The Council Presidency today declared the software agreement of 18 May 2004 to have been adopted, in violation of the procedural rules and in spite of the evident lack of a qualified majority of member states and the requests of several states to reopen negotiations. More here.
what doesn’t that mean?
It really worries me what is possible in a “democracy” where no considerations beyond the council room are made.
Lets hope this does not limit the possibilities of free software to the extents we are all concerned about.
there is still a 2nd reading at the parliament, but they will have less freedom of action, they can either: reject it entirely, accept it entirely, or ammend it, but rejecting it in 2nd reading needs absolute majority, as well as for each ammendment to be adopted, IIRC.
> what doesn’t that mean?
It means there is no use to vote for a constitution if the institutions already don’t respect the existing treaties. 🙁
Here goes Europe… And i’m ashamed that the president of the european commission is portuguese. He was a crappy prime-minister, and he goes on to mess all of europe instead of just this lil corner.
The rules matter only when the officials say they matter.
http://anomalyuk.blogspot.com/2005/03/software-patents.html
What this means is that individuals who write software for small and medium companies (thats tens of thousands of softare developers) are now liable to be sued if they have implemented something which has been patented, even if it is obvious.
Unless all these software developers staying paying thousands of euros for each idea that they have, and only one devekloper can get the patent granted whilst all others are doomed.
What this means is that competition and innovation has been effectively halted and only larger companies that can afford software patents will survive.
I live in a banana union
ok they do it this way!? let us say no to the constitution..
And we all thought the EU would be more sensible ..
Please, oh, please, think it twice before giving still more power to the EU institutions.
If this is the EU, i think i made a mistake voting “white paper” in the last referendum to the EU constitution treaty.
<quote>
Poland, Denmark, Portugal and others (not specified) asked for a B item (discussion point)
</quote>
I hope Spain was one of the “NOT SPECIFIED” ones, anybody knows?.
After all that has been done — a shameful ending of the story. This makes me want to leave the EU, and not only that, makes me want to leave the whole computer business behind, take on gardening, hunting and the like and never again have to worry about lobbyists bribening some crappy politicians…
[a]
This is a mockery to democracy
I hope Spain was one of the “NOT SPECIFIED” ones, anybody knows?.
Spain did better: it completely rejected software patents.
I feel pretty depressed about now:(
Sad that some fat, sweaty, talentless nobody who could not invent a straight sausage and only care about lining their own pockets could have so much power.
Antek has the right idea… think I’ll go do some knitting…
Spain was part of the ones who just said plain ‘NO’. Kudos to Spain.
Belgium (shame on us) and some others shut their mouth up as cowards they are. Sometimes I have to wonder who these guys are sitting their ass there and make these stupid laws. I don’t know any belgians who can agree with patents after they are explained what it actually is. Shouldn’t they REPRESENT us??? What the f___ is that mess???
sorry, have to say…
I think you’re being very generous. It’s terrorism from within.
What’s clear is that Parliament was sidelined. Any parliamentarian that supports this bill (regardless of their stance on patents) will essentially be saying that parliament is irrelevant and that the council can do whatever it wants.
Anyone lobbying parliamentarians need to spell this out. This is bigger than software patents. It’s about power and pride — if they support this bill, they’re giving up both.
There is a chance that the parlamient will confirm is first vote (because anti patents won easily with important amendements)… or more agressively reject completly the proposal to protest against the commission’s attitude.
In that case we will have a “conciliation procedure” with 2 very opposite positions. Don’t know what text can be voted by the council after that. EU Institution drama, for sure…
When could be the agenda for conciliation, any risk of collision with new constitution adoption ???
now european ip law makes about as much sense as american ip law. not only that, it is painfully obvious that the eu cares more about its corporate entities then its constituants. i had tentitive plans to move to the netherlands some day to escape the widespread apathy of north america as our rights are sold left right and center. i guess there is no escape.
each and every one of you need to make it very clear to your elected officials that this is not acceptable. they are counting on you not to care enough to do something about it. prove them wrong. prove that democracy still exists somewhere in the world.
It’s to be expected when the U.S. government caves in to the corporations time after time (seeing how it works for them and not the people anyway), but I thought European countries knew better.
they care about which corporates? europeans big software companies are rare. the vast majority are small/medium software business. the whole benefit of this thing will go to american’s huge business. other will die. I see absolutely NO reason to adopt this sh__ here in europe. I can’t help seeing corruption or complete stupidity in there… completely disgusted…
I am personnaly waiting for martian colonies to escape…
UK residents can find the email and postal addresses for their MEPs at this page:
http://www.europarl.org.uk/uk_meps/MembersMain.htm
Please do it, then write them a letter. I did it this morning. Go into detail about the problems with the legislation itself and the way in which it has reached this point. Be reasonable, don’t (metaphorically) yell, and don’t threaten. Express your opinion clearly and strongly.
For supporting patents in the EU. I see you are a real friend of FOSS. Don’t worry, I won’t forget your support.
“I am personnaly waiting for martian colonies to escape…”
I’m with you. In the days of “The New World” people came to the US to escape stupid govs, now we will have to move to Mars – a real “New World”.
they are a strong oss supporter. opensource has nothing to do with morality or ethics, it has to do with a practical process.
“people came to the US” – should be came to Americas
im sorry, i stand corrected. the eu cares more about american dollars then their own constiuants, corporate or otherwise.
that makes it even more despicable, and even more imparative you guys dont let this pass without a fight.
Transnationals are loyal to no one, and view peoples and governments as one of two things; either tools or obstacles. This manipulation of the EU’s democratic process isn’t even subtle. Subtlty was deemed unimportant or the situation deemed desperate.
The EU is such a pretty idea on paper. Too bad it is turning out to be just another corporate autocracy. I hope the people of europe can overcome this. The EU has such promise, and defeating the scourge of software patents once and for all would be such a beautiful way to begin to fulfil that promise.
For all those who have died for freedom and democracy in europe and the americas over the past century, what an insult when politicians are bought and value our intellectual freedom so little!
In america there was a boston tea party over taxation of tea (it was merely symbolic) .. how much more worthy of repudiation is the taxation of our very thought, and the denial of our creative freedom without paying the corporate thieves.
I say throw every one of those crooked politicians in the ocean along with the “instigating” american corporation(s) .. let them suckle from MS’s teet at their own peril!!!
i’m always puzzled by the freemarket democratic west. they propse that they want freedom and freemarkets and democracy. yet the only “citizens” that seem to have such jewels are not people but corporations.
they have increasing electoral clout.
they seem to have a bigger influence on lawmaking.
corporate crime attracts less punishment than people crime.
and now a few of the lucky corporations have decided to wipe out competition, meritocracy and any such values.
i’m from europe and i had great hopes that it would be that light of hope and dynamism that the USA should have been.
shame on you, eu!
My grandfathers served in Europe during WWII, one in the Air Corps and the other the Army. My father served in Berlin during the 60s. I served in Europe during the early 80s.
This is the “democracy” that has “evolved”?
I hope all those who condone the shackling of our minds do “get what they deserve” unfortunately those who love freedom will suffer most! a curse on those who betray the freedom their fellow human but choose to serve money instead!
Everyone should realize that greed recognizes no international boundry.
Two points:
1. The west, including the US, has never had a free market. It used to be close, but it was never truly free. For the last 100 years it hasn’t been anything near free. The government has been mucking around with the market for the ‘public good’ for a very long time, not to mention manipulating the currency every since the gained the power to do that.
2. The US has always been socialistic, and therefore not free. Intellectual property is the best and earliest example of this. The rationale for IP has never been that IP is just like other property, and that inventors/artists/etc have a right to control their works; the rationale has always been that *granting* inventors/artists/etc limited monopolies on their works is in the public interest. Therefore IP law has always been a socialistic concept.
When a nation takes one single step out of harmony with the principles of freedom for *all*, and into the brave new world of limiting basic freedoms whenever it is in the interest of a mere *majority* to do so, it’s on the slippery slope. The only question left is how long until it hits the bottom. The US never even managed to get off the slope in the first place: the power to grant IP rights is right in the US Constitution.
Three things keep us from a society that has complete freedom of information: fear, greed, and laziness. Corporations are greedy and lazy. They don’t care if it’s possible to make money on things that surround novel ideas or works, they want to make money on the ideas/works themselves, because let’s face it, the profit margins ROCK!
The public, on the other hand, is fearful. They fear any kind of change, and can’t see past the nose on their face. So when you suggest that ideas shouldn’t be protected, all they see is the worst picture the corporations can paint: there will be no more good music, no more exciting movies, and no more working software. Well, that’s just bull, and anyone with the smallest imagination should see it. Would things be different? Of course! Would some things be worse? Very probably. Would some things be better? Almost certainly.
So I think I will becom warezz user after EU vote.
I do not like concepts such warez appz bookz but it is only chois have left. 🙁
“Here goes Europe… And i’m ashamed that the president of the european commission is portuguese. He was a crappy prime-minister, and he goes on to mess all of europe instead of just this lil corner.”
Yes, I’ll second that, Barroso is an absolute moron, not that there are any good politicians here, some are corrupt, most of them are simply incompetent.
I think it’s time for europe to move forward, into a federation. Even if the brits as usual say no, screw them. The current confederation type of government clearly isn’t working in terms of democracy for europeans.
http://ue.eu.int“>Banana
Thanks to this little stunt…
Because of the “great” power of globalization, member states of the WTO will FORCE the USA and China and other nations to accept this rediculous software patent law by threatening import duties.
Thanks for nothing.
PS, can’t wait to see what happens when the person who owns the patent on the ProgressBar collects his dues.
I wonder why you can’t copy right the term “Software”—-BECAUSE IT’S REDICULOUS TO DO SO.
Those of you who don’t like intellectual property and government control should do a google search on this topic. The other name for this is classic liberalism. You may not agree with all of their principles, but a lot of what they talk about seems like a much better idea than what modern liberals and conservatives talk about.
Also if the citizens of the US would force their government to return to the limited form of government we had before the American Civil War America would be the land of opportunity and freedom that it could have and should have been. As an American I will be the first to admit that we have problems especially with fair treatment of all minorities, but we have progressed, quite slowly, toward freedom for all.
I believe that one day the European Union will become a federated state, instead of the confederacy it is now. I think that it will not happen for at least 50 years, but if the Europeans want a good basic model they should look to the United States Constitution. While although not perfect, people should remember that it was created at a time before real-time communication and the jet plane yet it has survived remarkably well with very little change. There have only ever been 27 amendments to the Constitution and the first 10 should have been included to start with. So minus the American Bill of Rights only 17 amendments have been added to our Constitution since 1791.
As for software patents I believe that they are a terrible idea. If software needs any protection it is that of copyright so that people may not pirate the work of others and sell it as their own.
Yeah it would be great if the USA would go back to the Lazzie Fair ideas of pre-civil war USA. The only problem with that is that we would slide back into another great depression. Of course that would also make alot of other countries around the world fall into depression because they are inveseted in the USA. Franklin Roosivelt pushed socilistic ideas into the USA because it keeps us from going back to depression. On the other hand, the EU is looking towards the USA for a model for a good base.
Switching gears, it is a shame that the EU did go with this. This will hinder much of Free/Open source development mostly because alot of the FOSS developers come from Europe. This is most certainly a slap in the face for the Open Source community. I urge that anyone in Europe who reads this, please write, call, protest, etc.. to keep this from completely going through. The USA has help Europe, so please help us back.
~Alan
If I were in the community, I would be of the mindset to think outside the box, to create something so innovative that it would completely revolutionize the technology industry – as in, “What can we think of that they haven’t thought of yet?”
You guys seem to have the attitude of “Well, geez … somebody has a patent on the progressbar, guess we’re up shit creek!” But the trick is, you gotta come up with something better … something so original, it would completely blow anything they’ve ever come up with out of the water. Then you can patent THAT and tell them exactlly where they can stick it. It looks like the odds are stacked against you. Are you going to come up swinging, or run home crying to mommy?
I’m German too, and I think this has nothing to do with Minister Clement.
If you want to complain, complain to Mrs Zypries or the EU mafia people in the EU Council.
And yes, libertarianism rules!
It’s sad that conservatives these days are so not conservative at all (in the U.S.), but only greedy, and that in Europe, at least Germany, almost every political party follows socialist beliefs. Nothing is wrong with a socialist attitude, but it has to be done on top of a liberal system, IMHO.
Darius, you’re still talking about playing the game by the rules.
The point of the story is they make the rules up as they go along, as the EU always has.
You guys seem to have the attitude of “Well, geez … somebody has a patent on the progressbar, guess we’re up shit creek!” But the trick is, you gotta come up with something better … something so original, it would completely blow anything they’ve ever come up with out of the water.
No. There is a more simple solution. You just get a patent on a progress bar with a numerical status displayed on top of it. Or a progress bar with support for an unknown state (these candy bars that appear when the filesize is unknown).
You can even quote the original patent. That’s ok. From now on you’re safe from the original patent holder, because you can countersue. And it’s cheaper than fighting the original patent.
“But the trick is, you gotta come up with something better … something so original, it would completely blow anything they’ve ever come up with out of the water. Then you can patent THAT and tell them exactlly where they can stick it.”
Unfortunately, Darius, in this situation it will be you who’ll have to stick your patent you know where. Because chances are that at least in one of your creations you’ve infringed on a one or more obvious patents owned by others WITHOUT KNOWING THAT — and PRECISELY because they are obvious. So you’ve come up with something truly original and non-obvious, want to patent it and make money from licensing your patent? FORGET IT. Because nobody is going to buy a license from you. Some greedy corporation owning hundreds of trivial patents will sue the sh*t out of you. You’ll run out of money in a heartbeat, and you’ll have to settle by arranging a cross-licensing deal: they are getting the right to use your creative and original patent, and you are generously given OK to use some miniscule amount of their oh-so-valuable IP like progress bars and double-clicks. So unless your enterprise is a pure IP licensing firm that doesn’t PRODUCE anything, you’re screwed. So much for Europe.
This bill still has to go through the second reading so there is a chance that it can get stopped. But don’t get your hopes up, to do this requires an absolute majority of 2/3rds voting no. Not turning up, abstaining, or anything other than explicitly voting ‘no’ is considered voting ‘yes’. So theoretically there is hope, but in practical terms this bill is going to pass. Bye Bye softwrae industry.
As a patent holder, I can only say … this is great news. Europe, get your checkbooks ready…
This is nothing short of an outrage!
>>In accordance with the European Patent Convention, a computer program as such
cannot constitute a patentable invention. Inventions involving computer programs,
whether expressed as source code, as object code or in any other form, which implement
business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects
beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network
or other programmable apparatus in which it is run will not be patentable.<<
Does this mean that ‘normal’ computer programms are actually not patentable ??? – a bit confused
is that any absent deputy is considered as a YES instead of a “null vote”…
for example, imagine a parliament with 100 deputies
there’s only two presents who care enough to be there
then they vote “no”
in many country, included france and U.S I think,
the score is
100 % for “no” with 98% of abstentionist
in the european parliament, the score is
98% for the YES and 2% for the NO
scary, isn’t it ?
Never mind, i’ll vote against this f… european constitution. I’m a pro turkian adhesion, pro european federation but against these putain de technocrates de merde
(f… c… m… technocrates in english
Rebels, unite!
This is indeed bad news, and I’d hoped it would never come to this. I’d like to encourage everyone to move against this decision.
Don’t let them take your rights! We do have something to fight for – we will fight.
While our votes have been taken from us, our voices have not. Speak against, revolt – every voice makes a difference. Thank you.
–Defender of Peace & Freedom
…
…
…
2005 !
Think in advantages of such think…maybe we have to create a all new things (and patent to free foundation!), maybe Bill have to pay to windows (maybe to apple for OSX copy)
…and we always can transfer software development to a “free software patent country”
Err… Sorry but what do you when your own government ditches you in this case the European Council…. REVOLUTION OF COURSE!
WE NEED THAT SERIOUSLY like we had the French Revo and the Russian Revo. Only this time it will be an E-Revo… !
Sorry but I find that only this is the solution to save the job of being a software developer
So who is gonna initiate it ???
And yeah that shud include
a) DDOS
b) e-bombs
c) e-spams
d) hacking sites
etc etc.
Sorry for saying this, i myself believe that making a thing is better than breaking things but hey
radical solutions for radical councils/problems
that is tech support 4 u!
Note: I have no plans of doing all this, in fact I have no knowledge also of how to do all the above. All i know is that SOFTWARE PATENTS ARE BAD for the consumer i.e. me
Thanks
Antek Grzymala:
> After all that has been done — a shameful ending of the
> story. This makes me want to leave the EU,
And move where? Luna?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
> and not only that, makes me want to leave the whole
> computer business behind, take on gardening, hunting and
> the like and never again have to worry about lobbyists
> bribening some crappy politicians…
I feel the same way. Only in my case it’d be drumming rather then gardening (or another art form where it’s considerd a compliment for the originator(s), when others incorporate some of wat they came up with…)
Here are the philosophical underpinnings:
http://www.friesian.org
Reading through the collected writings on this site clears up so many things.
As a norwegian I am right now _very_ happy with our decition to stay out of this corperate ruled union.
Yeah yeah – I’m sure it will effect us to, but still it shows that perhaps staying out of EU wasn’t such a bad idea seeing the way the union evolves…
Im not surprised , i learnt that demoracy dosent exist (a long time ago) on this planet never have , never will . no mather what you do the ones with power WIll end up with what THEY want.
Unless people get real angry want to see some heads rolling and start a revolution , maybe hang them from a rope?
A Democracy with a low voter turnout is effectively a mobocracy controlled by the few. Those that attain power to represent the ‘majority’ is then a lie and are then extremely vulnerable to lobbying by corporate interests where mainly only money counts.
Some specific links, but applicable to all through analogy:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/wasdin/wasdin22.html
http://www.silcom.com/~taxabo/ccd.htm
BTW. Like the USA, no matter what you call the EU’s makeup, it is still a federated Democratic Republic, and not just a Democracy. A Democracy has no leader and all participants (voters) continually vote on every single issue and have to constantly defend themselves. A flat Democracy as such always leads to Anarchy, or Mobocracy (ultimately to Dictatorship).
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure1.htm
All citizens must participate in a Democracy or they have no power and those that take a leading role will not have your interests in mind.
The most important thing for Norway to do is to veto this when it gets sent up to Oslo for the usual rubber-stamping ceremony, although there’s a risk that various politicians, after being told scary stories about the end of oil and big money commercial fishing, will presumably get all excited by the pipedream sold by various multinational lobbyists and lawyers and think that this particular ideas tax is a great thing for “intellectual property business”.
If this directive gets incorporated into the Norwegian statutes, it’ll end up with stuff like the Bellboy patent being played out in the courts all the time, where you have idiots with EPO/USPO-legitimised daydreams claiming that they now “own” e-commerce.
“Here goes Europe… And i’m ashamed that the president of the european commission is portuguese. He was a crappy prime-minister, and he goes on to mess all of europe instead of just this lil corner.”
Barroso is the latest of a series of prime ministers that abandoned their responsibilities in Portugal in the middle of their mandates. The previous one went on to become president of the International Socialists. This one escaped to “Europe” (hope he never comes back). Europe is being governed by an incompetent who couldn’t govern at home. Expect more of the same.
Libertarianism fails due to Neighborhood Effects.
Look it up. Massive pollution, products that KILL YOU because there is no FDA, no U.L., no gov’t regulatory agencies for anti-competition at all.
Also, prostitution would be legal, selling children would be legal, selling organs would be legal, indentured servitude (arguably just having a job…) would be legal, and all drugs of any kind.
Before you all shout, hey great, weed is legal take a step back to the late 1980’s and look up a drug called ICE and see what happened.
If you can use drugs and drive, I can carry large calibur weapons and drive.
<<What this means is that individuals who write software for small and medium companies (thats tens of thousands of softare developers) are now liable to be sued if they have implemented something which has been patented, even if it is obvious.>>
One of the most basic tests for patent applications is the test of non-obviousness. Obvious stuff is not supposed to be patented . . . ever!
If you still have specific concerns consider making sure your patent office has a “collection of prior art” that is up to date and complete. The law is totally on your side wrt not patenting things that are obvious. Never hurts to oil the machinery though if you suspect they haven’t a clue about your specific field of use. How to “oil the machinery”? Either disclose to them those things which are obvious to make sure they realize it, or file your own patents which is much less expensive than many here suppose.
When errors do occur, as happened years ago in the U.S., they can be corrected, and the offending patents disallowed.
Here’s a further clarification. In the U.S. at least there’s no such thing as “software patents”. The patents that have real substance to them are called “utility patents” and the ones that are more just decorative in nature are called “design patents”. One concern I have with posters here is they may be watching late night infomercials which often feature “design patents” and then think these can be used against them:-) Remember, design patents are basically very wimpy and I’m quite sure have nothing to do with what most here are concerned about with software patents. As for utility patents, what happened in the U.S. is over a long period of time it got to be so more and more software content was allowed. However there still has to be full disclosure, and there still has to be a “physical embodiment”, and the coverage is still limited only to the specific claims, and it still must pass the test of non-obviousness (which they figure by comparing to their collection of Prior Art). Also it must be shown to be useful and original. It is EASY to protect your original work even if you don’t want anybody to patent it. There are relatively simple procedures to make sure it gets into the Prior Art collection and is not patentable by anyone.
Yes . . . I am angry at some very good people . . . including the MySQL folks and even Rasmus Lerdorf . . . for what I consider to be irresponsible fear mongering on this topic. Just because they have made tremendous contributions and are very bright doesn’t mean they know much about patents. IMO, they are just about completely uninformed about patents and could easily have their concerns addressed
(which I don’t doubt their concerns are legitimate) within current laws and procedures.
These useless laws, I wish they could be nullified by democratic processes (councils, parliaments, courts, etc). But I doubt it, because:
1. It takes too long, and will take ever longer because confusion is being built into the system. In *some* european countries the complainers usually die before their right is recognized.
2. It doesn’t work, because the accused have all sorts of “rights” and can always come back from the dead, and keep trying until they find politicians stupid enough or corrupt enough to support them.
There should be a campaign for a moratorium against any further junk legislation. This way, for lets say 20 years no one could as much as talk about software patents.
“If you still have specific concerns consider making sure your patent office has a “collection of prior art” that is up to date and complete.”
Oh yes, we all have time to personally go and make sure every civil servant is doing their job.
“When errors do occur, as happened years ago in the U.S., they can be corrected, and the offending patents disallowed.”
Do you have any idea how much this kind of charade costs? Patent litigation is a very effective way of intimidating the poor guy, which is why the multinationals are so enthusiastic about it.
But anyway, despite the questionable ethics of people “owning” tracts of mathematics and nature, has there ever been a software patent that everyone thought was a good thing?
“Libertarianism fails due to Neighborhood Effects.
Look it up. Massive pollution, products that KILL YOU because there is no FDA, no U.L., no gov’t regulatory agencies for anti-competition at all.
Also, prostitution would be legal, selling children would be legal, selling organs would be legal, indentured servitude (arguably just having a job…) would be legal, and all drugs of any kind.
Before you all shout, hey great, weed is legal take a step back to the late 1980’s and look up a drug called ICE and see what happened.
If you can use drugs and drive, I can carry large calibur weapons and drive.
”
Eh, yeah, prostitution and some drugs are legal here in the Netherlands. Some other drugs and selling children and organs are not and are actively prosecuted. My neighborhood is hardly a wasteland of massive pollution and armed gangs killing everyone in drive-by shootings. That sounds more like some other countries. It also sounds like the FUD practices that I was complaining about. Actually, the Netherlands have been in the top ten of wealthiest nations on the planet for many centuries.
Here you can read a comprehensive philosophical overview of value systems:
http://www.friesian.org/value.htm
That should make it clear that libertarianism is much more than just no rules except worshipping free markets. Actually, this is what contemporary liberals have perverted it into.
Libertarianism originated in northern Europe (if you disregard for a moment that every organism is born a natural libertarian). I agree that it can’t be practised anywhere at any time. It must be in the hearts and minds of the people. If a people has been corrupted by other systems, trying to switch them to libertarianism cold-turkey could lead to the effects you fear, because they would not subscribe to libertarian value systems.
Libertarianism means no socialized medicine.
I don’t think you hear what I’m saying.
NO gov’t intervention will bring us screaming back to the Merchantilist Era and the Industrial revolution–both of which made workers miserable (and some people wealthy.)
The next time you plug in a hair dryer and it does not kill you instantly or burn you horribly, thank a safety engineer who reviewed the product and rejected other products as unsafe.
These protections go away with no gov’t mandates. think about it. FUD, you’re in dreamland.
“I don’t think you hear what I’m saying.”
Yes, I hear your FUD. Why don’t you try commenting at the libertarian value system described here:
http://www.friesian.org/capit-1.htm
“Why don’t you try commenting at the libertarian value system described here”
This is so incredibly off-topic.
Just because the government thinks they can sell me into European slavery doesn’t make me a European.
I’m not, I never will be and it’ll take more than pretty words and worthless documents to make me accept decisions made in Brussels as being something I should accept.
P.S.
I want the money and fish you stole back.
“This is so incredibly off-topic.”
No it isn’t. As pointed out by others here, the European commission has turned the debate over software patents into a matter concerning the corruption of the European political system. Since software patents hurt free software in the first place, free software is basically libertarian, and the philosophy of libertarianism originated in Europe and spread from there to Britain and the US, this is very much on-topic.
<<“If you still have specific concerns consider making sure your patent office has a “collection of prior art” that is up to date and complete.”>>
<Oh yes, we all have time to personally go and make sure every civil servant is doing their job.>
Just get the stuff you care about into the U.S. PTO Prior Art collection and prepare to be amazed at how efficient these particular civil servants are at searching that Prior Art collection and rejecting all patent applications that comes any where near your concerns!
Or maybe even that is too hard for you?
<<“When errors do occur, as happened years ago in the U.S., they can be corrected, and the offending patents disallowed.”>>
<Do you have any idea how much this kind of charade costs? Patent litigation is a very effective way of intimidating the poor guy, which is why the multinationals are so enthusiastic about it.>
What is the basis for using perjorative language like “charade”? I view it as far from charade. I see a time tested system operating under well defined rules that works extremely well. Its true that preventing overreaching patents (by providing material to the U.S. PTO Prior Art collection) is much cheaper than getting existing patents tossed out. However if you can prove an existing patent should never have been issued in the first place (e.g. it was not original, or was obvious, or is not useful) you are now the person with leverage since the patent holder about 99% of the time will be hiding from you.
<<But anyway, despite the questionable ethics of people “owning” tracts of mathematics and nature, has there ever been a software patent that everyone thought was a good thing?>>
Aha . . . now we have the “bandwagon argument” to go with the (above) “Judas argument”.
Yes Judas was outraged that perfume cost so much, and this money could have been spent on the poor. Of cource while he was publically “expressing concern” for the poor, he was privately stealing money from the collection plate.
Now to that Judas argument you add a bandwagon argument, which is nothing but a popularity contest. Evidently when patent applications are free and everyone on planet earth agrees, then you will perhaps be ready to come up with your next set of objections.
What a patent holder actually “owns” is specifically limited to and defined by the patent claims. You currently subscribe to many falsehoods about the U.S. patent system. They’ve really cleaned up their act a lot and I encourage you to get off your lazy sarcastic ass and check it out.
Wow, the crap sure is flying fast in here, isn’t it?
“This bill still has to go through the second reading so there is a chance that it can get stopped. But don’t get your hopes up, to do this requires an absolute majority of 2/3rds voting no. Not turning up, abstaining, or anything other than explicitly voting ‘no’ is considered voting ‘yes’.”
No. It requires an absolute majority against, i.e., more than 50% of all MEPs.
“is that any absent deputy is considered as a YES instead of a “null vote”…
for example, imagine a parliament with 100 deputies
there’s only two presents who care enough to be there
then they vote “no”
in many country, included france and U.S I think,
the score is
100 % for “no” with 98% of abstentionist
in the european parliament, the score is
98% for the YES and 2% for the NO
scary, isn’t it ?”
Also completely wrong. How hard is it to get into your heads that Parliaments are *complex* institutions? There are different rules for different types of proposals at different stages. At this point in the procedure, an absolute majority is required to change the ‘status quo’. In most cases this is reasonable – when a proposal has been accepted at first reading and in committee, it doesn’t make sense to require 50% of the Parliament to turn up and vote ‘yes’ for it to pass its second reading, especially when it’s rare to have all or even most MEPs present for the second reading of most proposals. Nothing would ever get done. It’s certainly not the case that for all proposals at all stages an absolute majority of MEPs is required to turn them down. That’s simply the case at *this* stage of *this* proposal and if you calm down and look at it in context, it actually makes sense; it’s just an unfortunate situation for this proposal, given the circumstances up to date.
Libertarianism fails due to Neighborhood Effects.
Look it up. Massive pollution, products that KILL YOU because there is no FDA, no U.L., no gov’t regulatory agencies for anti-competition at all.
actually, the FDA allows many things that other countries deam poisonous, but we wont go there. libertarians do not believe in the total elimination of governament, more a very rough skeleton of what exists now, with the major power being at the state, or even city level. you are right if you ware talking about their neo-liberalesque adoration of the free market in the case of pollution, but i dont think anyone but the hardliners would say eliminate all governament intervention in the market, it is more eliminate the vast majority of governament intervention in the market.
Also, prostitution would be legal, selling children would be legal, selling organs would be legal, indentured servitude (arguably just having a job…) would be legal, and all drugs of any kind.
what you are describing is anarchy, which is vastly different from libertarians. they are both quite close to the same end of the political spectrum, but they are not the same thing. logically, there are a great many places that anarchy falls apart (not to mention that “anarchy” itself tells you nothing, a primitist is wayyyyyyyyy different from a post-leftist), but libertarianism is alot less radical, and makes sense in a great many ways.
Before you all shout, hey great, weed is legal take a step back to the late 1980’s and look up a drug called ICE and see what happened.
lets take a further step back and look at the effects of pouring billions into a “war on drugs”. at best they could be described as “negligable”.
If you can use drugs and drive, I can carry large calibur weapons and drive.
considering that the vast majority of libertarians (at lest in north america) are social conservatives, (to the point where there is an informal alliance between the libertarians and the republicans), i dont see how using drugs and driving would be considered by anyone to be ok. libertarians arent against social order, they are against governaments micromanaging their citizens. quite a big difference.
“Here are the philosophical underpinnings:
http://www.friesian.org
Reading through the collected writings on this site clears up so many things.”
Reading one side of *any* argument clears up so many things. Try to forget all liberal theory and objections and then go read a pure conservative tract in the same vein, and you’ll find things ‘clear up’ too. You can do the same for socialist and liberal theories. It’s only when you start reading the rebuttals and opposing theories that things get confused, and most people find themselves…in the middle ground, like they are now.
All you people who think that Libertarianism means that people get no medicine and would starve: this is total BS.
I’m all for a well-implemented libertarianism with a minimum wage, social security and basic medication for everyone. I just happen to be against all kinds of bloated state, laws that no one needs (in Germany you aren’t allowed to open your store at night (only gas stations may do so; why?) or on the weekend, because that would exploit workers; get a clue, many would be happy to work on the weekend! I did myself, and I’m very happy in the US where I can go out Sunday night and buy stuff).
“What is the basis for using perjorative language like “charade”? I view it as far from charade. I see a time tested system operating under well defined rules that works extremely well.”
Yes, it works so incredibly well Eolas *won* a patent suit against Microsoft for ‘click here launches an application’, and it’s going to take an expensive appeal for the sane decision to happen. Now imagine a mom and pop software operation in the same position – they wouldn’t be able to afford the costs for the initial pretrial, let alone an appeal.
first of all, above and beyond anything else, software patents are retarded. it is similar to patenting mathematical formula, or musical chord progressions. a software algorithm cannot ethically be patented.
now, apart from the logic point of view, ip law has changed fundamentally in recent times. it has suddenly become analogous with physical property, and it never has in the past. so either the origional concept of ip is wrong, or the current one is. considering who it was that made current law (corporate lobby groups for those of you who arent disillusioned to the process of democracy yet), i would say it is time to take another look at what patents are, and who they are supposed to be protecting.
say i am joe coder, bright eyed and bushy tailed, and straight out of college with a million great ideas. i write a revolutionary piece of software that noone has thought of before. now, as i am a small, one man shop, and my copetition is going to be people like ibm or microsoft, i go to patent my innovation. no prior art exists. this is the ultimate case for patents, it protects the little guy from the big guy.
so i release my software, its a big hit, everyone wonders how they could have lived before it. ibm is impressed, so impressed my patented features show up in their next release of a competing product. i call shenanigans, and file suit against ibm. so far so good, i am defending myself from a giant who would crush me if not for this great equaliser. unfortunately, things go downhill from here.
IBM sends a team of lawyers to my house. they have gone through ibms massive patent portfolio, and come up with fifty or so patents that i may be violating. they didnt bother to do a rigorous investigation, they dont have to. they know even if every last one of these fifty is debunked, they can keep comming up with more for years, and the shear cost and effort of defending myself will be enough to win the fight for them. then they give me an offer, we will cross liscence with you, so that we can use your innovation and not compensate you in any way, and you can use the standard programming techniques that we own.
this is the reality of software patents. it is a dumb law, the amount of effort to create anything is just redicules, so the law is broken pretty much constantly, but not enforced except as a strong arm tactic. does that sound right? there are even companies that go around buying up ip assets, just so they can sue other companies. how is that protection?
currently, ip law makes no sense on a great many levels. pretty much every app written is in violation of some patent somewhere, and the effect is to stifle innovation by removing the incentive of a startup, which is the exact opposit effect of what was intended. this is new, a trend over the last thirty years or so. unfortunately, that trend has no signs of slowing down.
Oh, and BTW, I’m rather impressed with the EU Parliament so far – I wrote an email to my seven MEPs at around 6pm-8pm European time last night, and by this morning Canadian time I already had three replies, one non-committal, one saying ‘you’re absolutely right and I agree’ (yay Den Dover) and one from the leader of the UK Labour MEPs expressing (very) guarded support. Everybody please write to your MEPs instead of spouting off crap in here, it’ll have a hell of a lot more effect.
they are one of those litigation companies i mentioned. microsoft cannot do the “cross liscence shakedown”, because eolas doesnt really do anything productive, they exist to exploit a flawed system and make some extremely unethical men alot of money.
“what you are describing is anarchy, which is vastly different from libertarians. they are both quite close to the same end of the political spectrum, but they are not the same thing. logically, there are a great many places that anarchy falls apart (not to mention that “anarchy” itself tells you nothing, a primitist is wayyyyyyyyy different from a post-leftist), but libertarianism is alot less radical, and makes sense in a great many ways.
”
libertarianism has nothing to do with morality. Morality is the judge that prostitution and child selling is “bad.” Morality is absent from libertarianism. It is morally wrong to sell children, but who are we to judge if parents are willing to sell them? There is no clear line and once you begin to allow moral descisions to guide your law-making practices, you will wind up with exactly what you already have now: democracy (with religious influences.)
If someone wants to sell something, and someone is willing to buy it and they get together and complete the transaction per Pareto Optimal situation, THAT is libertarianism.
“I’m all for a well-implemented libertarianism with a minimum wage, social security and basic medication for everyone”
You have described the antithesis of libertarianism. It is a cold institution where you take care of yourself. Again, go back to the merchantilist era: no gov’t intervention (except to start wars to increase trade.) No socialized medicine, no welfare, no nothing. Just buyers and sellers getting together.
Calling it FUD is rediculous. I say, read a history book to see the effect of limited to no govt intervention in business–read over the industrial revolution and the merchantilist era—WE ARE STILL PAYING FOR THE MISTAKES MADE THEN. The situation with megacorporations exploiting the weaknesses of states, as in the 1600’s will be repeated with the WTO.
Don’t believe me? have a glass of water from the Passaic river in Newark, NJ, USA–tastes just like the industrial revolution. Take a great breath of fresh air from a coal mine fire in Pennsylvania, burning since 1961 (abandoned mines.)
Ask yourself why poor people are not libertarians–because there is no social program to help them in anyway.
Keep something in mind:
The reason why libertarians want the US STATES to control the power, is because STATES can be manipulated easily. If a company wants to threaten a STATE by saying: “If you do not give us complete pollution, grant money, and tax exemptions, we will move to another state that will and take 10,000 jobs with us.” Whereas the Federal government couldn’t give a crap about 10,000 people.
STATES CAN BE MANIPULATED MORE EASILY AND CHEAPLY THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Lobbyist groups should not control the governments of any nation or group of nations, but do and always have. The fact that members of the WTO can overturn laws in othercountries by threatening trade embargos has such far reaching effects that everyone should be worried.
WTO = the end of labor unions, minimum wage, etc. If the EU passes this software patent bull$hit, that trade bloc can force other trade blocs into compliance.
There are two kind of companies one can start:
A company built on innovation;
A company built on the follower strategy;
The decision is problematic for the latter one, and good for the big corporations. I’m afraid for the consequences, since I want to start a software company one of these days.
The EU is a bunch of US wh*res. I was so proud to be part of the EU, now Im very sick of it. Now I will vote NO for whatever they ask, knowing they probably won’t listen.
Normal people don’t care about this so it’s too bad we don’t have some sort of IT-workers organisation. Think about it – if all ITers walked out across Europe we would have the Union on its knees in 2 weeks.
morality isnt covered in any political system. even right wing politics, knowing something is conservative doesnt mean it is against homosexuals, it means it is pro free market. there are two meanings of libertarian, one describes a political extreme that puts personal liberty above anything else, the other is a political movement. note that anarchists are more libertarian then most liberterians. in america at any rate, the libertarian movement consists almost exclusively of social conservatives which is the exact opposit way of dealing with morality then the social liberalism you are talking about. theoretically, you could have conservative anarchists, although it would be interesting to see how they justify it.
you are correct that there are a great many libertarians who just want to have unfettered corporate power. that isnt the ideology of the movement though.
personally, i think that there needs to be a balance in such things. capitalism works great, but total capitalism is downright immoral (build yourself up by any means nessicary, including the backs of others). socialism is quite commendable (putting the common good before your own greed), but in practice it doesnt work either, and is if anything more succeptable to corruption then capitalism. there needs to be incentive to create and to do a good job, but at the same time we cannot allow these greed based orginizations to kill us just to make a profit.
same thing with libertarianism/authoritarianism. fascism is no better then anarchy, the sweet spot lies somewhere in the middle.
Yes, you have hit the curx of the matter.
Self-interest.
Adam Smith tells us follow your greed, for it will lead to the common good of all. Self interest is why events like the French Revolution happened “let them eat cake” shows just how detached from the rest of the world people who are self-focussed can be.
Greed is why all systems are failure prone, capitalism, libertarianism, socialism, etc.
In practice none of these systems exist in their pure forms because they can’t. You can’t tell me that the rules of China and the USSR and Cuba and Mongolia and Viet Nam and North Korea live the same way as their common man. You can wear military fatigues, but it doesn’t mean you sleep in a tent every night.
The morality of right wing politics is all show. If the religious rightwing truly cared about others, as their religions preach, there would not be the poverty, racism and disparity between rich and poor.
It is a shame that what we actually have in practice is “selective morality,” which seems to disappear when applied to big business—-EXCEPT THAT IT MAKES SENSE.
The idea of the corporate entity is what makes it viable. This idea is rediculous. A being which does not actually exist bears the brunt of any wrong doing by members of the company—and can only be charged civily (for $$$ not prison time.) If CEO’s were required to answer for all wrongdoing within a company, you would not see the outsourcing, inefficiencies, and general insanity of Corporate America– if your personal freedom depended on your operating your company honestly, like it does for all small business owners, things would be different.
“”Here are the philosophical underpinnings:
http://www.friesian.org
Reading through the collected writings on this site clears up so many things.”
Reading one side of *any* argument clears up so many things. Try to forget all liberal theory and objections and then go read a pure conservative tract in the same vein, and you’ll find things ‘clear up’ too. You can do the same for socialist and liberal theories. It’s only when you start reading the rebuttals and opposing theories that things get confused, and most people find themselves…in the middle ground, like they are now.
”
Did you actually read anything there? I recommended this site because it is more than the Friesian School of philosophy, more than just the libertarian viewpoint. It’s a collection and a history of philosophy, carefully describing and comparing all the viewpoints and what effects they had in history. Exactly by discussing all the sides of these arguments and putting them in perspective it clears things up. Isn’t that what philosophy should be about?
“Also, prostitution would be legal, selling children would be legal, selling organs would be legal, indentured servitude (arguably just having a job…) would be legal, and all drugs of any kind.
what you are describing is anarchy, which is vastly different from libertarians. they are both quite close to the same end of the political spectrum, but they are not the same thing. logically, there are a great many places that anarchy falls apart (not to mention that “anarchy” itself tells you nothing, a primitist is wayyyyyyyyy different from a post-leftist), but libertarianism is alot less radical, and makes sense in a great many ways.
”
That’s not even anarchy, it’s chaos. Anarchy is a political system where the political power resides with the individual. Individuals are supposed to handle that responsibly. Whether such a system could be stable or would inevitably dismount in chaos is another discussion.
In general, the world suffers from one-dimensional thinking about political orientation. Left versus right, equaled with democrats versus republicans, progressive versus conservative and so on. To understand libertarianism, and thus to understand the true nature of free software, you need to map political orientations in at least two dimensions. To map anarchy into that perspective, you need three dimensions. This is one of the things that friesian.org clears up very nicely. Here you can see diagrams of two and three political dimensions, and take a little test to see where you stand:
http://www.friesian.org/quiz.htm
Kaj wrote:
> Here you can see diagrams of two and three political
> dimensions, and take a little test to see where you stand:
>
> http://www.friesian.org/quiz.htm
How about making the “Personal Rights” list a bit less misleading. Let’s include these there:
y axis
yes maybe no Do you have the right to:
+10 +5 +0 Kill other people. (Well, this one is already included there.)
+10 +5 +0 Rape children.
+10 +5 +0 Take the skin off of animals without killing them first.
+10 +5 +0 Blow up your local library.
“The idea of the corporate entity is what makes it viable. This idea is rediculous. A being which does not actually exist bears the brunt of any wrong doing by members of the company—and can only be charged civily (for $$$ not prison time.) If CEO’s were required to answer for all wrongdoing within a company, you would not see the outsourcing, inefficiencies, and general insanity of Corporate America– if your personal freedom depended on your operating your company honestly, like it does for all small business owners, things would be different.
”
Agreed, this is exactly the heart of the matter. We seem to be in disagreement because there’s a lot of confusing one political orientation with another here, especially the standard mistake of assuming that modern liberalism with its pushing of big-corporation capitalism is libertarianism. The US constitution is firmly based on libertarian principles orginating from Europe, from the French Enlightenment but also much older, from first-millennium England and Scandinavia. The US were formed after throwing out British corporations and restoring the freedom of the individual. The states were given power to prevent the nation from becoming to dominate individual freedom over time. This went horribly wrong when these principles were later perverted into giving corporate entities the same legal rights as individuals. This is not protecting individuals from national power, this is subverting individuals and even nations to the power of mega-corporations. The exporting of patents from the US to Europe is just the latest symptom of this tragedy.
“Kaj wrote:
> Here you can see diagrams of two and three political
> dimensions, and take a little test to see where you stand:
>
> http://www.friesian.org/quiz.htm
How about making the “Personal Rights” list a bit less misleading. Let’s include these there:
y axis
yes maybe no Do you have the right to:
+10 +5 +0 Kill other people. (Well, this one is already included there.)
+10 +5 +0 Rape children.
+10 +5 +0 Take the skin off of animals without killing them first.
+10 +5 +0 Blow up your local library.
”
How is
– See or buy a pornographic video?
– Not wear a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet?
– Not send your child to school?
– Have an abortion?
– Own a handgun?
– Have any sexual relations with adults?
– Travel to any foreign country?
– Use unapproved medical treatments?
– Use marijuana or other drugs?
– Not wear a swimsuit?
misleading and your quiz not? You just designed a test to insinuate that all people who like personal freedom are murdering, raping, animal-torturing terrorists, and if you don’t think that’s OK, you must not be in favor of personal freedom. Well, if your political conviction is that you want to be a slave, then according to my political conviction you have that right – but I do have an opinion about it, and that is that it is not befitting for a Finn to think that way.
Kaj wrote:
> How is […] misleading and your quiz not?
Because the original list contained items that are not personal, although they might be masked as such.
E.g. having an abortion and not sending your child to school are more about someone other than yourself. In my quiz I make this fact quite clear, imo.
> You just designed a test to insinuate that all people who
> like personal freedom are murdering, raping, animal-
> torturing terrorists, and if you don’t think that’s OK,
> you must not be in favor of personal freedom.
No. I just highlighted that the provided test is misleading. Or at least that was my intention. Very few things are personal. Most things are interconnected in one way or another.
> Well, if your political conviction is that you want to be a
> slave,
Huh? Where have I said that I want to be a slave.
(Actually I want the net total of “goodness” in the world to reach its global maximum, and I believe that if we scrap most laws then a few (or maybe many) idiots will make this “goodness” level sink very low.)
> then according to my political conviction you have that
> right – but I do have an opinion about it, and that is
> that it is not befitting for a Finn to think that way.
“Not befitting for a Finn”? What does my nationality have to do with anything?
“E.g. having an abortion and not sending your child to school are more about someone other than yourself.”
That is not a valid premise (i.e., it is non undisputed by all parties to debate). Pro-life organisations would agree with that characterisation of abortion. Pro-choice ones would not. It’s a rather important distinction.
I would consider myself to be a conservative libertarian, maybe anarchist (I don’t know enough about the distinction, or the different anarchist movements).
How do I justify it? Well, first I think that liberty is important, and that only individual freedom can really bring progress and innovation, not to mention freedom from centralized powers. However, I’m not interested in utopia but in practically implementable policies that would be acceptable to most people in most countries today, so I try to be a realist.
As many people have mentioned, a 100% libertarianism might leave poor people starving, without medicine or might people allow to sell their children. I think there are ideals that have to be protected. The human being should not be sold. Look at some poor Americans that have three jobs and still not enough to live — because they can’t sell themselves for a high enough price on the free market. For these people there should be a minimum wage to allow them to live in a humane way, and I think a majority in most countries would agree with me here. Same with basic medicine, or with laws that prevent the sale of people (selling sex or organs might be a different issue; I certainly wouldn’t forbid the former, the latter should be left to the people to vote).
So you might say, human dignity doesn’t allow me to insist in a 100% libertarianism without *any* restrictions. Any society of people needs *some* laws to protect the weak from the stronger. This should AFAIK be within the principles of anarchism. If you let large corporations put pressure on poor people, anarchy it isn’t.
“So you might say, human dignity doesn’t allow me to insist in a 100% libertarianism without *any* restrictions. Any society of people needs *some* laws to protect the weak from the stronger. This should AFAIK be within the principles of anarchism. If you let large corporations put pressure on poor people, anarchy it isn’t.
”
Please, you’re totally mixing up libertarianism, socialism, anarchy and chaos. Once more: neither libertarianism nor anarchy is about abolishing all restrictions. The pictures people are painting here to deter from those ideologies are actually chaos states: the lack of any ideology.
AdamW wrote:
> > E.g. having an abortion and not sending your child to
> > school are more about someone other than yourself.
>
> That is not a valid premise (i.e., it is non undisputed by
> all parties to debate). Pro-life organisations would agree
> with that characterisation of abortion. Pro-choice ones
> would not. It’s a rather important distinction.
There are two different things in that sentence you quoted.
The first part might be invalid. However, it still might be valid, since even the “pro-choice” people will agree that abortion is deciding the future of the entity that at some point will or won’t be born as a human being. (Personally I would argue that if this entity has fingers, toes, a brain, a heart and even blood of its own, then surely it is an individual.)
The second part is clearly valid.
Now, let’s get back to the topic, lest we all get modded down.