|
|
| Transcript of EU Commission Meeting on Software Patent Directive |
 |
|
Monday, March 07 2005 @ 09:57 PM EST
|
Groklaw's AdamBaker has been kind enough to do a quick, rough translation of the audio that FFII made available of the EU Commission meeting that ended up passing the software patent directive as an A-Item. See the previous article for background. If any of you see refinements/corrections that need to be made, please offer them. But this will certainly give you a picture of the overview. The biggest question on the table is, why didn't Denmark ask that the A-Item be withdrawn, instead of folding to Luxembourg's interpretation? I also note that the Chairman thinks the debate is between business and end users. The real issue is not that simple. There are many GNU/Linux businesses that are opposed to software patents. Red Hat is one example. To say that there needs to be a compromise so the rights of businesses and end users are each respected, as he did, is to misunderstand the real issue here, which is that millions of people -- and businesses that sell to them -- depend upon GNU/Linux software and don't want Microsoft or any proprietary software bullies to try to shut down FOSS development by using flimsy patent infringement lawsuits, empowered by bad law, as an anticompetitive weapon. What is at stake is the future of FOSS, nothing less.
****************************
Chairman (Luxembourg's Minister): [inaudible] We shall pass this up to the EP with a view to negotiation for final adoption of this very
important directive.
We shall transmit it today or tomorrow so that the Parliament can start working on it immediately
and so that there is no delay between our decision being made here and the beginning of work in
the Parliament.
May I conclude that with all delegations such as Spain which is voting against, Austria, Belgium
and Italy who are abstaining, can I take it that all delegations can accept the joint composition
and the accompanying explanatory memorandum as set out in the documents before us? Can the
Council also accept including in the minutes the statement made by the Commision as well as
statements made by the Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Dutch, Polish and Danish delegations I
think as they will be set out [sic] document before you?
[inaudible]
And we also have a statement on the part of Cyprus.
However I would just like to add two words, a few words on this point about the formalities of
adopting it, and I say this without wishing to reopen the debate today. We are all well aware of
the situation we are faced with and the doubts which have been expressed on this matter on
various sides.
We are adopting this common position today for institutional reasons and so as not to create a
precedent which might have the consequence of creating further delays in a very difficult
legislative process, which is a decision the Commision has taken of its own responsibities and we
thank the Commission for that.
I know a number of members including some of those I mentioned, Denmark, Poland, Portugal, would
have preferred the point we are dealing with here to be the subject of a B point discussion.
Our Council was not able to accept that. You may tell me that is a bad start for a presidency but
there are procedures we have to respect, and it would have imnplied undermining the whole logic of
the exercise as provided for under the procedures and which we have to conduct and by adopting
this as an A point. Any procedural decision would have [inaudible] second reading by the European
Parliament, and as I said when I appeared before the Commission for Legal Affairs of the Parliament
in January, it would be appropriate for the institutions to find an area of understanding, a
compromise which recognises the legitimate right expressed both by the business world and
users. It is not up to me today to sketch out all the various possibilities for compromise which
could be found in the substance in the months to come as it is quite clear that certain clarifications
will have to be made with respect to what we've just seen as being legal uncertainty in the
current Council decision.
I had indicated that I did not want a substantive discussion on this, but I did want to underline
these few points which demonstrate that the presidency and the Council have taken note of the
concern expressed by a number of countries who have stated that they wish to see a different
compromise.
There you are. I would not like to have any substantive discussion at this point. It is an A point
as far as the procedure is concerned.
Ben has asked me for the floor.
Denmark's Minister: Well, you know Denmark's wish is to see this proposal on the patenting of Computer Implemented
Inventions, we'd like to see this treated at this Council meeting as a B point. I have noted your
comments to the effect that you cannot accept that in so far as this is only the formal
confirmation of political agreement found in May last year, so the matter can go to the European
Parliament. I nonetheless think that the most appropriate thing would be to take the matter as a
B point, but if this is not possible I'm not going to stand in the way of the formal adoption of
the point. I will therefore regretfully submit a written statement to be included in the minutes.
The points in that statement will be pursued by us when this comes back to the council after the
European Parliament has concluded its second reading.
Thank You, Chairman.
Chairman: Thank You. I take note of your statement, and I thank you for your comments.
So, I think I can note. [Pause] Somebody doesn't want me to speak. They keep switching me off.
I'd like to invite the Council to adopt the other points on the list of A points. UPDATE: I am informed that the headline should read that it was a meeting of the EU Council, specifically a meeting of the Competetiveness Council, see here.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 10:36 PM EST |
Hey, twice in one week!
---
Wayne
telnet hatter.twgs.org
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 10:46 PM EST |
I guess my initial reaction is why did Denmark say
"I nonetheless think that the most appropriate thing would be to take the
matter as a B point, but if this is not possible I'm not going to stand in the
way of the formal adoption of the point"
That gave the go ahead to the chairman to pass it. So really it was Denmark's
Minister that really dropped the ball here.
If Denmark had then just objected then I think it would have been removed.
From previous reading of posts here I thought the chairman had not followed the
rules. Which I would view as much more serious then Denmark really just backed
down. It may be sad. But I think that is what happened.
Florida resident. I am in the US. so what do I really know about the EU.
I never thought I would watch something going on in the EU with such intrest.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 10:55 PM EST |
Is it possible an arrangement has been made.
There is an admittance by
the chairman that Poland,Denmark and Portugal want this dealt with as a B item.
She then states that procedure will be badly disrupted and so the item will be
dealt with as an A item but adds this comment:
It is not up to me today
to sketch out all the various possibilities for compromise which could be found
in the substance in the months to come as it is quite clear that certain
clarifications will have to be made with respect to what we've just seen as
being legal uncertainty in the current Council decision.
Has a deal been
done?
Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AntiFUD on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 11:02 PM EST |
I shall be most interested to see how the banks and other european financial,
securities and futures institutions welcome this directive once the submarine
patent holders start to file infringement suits against them as I believe has
happened in Chicago. As reported in the FT according to pj's article on Feb.
24.
While I appreciate that Banks don't lend large amounts to the major sponsors of
software patents, since such sponsors mainly rely on stock market investors - or
VC funding in the case of submarine patent holders - they do tend to have large
trading operations that rely almost exclusively on software based technologies
(all of which will now, unless there is a miracle in the EP, become subject to
software patents).
Do these institutions think that the software patent holders will go after
penniless GNU/Linux and FOSS developers when they can go against the deep
pockets of institutions that possibly (outside their IT departments) have not
the slightest clue about what software they are using to make their record
profits?
When will they wake up?
---
IANAL - But IAAAMotFSF - Free to Fight FUD
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 11:04 PM EST |
|
I used this wav file :
href=http://7thguard.net/files/council_adoption_attempt.wav
Transcript of the Council Meeting at March 7
2005. :
Today we shall pass this out to the EU parliament with due
to
negotiation for final adoption of this really important
directive. We shall
translate it today or tomorrow so that
parliament can start working on it
immediately so that
there is no delay between our decision be made here in
the
beginning of work in the parliament.
May i conclude that
with all delegations such as been
working against, Portugal Spain Italy who
are stating, can
i take it that all delegations can accept the joint
conversation and the accompanying in Spanish memorandum as
set out in the
documents before us.
Can the council also accept including in the
minutes the
statement made by the commission as wel as statements made
by the Hungarian, Lithuation, Dutch Polish and Danish
delegations i
think.. and they will be set out in the
documents before you.
/* The delegate of Cyprus raises his voice, and gets
'switched off'
*/
And we also have a statement on behalf of Cyprus.
Have I ..
I would just like to add two words, a few
words on this
point, as part of the formalities adopting it. I say this
without wishing to re-open the actual debate today. We are
all well aware
of the situation faced with an adapt which
we've been expecting on this
matter on various sides. We
are adopting this conversation today for
institutional
reasons. And so as not to create a precedent which might
have a consequence of creating further delays in very
difficult
legislative presidency which is at their
decision. The commission has taken
up her own
responsibilities and eh i thank the commission for that. I
know that a number of members including those i mentioned,
Poland ,
Portugal, would have preferred the point we're
dealing with here to be the
subject of a B-point
discussion at our Council. I was not able to accept
that.
You may tell me this is a vast operate presidency but
there are proceedings which we have to respect. And it
would have complete
undermined the whole logic of the
exercise as provided for under the
procedures and which we
have to conduct by adopting this bill .. excuse me
, by
adopting this, what is its name, point. Any ehh .. so
your
decision would open a door too to a second reading by
the EU parliament.
And as i said when i appeared before a commission for
Parliament
in January, it would be appropriate for the
institution to find a area of
understanding. A compromise
which recognizes the individious rights
expressed both by
the business world and users. It is not up to today to
sketch at all various possibilities for compromise which
could be found
on the substance in the months to come. As
it is quite clear that such
clarifications will have to be
made, due respect to what remains to be seen
as being
legal uncertainty in the current Council position.
I
had indicated that i did not want a substantive
discussion on this, but i
did want to underline these few
points which demonstrate that the
presidency and the
council have taken notes on concerns expressed by a
number
of countries who have stated a wish to see a different
compromise.
Here your are, i would not like to have any
substantive
discussion at this point. This A-point. This far as a
procedures concern thing. Ben has asked me this before.
Yes thank your
Chairman.
Well you know, ehh Denmark's wish, it is to see this
boselin inventioned, complete premarented and inventioned,
we would like
to see this treated at this Council meeting
as a B-point. I have a NO to
your comments to the effect
that you cannot accept that, in to as far as
this is only
the formal culmination of political agreement, found in
May last year. So the matter goes to the EU Parliament. I
nonetheless
think the most appropriate thing would be to
take the matter to a B-point,
But if this is not possible,
I am not going to stand in the way of a formal
adoption of
the point. Therefor regretfully submit a written statement
to be included the minutes. The points in that statement
will be pursued
by us when this matter comes back to the
council after the EU parliament
has concluded its 2nd
reading. Thank you chairman.
/* A
French member wants to make some comments, in
french of course. */
/* and guess what? gets switched off. */
Thank you but i
will take notes of your statement and i
thank you for your comments. ....
So i think i can
note? ....
/* The man now speaks to
himself : */
(He doesn't want me to speak? SWITCH ME
OFF!)
Ehhm ... I'd like now all to invite the council to adopt
the other points of the list of A-points.
Robert M.
Stockmann
stock@stokkie.net [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DMF on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 11:39 PM EST |
For starters, "imnplied"?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: digger53 on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 11:51 PM EST |
| Looks like plain old naked tyranny and corruption, long-time companions.
I
think that the chairman and Commission knew exactly what this will do to FOSS
and end-users: more power and money for the monoplists and politicians, chains
for the rest. From what I have garnered on the EU, the Commmission members are
all political hacks and hatchet-men. Slime like that know who greases their
palms and that is precisely where their loyalty lies. Not to the "folks at
home," nor the "dear old EU"--but to their palms. I was born and raised in
Louisiana & spent most of my adult life there (not anymore). They belong to
the highest bidder. Seen 'em all my life. Hopefully, most of them wil get to
the same kind of place former Gov. Edwin Edwards ended up in:
cliquez
ici ---
When all else fails, follow directions. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Tyranny - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 06:40 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: tarran on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 12:46 AM EST |
| Coincidentally, I came across this article in www.mises.org
There's No Such Thing As a Free Patent
The conclusion summed
it up nicely:
"In any event, it is incumbent on those who
claim the
patent system bestows benefits on society to be forthright
in
acknowledging the costs of obtaining the desired
results. They should
enumerate the costs, and the
benefits, and explain why it is clear that the
latter
exceeds the former.
This is, unfortunately, something
patent advocates never
do. They simply assume that the amount of wealth or
innovation or other social benefit proxy that the patent
system
facilitates is necessarily much greater than the
(obviously non-zero) costs
of such a system. Why this
assumption? To my knowledge, studies have not
conclusively
established that the benefits of the patent system
outweigh
its costs. It is just assumed. It should not
be."
It
might be a good idea to contact him and educate him
about the open source and
free software movements though.
He
seems to lump those who develop and use
free and
opensource software with those who wish a free ride on the
work
of
others. I think it is ignorance rather than malice. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dcarrera on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 12:53 AM EST |
As big as the FOSS world is, the issue of software patents is even bigger. It is
not ony FOSS that is at risk. Small and Medium sized businesses, including
propietary ones are at risk. End users, who have never heard of FOSS, are at
risk.
As tempting as it is, we must not allow the argument to become "it is bad
for FOSS". Doing so would be to under represent the magnitude of the issue.
The patent directive is bad for everyone who is not a major multinational with a
huge pagent portfolio.
Cheers,
Daniel Carrera
OpenOffice.org volunteer.
---
Make a difference. Join OpenOffice.org. Join OOoAuthors today.
http://www.oooauthors.org[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: clueless on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 02:10 AM EST |
Well, PJ, it seems you're enjoying a lot of popularity of late. In the two
months or so of regular visits, today was the first time I saw your site being
overwhelmed. Maybe you should upgrade.
Maybe it was too many people rushing to you for solace/advise with the EC
setback. It seems FOSS has only three months left to build broad-based
consensus. We of the eastern hemisphere would like to help any way we can.
-clueless
---
Misconceptions lead to miscarriages
('cause clueless is as clueless does)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: macrorodent on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 02:20 AM EST |
The only upside in this farce is that the EU Council approval has now been
obtained only in a most dubious and morally corrupt way. This means raising
opposition to it in the EU parlament is easier. Assuming it still clears that
hurdle in its bad form, it has to be made into national law in each state, at
which point it just might be possible to water it down to be tolerable. Or shoot
down by popular revolts at national level... (I know, I'm dreaming).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 02:33 AM EST |
From the article: <i>What is at stake is the future of FOSS, nothing less.
</i>
<p>
Well, you exaggerate slightly. What is at stake is merely Software in Europe.
In Asia (China, North Korea), and in South America (Brazil, etc) software will
continue to move forward no matter how badly Europe cripples itself.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: thorpie on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 02:36 AM EST |
As the commission is playing silly games, can the Parliament follow suit,
without there having to be an absolute majority? ---
The memories of a
man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime - Floyd, Pink [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 02:39 AM EST |
| With Open Source software, wouldn't it be hard to do things like
this
if needed? Perhaps that's a reason there's a lot of interest in keeping
proprietary software strong. Though I'm not sure why Europe would want to leave
themselves open to that. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 02:57 AM EST |
Well I do not know much about the working of the Eu but it seems to me that all
the people at the top was worried about was prodedure. PROCEDURE !! what a
lot of bunkum. What was important seems to have been lost in what has been
termed procedure. What about the substance does that not matter any more?
It seems, on the surface just a pandering excerise to big business. What about
everyone else?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 03:17 AM EST |
It seems to me that there is plenty of room for this to be challenged in the EU
courts. The request was made to change it to a B item,the president refused to
do so. If the request should have been approved then surely this invalidates the
"acceptance" anyway?
I have to say that this day I lost faith in the EU processes.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 03:28 AM EST |
How come that the FOSS Model was initiated and developed as if there wasn't a
patent issue and never would be?
Shouldn't these issues have been taken into account when drawing the FOSS
model?
It seems a bit late in the game to start recognizing a problem that existed
right from the beginning and would pop up sooner or later.
Who's side should really adapt here? Or die?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 03:45 AM EST |
Don't get too excited. The nature of the EU is a huge buerocracy. Evidence:
this went through on a "procedural issue".
There are a couple of rounds of negotiation to go yet (plus a couple of years to
get the stuff implemented).
The thing to note is that there is clearly not unanimous support within the
member states. This means that there will have to be further talks, and more
delays.
You though SCO/IBM was slow. Now look at the EU process![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 04:34 AM EST |
No, the issue won't be between people and businesses.
People will be able to get on with whatever they want in
the privacy of their own homes. The tools and the
networking are so good nowadays that that is exactly what
will happen. I've got kids to teach, and they are going to
learn that 'isNot' is a matter of free speech.
Unencumbered and unencumberable.
Businesses might well blow other businesses out of the
water. It's unpredictable which will survive, but it's
likely that those which try hardest to wring money out of
other businesses and users will see their products
replaced and marginalised quickest. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sf on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 04:39 AM EST |
As mentioned before, this is about much more than software patents, it is about
democracy and division of power.
The executive branch, represented by the Council and the Commission, are
(ab)using EU as an excuse for taking over the functions of the legislative
branch (both the EU Parliament and the national parliaments), reducing them to a
powerless and purely symbolic role, like our constitutional monarks.
My question as an EU citizen is: Why should I bother voting in the next EP
elections, if the executive branch can totally ignore them whenever they feel
like it? I will write my MEPs and express my deep concern, and explain my
opinion that they have to vote down this directive simply to save European
democracy.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 05:12 AM EST |
Well, this story has shown us clearly that EU democracy is a myth. Those of us
who have, for example, encountered "Yes, Minister" will appreciate
that the EU is far from alone in this.
But the EU has a deeper problem. Democratic accountability is an attribute
associated with a (super)state. While "eurosceptics" here in the UK
can't kill off the democratically elected parliament altogether (it's already
there), they can and will *automatically* veto any moves that would give it more
power, and hence the EU more democracy. And, alas, that's not just those who
are openly anti-EU; our present government faces two ways (as on so much else)
and acts as a puppet on strings.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mark on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 05:35 AM EST |
"but if this is not possible I'm not going to stand in the way of the
formal adoption of the point."
Here Denmark's minister gave conditional approval for the item to be persued as
an "A" item, if it could not be put on as a "B" item. This
can also be viewed as a conditional objection to the item going on as an
"A" item. If it can be proved that it was possible to put it on as a
"B" item, does this make the approval illegal since Denmark's minister
made a conditional objection to its adoption as an "A" item? Can we
get a copy of their written statement which is to be included with the minutes?
Is there any venue to appeal this decision on the grounds that there actually
was an objection, albeit a qualified one, if it is possible that it could have
gone on as a "B" item?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kristoffer on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 06:04 AM EST |
Computer World Denmark
repor
ts
that the Socialists Peoples' Party (SF) and the Danish Social-Liberal
Party (R) has asked for an emergency meeting with Minister Bendt Bendtsen in the
Danish Parliment's committee on European Matters.
According to Computer
World the committee gave Mr. Bendtsen a mandate to get the directive removed as
an A-item and instead made a B-item. From a recording of Mondays meeting it is
clear that he only asked for the latter.
"He was asked to get
it removed as an A-item in preparation of making it a B-item. He as acted
against a majority in the committee on European Matters, and he is not allowed
to do that. The Minister must now move to nullify this vote [sic]" says
IT-spokesman Anne Grete Holmsgaard from the Socialists Peoples'
Party.
Lone Dybkjær (the Danish Social-Liberal Party), who
is also a member of the committee on European Matters, has asked lawyers in the
Danish Parliament as well as the European Parliament to examine whether or not
the Chairman adhered to EU procedural rules at the meeting on Monday.
./
Kristoffer
Denmark [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 07:37 AM EST |
It appears it's not over yet:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/57180 (German)
http://wiki.ffii.org/Juri050307En (English)
If the decision is invalid it could be retracted. The German text is a bit less
terse.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: deList on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 08:16 AM EST |
Ok, I know very little about the EU political process (living in Nebraska, USA),
but this last statement made by the Denmark representative may mean something.
"The points in that statement will be pursued by us when this
comes back to the council after the European Parliament has concluded its
second reading"
What is meant by "...will be pursued by us
[later]...". It's almost like he's getting something in writing now, so that he
has a history of it for later use.
---
--------------------
At the first chance you get... Don't resist, deList!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kinrite on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 08:42 AM EST |
This article has sparked off a lot of political debate.
It seems to me, to go against the comments guidelines, but I do think that it
is necessary in this case.
Is it OK to speak of such matters on Groklaw now?
---
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the
time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Abraham Lincoln
1809-1865[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 08:57 AM EST |
Arg arg arg arg!
Very shameful.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rben13 on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 02:11 PM EST |
We give the future away.
Like it or not, there are serious global problems that have to be solved in the
next few generations. Global warming, over-population -- I'm sure you can add to
the list. In addition, the U.S. has some serious problems of it's own, a huge
national debt which is growing faster than ever before, an outflow of jobs to
other countries, declining valuation of the dollar -- again, I'm sure you can
add to the list.
By stifling innovation, which is what software patents will be best at, we'll
just be shooting ourselves in the foot, again. Piling more money into the
pockets of a few wealthy individuals does not increase innovation. Large
corporations are, in general, quite bad at innovation. (There are some
exceptions, but not enough to save us.) Over half the jobs in the U.S. are at
small- and medium-sized companies, where innovation is the rule. When we start
choking off the ability of these companies to compete, we'll eliminate them as a
source of new ideas. We'll be stuck with the same kind of innovation we've seen
in Internet Explorer and the automobile industry.
The recent successful claim of the Ansari-X Prize bodes well for a new
commercial space industry in the U.S. In order to make a new industry work, you
need a new idea about once every five minutes. There is already evidence that
the old-timers in the space industry are bringing out the patents to try to
hammer the new startups into submission. If they succeed, the U.S. will have
given away another industry, along with Steel, Semi-Conductor manufacturing,
computer manufacturing, call centers, software development, general
manufacturing, and others.
Before long, the U.S. will be a country populated by people who work at fast
food and retail sales, except they won't have any customers. This will be good
for a few very rich people. But it will be a disaster for the rest of us.
The worst part of this is the sheer ignorance of most of the press. Without the
fourth estate to raise the alarm, no democracy is safe, whether it be here in
the U.S. or over in Europe.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 09 2005 @ 12:40 AM EST |
We are adopting this common position today for institutional reasons
and so as not to create a precedent which might have the consequence of creating
further delays in a very difficult legislative process, which is a decision the
Commision has taken of its own responsibities and we thank the Commission for
that.
Hmmm, sounds like they prefer to not listen to the people
for institutional reasons and don't want to make a precedence for listening
either because it may lead to more work done by them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: clark_kent on Wednesday, March 09 2005 @ 09:17 AM EST |
Ok, Europeans...
It is time to show up your U.S. counterparts and commrades and continue to move
on this bit of legislation with all the energy that I have seen on Groklaw by
people disagreeing with the way the EC is dealing with the EP.
Take all of that energy, and point it at your MEPs. They are your next line of
defense. Tell them that you care, and hordes, large groups and droves make a
statement to them that this legislation will not help the small developer, it
will only hurt them because EU software patents give the larger corporations the
opportunity to do so. Do you want U.S. corporations controlling YOUR market?
Please do your part, for the sake of all of us in the world.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: clark_kent on Wednesday, March 09 2005 @ 09:29 AM EST |
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION ACTED IN COLLUSION WITH MICROSOFT, SAYS HIGH-PROFILE AUSTRIAN MEP DR.
MARIA BERGER
Dr. Maria Berger, the leader of the Austrian
social democratic delegation in the EP and the coordinator of the second-largest
parliamentary group (PSE) in the Legal Affairs Committee, said in a press
release that "the Commission might end up paying dearly for its rash collusion
with Microsoft". In her opinion, the Commission adopted the position of
Microsoft founder Bill Gates on the subject "without further thought". Gates had
visited the Commission and the EP in February.
This is about
Microsoft slowing down innovation outside the walls of Microsoft, because
Microsoft can't innovate fast enough within. And I sort of feel sorry for Bill
Gates. he has to do the dirty work and has to work for a company that is getting
close to a stalemate for innovation. It is no longer fun for him to innovate.
That is the burden he has to bare as it's Chief Software Architech. And he has
to go home with it every day to his wife and kids.
Open Source may not
have brought out the big guns against Microsoft, but it has multitudes of
pea-shooters.
Bill, I suggest you take "your" half of Microsoft, and go
build another company. But decide carefully what half you will take... the
Operating Systems, or the Applications? I would take the applications, and let
Steve Ballmer keep the OS. Then I would port the applications to many platforms.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
