|
|
| Now it's the Dutch: Parliament Votes to Block A Item on SW Patents Directive |
 |
|
Thursday, February 10 2005 @ 06:25 PM EST
|
The Dutch Parliament today voted against software patents being approved as an A item, 71 to 69 and asks the goverment to oppose it. It was anticipated that it might otherwise have been rubber stamped on February 17. Here's the story in Dutch. Tako Schotanus wrote to me to explain what it is saying: This vote is seen as a lending a hand to the EU parliament that wants to restart the process. The motion accepted in the House of Representatives blocks the possibility that the original proposal will pass as an A item.
If it's up to the House of Representatives the proposal won't be allowed to appear as an A item on the agenda of the EU Council of Ministers.
The Dutch Secretary of State of Economic Affairs said that the motion could pose problems for Luxemburg and that Luxemburg would be "wise" enough not to rush the proposal.
But the House didn't seem impressed and several members expressed the fear that Luxemburg would try to put the proposal on the agenda next Thursday.
I'm telling you. This is better than a movie.
Sietse translates a portion of the article like this: What the opponents in the House of Commons two weeks ago could not
pull off succeeded Thursday evening. A majority of the chamber
voted for a motion of Arda Gerkens in which the government was called
not to agree with the European directive for software patents.
If Luxembourg (at this moment the President of
the European Commission) wants nevertheless to put the directive on the
agenda, the Dutch government must resist, the Dutch Chamber
has decided.
"This is an important step", says Gerkens after the poll. "Also for the
European Parliament this a thumbs-up. It becomes now more difficult for
the European Commission to reject the request of the parliament to start
the procedure again. I am very happy."
Here's a translation of the Dutch motion:
Text of Motion passed by NL Parliament to block A-item
The Parliament,
Having heard the deliberations,
Considering the uniqueness of the European Parliament wanting to invoke article 55 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament,
Considering that not waiting for the answer of the Commission to the request of the European Parliament to restart the procedure concerning the software patents could lead to a serious clash of the European Institutions,
Considering that in order to avoid a possible clash of the Institutions it would be good to wait for the decision of the Commission concerning the restart of the procedure,
Calls upon the government to devote themselves to ensuring that the subject of software patents will not be put on the agenda as an A-Item before the Commission has answered the request of the European Parliament to restart this dossier.
And proceeds to the order of the day.
There is a demonstration and press conference planned by FFII, I gather, for next week in Brussels, and they have a cute banner, the one that says segmentation fault. Here are some more links for those interested: [1]http://www.sp.nl/db/nieuws/kamernieuwspage.html/2993 - comments by Arda Gerkens
[2]http://wiki.ffii.org/SapEp0411En - evidence regarding business methods patents
[3] http://swpat.ffii.org/log/03/telcos1107/telcoceos031107.txt
[4] http://demo.ffii.org And here's part of the FFII's press release. They sound as surprised as I am.
*************************************
The Hague, 10 February 2005 -- The Dutch Parliament just has adopted a
motion requesting its government to prevent the software patents
directive from appearing as an A-item on the Council agenda before the
Commission has answered the European Parliament's request to restart the
directive. State Secretary Van Gennip has confirmed she will execute the
motion as intended. It is now the Commission's turn to act.
Halfway the preceding debate, Van Gennip admitted that she would think
it be "unwise" if Luxembourg would put the issue on the agenda next
week. A subsequent question from the Parliament asking her why she then
did not want to support a delay, put her in a difficult position. Her
only defense was that she did not want to obstruct the Council
Presidency.
The motion, filed by MP Arda Gerkens from the SP, was later on adopted
with a narrow majority of 71 votes in favour and 69 against. Support
came from PvdA, SP, GroenLinks, D66, ChristenUnie and LPF. CDA, VVD and
SGP voted against. Van Gennip was not very eager to obey the motion, but
nevertheless confirmed she will follow it.
The motion is important because despite the request of the Legal Affairs
Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament to the Commission to provide
a new proposal, the Council still aimed to adopt its beleaguered text.
During the past weeks, several sources had indicated that the directive
would be placed as an A-item (i.e., a formal point without discussion)
on the agenda of the Council meeting on Economy and Financial Affairs,
which starts at 10 o'clock on 17 February. That same day, at noon, the
Conference of Presidents of the EP will normally formally submit the
JURI request for a restart to the Commission.
"By attempting to preempt both the decision of the Conference of
Presidents and the reply from the Commission, the Council was trying to
extend its state of denying that there is anything wrong", Jonas Maebe,
board member of FFII, said. "The Dutch Parliament temporarily puts the
Council sausage machine on hold, so that the other EU institutions get
time to work things out properly. I just hope the Dutch government will
actually execute this motion."
In July 2004, the Dutch Parliament already adopted a motion calling upon
its government to refrain from further supporting the Council text. The
Dutch government has refused to carry out this motion, and said that it
would only change positions if discussions were reopened.
The FFII is organising a demonstration in support of the Dutch
Parliament and the EP's Conference of Presidents on 17 February in
Brussels, when the Council intended to adopt its May 2004 text as an
A-item. A press conference will be held at the Marriott Renaissance on
19, Rue du Parnasse, from 13h30 to 14h30.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Chris Lingard on Thursday, February 10 2005 @ 06:39 PM EST |
As the heading says
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DBLR on Thursday, February 10 2005 @ 06:55 PM EST |
Place corrections here for P.J to find.
Charles
---
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, February 10 2005 @ 07:32 PM EST |
But it looks like the European model is just too vulnerable to manipulation to
be fair and effective. I find it astonishing the way the Council of Ministers
has acted without any regard for the will of the European Parliament. The
European Presidency almost appears to be bought and paid for by corporate
special interests.
---
Life is funnier from the far end.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Thursday, February 10 2005 @ 07:33 PM EST |
Whatever happened to the 'Thank Poland' letter? I thought it was to be delivered
at the end of January.
---
"The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of
disability is an essential aspect." -- Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the WWW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 10 2005 @ 07:47 PM EST |
We need to see a binding resolution that results in a no-confidence measure if
ignored. Otherwise, the EC representatives of the member countries are free to
do whatever they want.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 10 2005 @ 07:53 PM EST |
... any celebrations are premature; we've been here before and it's never to
late for lobbyists (bribery artists) to grease a few more palms.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rezende on Thursday, February 10 2005 @ 08:24 PM EST |
| On the topic of why some want so badly to "harmonize" patent laws worldwide,
Slashdot just featured a scarry story,
carried by Booomberg and Japan Times:
"The Tokyo District Court has
ordered the destruction of Ichitaro, a software product that is the only serious
competitor in Japan to Microsoft Word, and has been on sale since 1985. The
ruling is based on the claim of a competitor, Matsushita, that the use of a help
icon to invoke a help function infinges on one of their patents. "We are a
global enterprise and we are just following international practice to enforce
our IP rights," Kitadeya (Matsushita) said.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 2 Questions - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 12:23 AM EST
- 2 Questions - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 03:21 AM EST
- 2 Questions - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 07:44 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: ruurd on Thursday, February 10 2005 @ 08:32 PM EST |
| Mind you, the Dutch House of Commons merely decided that
it doesn't want to
ruffle a lot of feathers between
various institutions of the EU. The motion
ONLY says that
the Dutch oppose handling this as an A-item because they
think that is procedurally unwise. I'm afraid that in
Dutch politics there
is still too much support for EU
software patents :-(
OTOH,
Gerkens made a politically astute move by not going
into software patents but
targetting EU procedure in her
motion. Kudos, I'd say! ---
--
Ruurd [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AntiFUD on Thursday, February 10 2005 @ 08:37 PM EST |
I wonder if someone with a knowledge of the instant EU Directive, the current
EPO approach to software patents, and/or the USPTO could comment on my fear that
a holder of a Software patent in one, any or all of these jurisdictions could
take a Government agency (not necessarily the patent holder's Government) to
court over their use of software that infringes or might infringe their patent?
While I would anticipate that a software developer might be required to provide
a major corporation or Government Agency with some form of indemnification they
(the developer) may not have sufficient financial standing to withstand what
might possibly a multi-million lawsuit. Think here of a developer who writes
custom trading software for an Investment Bank such as Merrill-Lynch. If I was
the sw patent holder wouldn't it behoove me to go after the deepest pockets?
I vaguely recall recently reading a comment here about a software patent which
related to the use of a wireless LAN in an educational environment ... my
question here is, if my fear is not misplaced, are the politicians in the US
and/or the EU aware of the potential for an unscrupulous software patent holder
to bring an educational or healthcare system down - I know that any sane court
would not allow an injunction that would jeopardize the public's welfare - but
it could have serious financial repercussions, and although if the UK
Government's recent computer snafu's are anything to go by - not serious
political repercussions.
---
IANAL - But IAAAMotFSF - Free to Fight FUD
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jldill22 on Thursday, February 10 2005 @ 10:08 PM EST |
Can anyone point me to a short (not longer than 10 or 15 pages of reasonable
sized type) explanation in reasonably clear English of how the EU government
functions in respect of decisions to adopt or reject proposals of the nature of
the current patent proposal before various EU governing bodies. The explanation
should deal in general and broad terms with the functions of and decision making
procedures of the different EU bodies that appear to have a say in the matter
(e.g., and without limitation, the Commission, JURI, the Agricultural and
Fisheries Commitee, the Council and the European Parliament). I get hints about
these things from reading what is going on from day to day in the patent
proposal process, but the whole thing is fairly unclear.
Furthermore, while I can see, given the nature of the EU, why its Parliament is
not the only, or perhaps even the key, decision making body, it is a little
dumbfounding to discover that the only popularly elected body in the EU does not
have an easily exercisable veto. Why is this?
Finally, what scope do the national governments have to decide what is is local
patent statute law? I gather the national courts are autonomous in interpreting
locally, the effect both of local legislation and EU legislation. However,
aside from the courst, is the wrong battle being fought? Are the national
governments' powers in the area equally or more important?
Some reports seem to say it does not matter what happens at the level of the EU,
the national governments will frustrate any attempt to limit SW patents. If so,
is not the converse true and the fight should be taken to the individual
countries' government, to achieve the desired result. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hanzie on Thursday, February 10 2005 @ 10:19 PM EST |
Well, on the bright side (for the U.S. at least) once software patents have
force of law everywhere, we can go back to our good old colonialism.
Legalizing software patents is like multi-level marketing. The first ones in
mostly U.S. companies, make all the money. The new guys see the mountains of
cash the early adopters made, and sign up too.
Unfortunately for the newcomers, they end up paying forever, and the founders
just keep raking in the cash.
It's a sucker game, and the EU seems blinded by greed.
That is, of course, only my opinion. Reality may be different.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Long term affects - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 04:24 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: josmith42 on Thursday, February 10 2005 @ 10:32 PM EST |
That's why we're all here! At least, I wouldn't be here if it weren't.
:-) ---
This comment was typed using the Dvorak keyboard layout. :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 01:04 AM EST |
First, Poland resists. Then, the Netherlands. The guerrilla war goes on - And I
love it. Yes, to have to go on resisting these high handed, arrogant,
know-it-all, totally unscrupulous Eurocrats is frustrating, but the outcome of
not resisting is worse. I respectfully bow to our friends all over the European
Community, who are fighting back effectively every day in spite of the odds that
are so heavily rigged against them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 01:59 AM EST |
> The Dutch Secretary of State of Economic Affairs
Note: This is a (too litteral) translation of the Dutch "Staatssecretaris
voor Economische Zaken". A more correct translation would be:
Underminister of Economic Affairs.
Toon Moene (not logged in while at work)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 02:19 AM EST |
It has less to do with software patents than you might think. The reason this
happened was that one of the parties in goverment has voted with the leftwing
opposition. This is not done normally, but ...
... there is a fight between the goverment parties over limiting basic civil
rights for muslims in order to combat terrorism, and this small party (D66) is
making a statement that their viewpoint cannot be ignored without consequences.
Luckily the battle against software patents profited from this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 03:23 AM EST |
| Well, it makes me proud to be Dutch ;-). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 04:29 AM EST |
This is the only way.
The multinationals say patents is not a threat for small business... but they
are making cross-license agreements...
The Patent Office say that pure software will not be patentable... but they are
patenting also their own mothers...
Block the directive and trust no one friends. :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jochietoch on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 04:42 AM EST |
Mind you, this is 'just' a parliamentary motion. The government can still choose
to ignore it. Parliament could then choose to send them home, but they won't.
Not over this: they feel there's currently more important issues at hand.
Note that, although it's not in the translations, the original article says that
the government already urged parliament not to pass this motion. So I wouldn't
cheer yet. On this very same issue the current Dutch government has ignored a
very clear motion of parliament (i.e. to abstain from voting) before.
This may be hard to understand for some, but the E.U. has evolved from an
international organisation working on the basis of treaties, that are signed by
governments and then ratified by parliaments. So the governments play a central
role in making legislation: there is no separation of powers.
The consequence is, that what is in fact an act af legislation is treated like
an executive act of government--controlled by motions of parliament. In the
Netherlands, the government may ignore motions; this sometimes makes sense when
it's about executive decisions, but it's obviously just wrong when legislation
is at stake.
Unfortunately, the E.U. is not a complete democracy per se, although it is
moving in that direction. The system still has lots of flaws. This is one of
them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No cheers yet - Authored by: eskild on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 04:54 AM EST
- No cheers yet - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 06:08 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: billyskank on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 07:32 AM EST |
I don't see where it states that the Council of Ministers can ram through a law
regardless of whether the Parliament agrees. Article III-302 states:
Article III-302
1. Where, pursuant to the Constitution, European laws or framework laws are
adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure the following provisions shall
apply.
2. The Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the
Council of Ministers.
First reading
3. The European Parliament shall adopt its position at first reading and
communicate it to the Council of Ministers.
4. If the Council of Ministers approves the European Parliament’s position, the
proposed act shall be adopted.
5. If the Council of Ministers does not approve the European Parliament’s
position, it shall adopt its position at first reading and communicate it to the
European Parliament.
6. The Council of Ministers shall inform the European Parliament fully of the
reasons which led it to adopt its position at first reading. The Commission
shall inform the European Parliament fully of its position.
Second reading
7. If, within three months of such communication, the European Parliament
(a) approves the position of the Council of Ministers at first reading or has
not taken a decision, the proposed act shall be deemed to have been adopted;
(b) rejects, by a majority of its component members, the position of the Council
of Ministers at first reading, the proposed act shall be deemed not to have been
adopted;
(c) proposes, by a majority of its component members, amendments to the position
of the Council of Ministers at first reading, the text thus amended shall be
forwarded to the Council of Ministers and to the Commission, which shall deliver
an opinion on those amendments.
8. If, within three months of receiving the European Parliament’s amendments,
the Council of Ministers, acting by a qualified majority,
(a) approves all those amendments, the act in question shall be deemed to have
been adopted;
(b) does not approve all the amendments, the President of the Council of
Ministers, in agreement with the President of the European Parliament, shall
within six weeks convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee.
9. The Council of Ministers shall act unanimously on the amendments on which the
Commission has delivered a negative opinion.
Conciliation
10. The Conciliation Committee, which shall be composed of the members of the
Council of Ministers or their representatives and an equal number of members
representing the European Parliament, shall have the task of reaching agreement
on a joint text, by a qualified majority of the members of the Council of
Ministers or their representatives and by a majority of the members representing
the European Parliament within six weeks of its being convened, on the
basis of the positions of the Parliament and the Council of Ministers at second
reading.
11. The Commission shall take part in the Conciliation Committee’s proceedings
and shall take all the necessary initiatives with a view to reconciling the
positions of the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
12. If, within six weeks of its being convened, the Conciliation Committee does
not approve the joint text, the proposed act shall be deemed not to have been
adopted.
Third reading
13. If, within that period, the Conciliation Committee approves a joint text,
the European Parliament, acting by a majority of the votes cast, and the Council
of Ministers, acting by a qualified majority, shall each have a period of six
weeks from that date in which to adopt the act in question in accordance with
the joint text. If they fail to do so, the proposed act shall be deemed not to
have been adopted.
14. The periods of three months and six weeks referred to in this Article shall
be extended by a maximum of one month and two weeks respectively at the
initiative of the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers.
Special provisions
15. Where, in the cases specifically provided for in the Constitution, a law or
framework law is submitted to the ordinary legislative procedure on the
initiative of a group of Member States, on a recommendation by the European
Central Bank, or at the request of the Court of Justice or the European
Investment Bank, paragraph 2, the second sentence of paragraph 6, and paragraph
9 shall not apply.
The European Parliament and the Council of Ministers shall communicate the
proposed act to the Commission with their positions at first and second
readings.
The European Parliament or the Council of Ministers may request the opinion of
the Commission throughout the procedure. The Commission also may deliver an
opinion on its own initiative. It may, if it deems it necessary, take part in
the Conciliation Committee on the terms laid down in
paragraph 11.
---
It's not the software that's free; it's you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nb on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 07:50 AM EST |
Suppose that in spite of everything that has been said and done so far, the
software patents directive still gets nodded through as an "A item" on
Feb 17.
As a EU citizen, I'd feel mightily cheated in that case. Would it be possible
to ask some European court to review whether proper procedures were followed in
the matter, and possibly declare the decision "null and void"?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 09:03 AM EST |
Below please find a news report from German news agency dpa that appeared a few
minutes ago.
It says that a speaker of Commissioner McCreevy confirmed that the Council
will,
contrary to original plans, *not* have the swpat directive on its agenda for the
17th (Thursday of next week)!
The spokesperson furthermore said that the Commissioner is "very
dissatisfied" with that development.
He said that in this case it's not because of Poland but "for other
reasons" that he didn't want to explain.
There's all sorts of things going on as we know -- in various countries.
The decisions by the Spanish and Dutch parliaments are official.
There's unofficial things happening in some other countries,
and it's also quite possible that the German government realized it was not a
good idea in first place to have
a Council decision just hours before a debate in the Bundestag.
This is a major blow for the Council and the Commission.
Florian
http://www.aachener-zeitung.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=450242&_wo=Sport:Aktuell
&_wobild=menue_sport.gif&template=az_detail_standard_dpa
Tauziehen um Software-Patente in der EU geht weiter
Brüssel (dpa) - Entgegen erster Pläne werden sich die EU-Staaten nicht in
der kommenden Woche auf ihr EU-Gesetz für Software-Patente einigen.
Der Punkt stehe nicht mehr auf der Tagesordnung der EU- Ministerratssitzung
am Donnerstag (17. Februar), sagte ein Sprecher von EU-Binnenmarktkommissar
Charlie McCreevy am Freitag in Brüssel. Einen neuen Termin gibt es bisher
nicht.
Der irische Kommissar sei mit dieser Entwicklung sehr unzufrieden, sagte der
Sprecher. Die weitere Verschiebung liege nicht an Polen, das lange die
Entscheidung blockierte. Es gebe hingegen andere Gründe, die er nicht näher
erläuterte. Mit der Richtlinie soll die bisher in den einzelnen Staaten
abweichende Praxis der Patentvergabe vereinheitlicht werden.
(11.02.2005 | 13:59 Uhr)
rgds
/Arthur[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 10:18 AM EST |
| ...if the directive appears as an A-item on the 17th -- which it most likely
will not, judging from recent comments from the Council and Commission.
More
information in FFII's press
release.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 11 2005 @ 01:02 PM EST |
71 vs 69 ???
And they say a single man cannot change history?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
