degree of accuracy. Of
course we have stages of development typically called Alpha, Beta, Pre-release,
etc... that needs protection as well., but shouldn't copyright also protect
these, even as they are being written LINE by LINE?
What the EU and the debaters have been trying to do all along is to merge
copyright and patents? Why bring the patent into this equation at all (unles
you are trying to reduce the term of protection to patent terms of protection vs
the longer copyright term of protection)?
Software only needs the code that was produced protected for a limited period of
time (7 years would be a good place to start)!
As far as the "computer invention" or hardware, isn't that independent
of the software? And isn't this design based on past practices where it is an
open standard that is followed?
Copyright is all they need. Why don't the get it? Is the Microsoft and
pro-patent groups FUD so thick so as to not see the forest thru the trees?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hawk on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 11:54 AM EST |
Some time ago I wrote to the leading party in Denmark to ask (among other
things) whether they thought it was OK to get software-patents in "through the
back door".
I thought the election (February 8th) would make them likely to
answer thoughtfully.
The answer went something like (heavily paraphrased, it
was actually long, polite, and quite well-written):
Our stance:
software-patents is good for business
We have them anyway, but it is
"de-facto" and it is hard for the companies to figure out how to do it
right.
Those other questions, about democracy and such? Oh, I forgot
those...
I actually wrote that I reserved the right to publish their answer
on the Internet, unless they explicitly told me otherwise. They did not, so I
guess I could put it up here if anyone is interested. (It is in Danish)
PS:
One thing you should know about the government in Denmark is that it consists of
several parties. Even in combination, they rarely (if ever) have a majority of
votes in the parliament. This makes a difference in the EU, since the
governments have separate votes (like in this case). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chris Lingard on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 12:03 PM EST |
The history of Software Patent Act has been mis-reported so I thought
that
I would state the facts that I have found out. What has happened
has nothing to
do with lack of democracy within the European Parliament,
but has to do with the
secretive actions of the Council of Ministers.
Many thanks to the
MEPs, of all parties, who have spoken to me, and those who did the leg-work, and
asked ministers within the council.
First a brief introduction to
European politics.
The upper house is the Council of Ministers and
is
attended by a minister from each of the EU's 25 national
governments, their
identites depending on what is on the
agenda ; they fly into Brussels from their
national
capitals, after having their national governments
tell them what to do
and how to vote, then they fly
out again. For example, if something was very
important
to the United Kingdom; then Prime Minister Tony Blair
could fly
over.
The upper house is like an international conference, and
is
secretive as to what deals have been done.
The lower house is the
European Parliament is composed
of 732 directly-elected MEPs. This is fairly
open, and this
is the one we must lobby. For instance Sir
William Gates has
visited and bought lunches for MEPs.
I was quite shocked to find that large
non-European companies
lobby here; but have now found out that most very large
companies
lobby in most countries; (and some of these companies are
European).
The Software Patent Act has had its first reading in
the
lower house; and is now in the upper house. It needs three
readings, (both
Council and Parliament), before it can become law.
The Council of
Ministers agreed their Common Position (ie their first
reading) last May 2004,
by voting in secret as always. The Commission
proposal was passed by the
necessary majority, and with the Poles in
favour. Amendments made by the prior
first reading in the lower house
were removed, (as is their right). The Act
could now return to Parliament
for its second reading by MEPs.
First
however, the technical procedure was that the Council's agreed
text had to be
put into all 20 EU official languages and then checked
against each other for
accuracy. This step has taken the Council many
months - because of Enlargement
of the EU last May by ten more countries
which obliged the Council to recruit
more people, some inexperienced.
Finally, their fully-checked
all-language version was ready - two weeks
ago - and it went back onto the
agenda of the next meeting of Ministers
in the Council, for automatic approval,
without debate, being taken
first and known as an "A" point. This has to happen
because, under EU
law, a Minister has to give agreement and not an
official.
It so happened that the next available meeting was of
Agriculture
ministers ten days ago, and so the Software proposal went onto
their
agenda for technical nodding-through. However, the Poles annnounced that
a
mistake had been made and that they are actually against the latest
Council
proposal as it stands. It so happened, that the Poles, by
changing their
position, found they held the swing vote, and tipped the
majority against
approval. Council officials protested that this just is
not done, that it had
been agreed last May, and the Poles have no
constitutional right to do
that.
The Poles reply that there are no recorded Minutes of last
May's meeting
(nor of any Council meeting) nor a visual tape, only an audio tape
but,
listening to it, it does not record how each national minister cast
his
vote last May. The proposal went back onto this Monday's
Agriculture
Council agenda again as an "A" point - but, the dispute being still
unresolved,
was withdrawn again. It is now pencilled in for the General Affairs
Council on Monday 31st January.
The moral of this sorry tale is that
the Council of Ministers should
legislate in public, as every other parliament
in the world does except
perhaps in North Korea and Beijing.
There
should be minutes of a meeting, the draft, and the vote; but this was secret;
so
Poland could be right that the draft has been changed. But this is the fault
of
the Council; and not the European parliament.
Please note that until
this act is rubber-stamped and returns to the
lower house; then no MEP can take
any action at all. If the Council
voted again, then it should be rejected; but
there is no precedent
since the first reading vote has already been made. (But
then there
is no precedent to challange the rubber-stamping of this
act).
The Legal Committee, known as "JURI", belongs to the
lower
house, it has been reported that it can strike this act.
There is no way that a
lower house committee can effect an Act under the
remit of the
Council.
Here is the JURI
JURI
And see the agenda. Other than item 17, which is unclear; there is no mention of
patents.
If an act reaches a second or third reading, then it
becomes
much more difficult to change it; it requires a large
majority vote
relative to the total number of MEP, and not
the number present in the house.
But this act can be amended; if
the lower house and the Council fail to agree
after the third reading,
then the Act fails.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 12:03 PM EST |
Proponents of software patents keep saying that they're not in favor of 'pure
software' patents, but rather of patents protecting inventions dependent on
embedded software. How then does this explain Microsoft's extreme interest? If
'pure software' patents aren't envisioned, then they shouldn't have a stake one
way or another, wouldn't you think?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The EU should consider what happened to... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 12:32 PM EST
- EU Patent News - Gates Visiting EU Parliament & Denmark Thows Some Helpful Tacks On the Road - Authored by: Nigel on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 12:42 PM EST
- Microsoft, is looking to embedded software as computers will change to mobile devices! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 12:43 PM EST
- This is how we lose our liberties - Authored by: Frihet on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 02:48 PM EST
- No!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 03:07 PM EST
- No!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 03:55 PM EST
- No!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 06:12 PM EST
- No!! - Authored by: AJWM on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 09:32 PM EST
- Devices Again - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 03:03 PM EST
- Embedded devices? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2005 @ 12:29 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Darkelve on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 12:41 PM EST |
The best way to convince the rest of the 'ecosystem' that you are not the
cornered prey, pretend you're the predator.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eskild on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 12:43 PM EST |
Clarification:
The subcommittee on European Union affairs of the Danish Parliament.
Not every matter for the European Council is presented to parliament before the
meetings of the council. It cannot be as debates in the parliament are open to
the public and meetings of the Council are not. As Parliamentary subcommitees
are closed to the public and the parties are all represented there, it was
decided back in 1972 that all matters to be discussed in the Council, should be
according to a mandate given by the European subcommitte
---
Eskild
Denmark[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Pop69 on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 01:32 PM EST |
Interesting to see that it's Bill himself who's doing the rounds in Europe.
Obviously Europe require a little more subtlety than to just send Steve Ballmer
to make his "protection" speech about IP.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 02:13 PM EST |
Not tacks, but caltrops. The ancient ones were solid and would hurt the horsies'
hooves. The modern ones are hollow; they still hurt the horsies' hooves, and
they let the air of the tires of Hummers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 02:44 PM EST |
| I'd disagree with that translation. The text:
Jeg har bedt
udenrigsminister Per Stig Møller om at bekræfte, at Danmark vil modsætte sig at
direktivforslaget bliver sat på dagsorden som A-punkt under et minister-rådsmøde
i EU så længe valgkampen kører. Det har han bekræftet,« siger SF's it-ordfører
Anne Grete Holmsgaard til ComON.
Reads, in full
translation:
I have asked foreign minister Per Stig Moeller to
confirm, that Denmark will oppose the proposed diretive as an A-item on the
agenda for EU Council meetings during the election campaign. He has confirmed
that." said SF's IT-chairmain Anne Grete Holmsgaard to
ComON.
So it's worth noting it's not a quote straight from
Moeller, but from Holmsgaard, a member of the SF = Socialist party (who are
anti-SW-patents). Moeller is a conservative.
The article also mentions that
the DF (Danish peoples' party) also wants a stay on the issue until after the
elections in Denmark. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Naich on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 04:05 PM EST |
Before you write to anyone, if possible find out how they stand on this
directive so you can make your case in a way they will be sympathetic with.
I've sent basically the same letter to MEPs, MPs and government offices about my
oposition to software patents, and all those that replied (which is probably
about 40% of the people I contacted) have said the same thing - "we are
against software patents too". Even the guy from the patent office!
Now, it's fairly clear that this directive will allow software patents in
through the back door. The difference in the replies came when they talked
about the directive.
The official line from the UK patent office is that this directive will prevent
the patenting of pure software. Read that again. Does it make any more sense
this time? No, me neither. However, that is the line of the directive's
supporters and that is the point to address when contacting them. Do they
believe it, or have they got another agenda? It doesn't matter. There is
absolutely no point in ranting about how software patents are bad; they will
just agree with you. Make it clear that you think this bill will have the
opposite effect to the one they think it will have. Use examples of ridiculous
patents that have already been granted to make your case. See
http://webshop.ffii.org/ for some good (or should that be bad?) examples.
For those opposed to this directive, make it clear how badly their support is
needed to stop it becoming law.
Rant over. Sorry to preach.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 06:12 PM EST |
The answer to politicians sending word docs in opposition to software patents is
surely to return them saying "unfortunately I cannot read this document
because I refuse to violate software patents even though I do not agree with
them".
It may not be 100% of the truth, but maybe it would make the sender think.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Prototrm on Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 06:29 PM EST |
| Like how to ram software patents down everyone's throat before they have
time to gag, maybe?
This certainly doesn't sound like a James Bond flick.
Is anyone else reminded of the face-hugger creature in the Alien movies? Same
sad result for the EU, I fear. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2005 @ 12:36 PM EST |
| Anyone got a list of the MEPs (Avril Doyle et al.) meeting Gates
tomorrow?
Fax 'em this:
If people had
understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented
and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete stand-still
today. The solution . . . is patent exchanges . . . and patenting as much as we
can. . . . A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay
whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high:
Established companies have an interest in excluding future
competitors.
(Bill Gates, 1991, according to Fred Warshofsky, The
Patent Wars 170-71, NY: Wiley 1994)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2005 @ 01:50 PM EST |
"There's a war out there old friend - A world war - and it's not about
who's got the most bullets; it's about who controls the information. What we see
and hear, how we work, what we think, it's all about the information!"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 09:11 AM EST |
Any news about the meeting????
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 09:16 AM EST |
I checked the meeting agenda of JURI on 02 Feb 2005, but there is no mention on
software patents. Unless it is covered under teh "other issues"
topic.
Anyone wiht first hand information?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
