-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Christian Hache wrote:
Dear Mr Hache,...
The European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee has voted on my report on the directive and there will be continuing debate and further democratic scrutiny before the directive becomes law.
Oui, c'est terriblement démocratique de vouloir faire passer le vote en douce pendant les vacances et de profiter que quasiment personne ne soit au parlement européen.
At this early stage of legislative process, it is nonetheless important to establish the facts about what the draft EU directive and what I, as the Parliament's rapporteur, are aiming to achieve in the amendments tabled to the Commission proposal.
facts, facts, facts... elle a lu les directives de marketing de microsoft ? ;)
It has been suggested that the Parliament's report will for the first time allow the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. This is simply not true. The patenting of computer-implemented inventions is not a new phenomenon. Patents involving
... C'est +ou- exact.
N'empêche que le DMCA aux US et ce qu'elle tente de mettre en place va encore plus loin et permet de breveter des procédés de manière beaucoup plus floue que ce qui est possible au jour d'aujourd'hui.
...
Elle confirme elle-même ce que je viens de dire.As you will be aware, in the US and increasingly in Japan, patents have been granted for what is essentially pure software. Some EPO and national court rulings indicate that Europe may be drifting towards extending the scope of patentability to inventions which would traditionally have not been patentable, as well as pure business methods.
"pure business methods"... HTTP ? cliquer ? le fait d'avoir une image de fond sur une page web ? tant qu'on y est...
Bein tiens... comme quoi il y a toujours plusieurs façons de présenter les choses ;)It is clear that Europe needs a uniform legal approach which draws a line between what can and cannot be patented, and prevents the drift towards the patentability of software per se.
Tout-à-fait d'accord avec Mme McCarthy sur ce point-là.
My intention is clear in the amendments tabled and in a new Article 4 in the text, to preclude; the patentability of software as such; the patentability of business methods; algorithms; and mathematical methods. Article 4 clearly states that in order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be susceptible to industrial applications, be new, and involve an inventive step. Moreover I have added a requirement for a technical contribution in order to ensure that the mere use of a computer does not lead to a patent being granted.
"susceptible to industrial applications"... ne veut tout simplement rien dire "be new"... to be new or not having been patented yet ? "involte an inventive step" ... vague, très très vague ça... "requirement for a technical contribution"... idem
N'empêche que tout ça reste flou et laisse énormément de marge au bien-vouloir et à l'interprétation du comité qui désservira les brevets. Ils pourraient très bien avoir l'une ou l'autre interprétation, selon qu'il y ait effet de lobbyistes (et ce ne seront probablement pas des nôtres) et/ou de pots de vin.
Furthermore, the amended directive contains new provisions on decompilation that will assist software developers. While it is not possible to comment on whether any patent application would be excluded from the directive, the directive, as amended, would not permit the patentability of Amazon's 'one-click' method. As far as software itself is
... but probably the patentability of Microsoft's 'window' method
concerned, it will not be possible to patent a software product. Software itself will continue to be able to be protected by copyright.
De toute manière, le danger est justement dans le "patentage" de procédés vagues, de "look&feel", de pseudo-techniques de haut niveau, histoire de couvrir un maximum d'implémentations concrètes et techniques.
C'est d'ailleurs l'argument avancé par les anti-brevets: il y a déjà le copyright pour protéger bon nombre de techniques et surtout de produits logiciels.
With an EU directive, legislators will have scrutiny over the EPO and national court's decisions. With, in addition, the possibility of having a definitive ruling from the European Court in Luxembourg, thus ensuring a restrictive interpretation of the EU directive and a greater degree of legal certainty in the field of patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
Aller en appel devant la cour européenne à Luxembourg contre une décision du comité européen des patentes à la merci des lobbyistes et groupements de "professionels de l'industrie informatique" (en fait un club privé de microsoft, on y retrouve aux plus hauts postes des anciens managers MS)... il faut combien de temps... 2 ans, pour arriver à une décision ? il faut combien d'argent ... ? largement de quoi tuer un projet OpenSource (encore que) et certainement de quoi tuer une PME ou une startup.
Le système juridique n'est pas du tout à la mesure de la vitesse de l'économie actuelle, et certainement pas au niveau de l'industrie informatique. Un seul projet manqué suffit à tuer une startup, alors...
frotte, frotte... ;)Some concerns have been raised that the directive may have an adverse effect on the development of open source software and small software developers. I support the development of open source software and welcome the fact that the major open-source companies are recording a 50% growth in world-wide shipment of its products.
In the amended proposal, I have imposed a requirement on the Commission to monitor the impact of the directive, in particular its effect on small and medium sized enterprises, and to look at any potential difficulties in respect of the relationship between patent protection of computer-implemented inventions and copyright protection. Many small companies have given their support to this directive, which will give them more legal certainty as it offers the possibility of protection for their R&D investment, and so assists in spin-off creation and technology transfer and generating new funds for new investments.
technology transfer ? Faut m'expliquer comment des patentes assistent le transfert de technologies...
Indeed recently, a small ten-person company in an economic black-spot in the UK granted a licence to a US multinational for its voice recognition software patents. Without European patent protection in this field, the small company could have found itself in the perverse situation whereby its R&D efforts and investment would simply have been taken by a large multinational company, who, with its team of patent lawyers, would have filed a patent on this invention. The EU company could have been faced subsequently with patent infringement proceedings.
mouais, mouais, certes...
Some lobbyists would like us to believe that having no patents is an option - it is
Les lobbyistes sont quand même surtout dans l'autre camp, faut pas rigoler, même si c'est vrai qu'enfin une lobby se met en place en faveur du logiciel libre.
not. No patents would put EU software developers at a severe disadvantage in the global market place, and would hand over the monopoly on patents to multinational companies.
C'est toujours l'argument avancé: en fait, les patentes sont là pour protéger les petits. Or c'est totalement faux. Il n'y a eu aux US qu'un seul cas où un petit a su faire valoir ses droits de patentes face à un géant (c'était d'ailleurs MS en l'occurence).
The work I have done is an honest attempt to approach this matter objectively, and to produce balanced legislation, taking into account the needs and interests of all sectors of the software development industry and small businesses in Europe. No doubt there will be more debate and refinements to the legislation before a final text is agreed under the EU legislation process.
Entre-temps, elle n'a rien fait pour protéger le logiciel libre. Un "monitoring" est tout sauf une garantie.
At a time when many of our traditional industries are migrating to Asia and when Europe needs increasingly to rely on its inventiveness to reap rewards, it is important to have the option of the revenue secured by patents and the licensing out of computer-implemented technologies.
héhé, le démon de la "mondialisation"...
...Software development is a major European industry. In 1998 alone the value of the EU software market was €39 billion. Most of this will be protected by copyright, but genuine computer-implemented inventions must have the possibility, for the future of competitiveness of our industry, to have patent protection.
Yours sincerely Arlene McCarthy MEP
Dear Mme McCarthy, c'est sincerely de la démagogie pure et simple.
A côté de ce discours frotte-manche, il ne faut pas oublier la manière dont elle a essayé de faire passer cette loi européenne, parce que ça, ça reflète tout sauf de la démocratie et un procédé qui vise à contenter tout le monde.
- -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://guru.unixtech.be
/\\ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE/by+Mr3NMWliFcXcRAq0IAJ4wqOwa+S9js5vy2Ru35xS/i7BUtwCgn/dc SwBQACwYRIc001P9r5HmswA= =YAQW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________________ Linux Mailing List - http://www.unixtech.be Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.unixtech.be/mailman/listinfo/linux Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: efnet.unixtech.be:6667 - #unixtech
