One of the things that has concerned me for a long time about the decision making processes in the EU is their inherent opt out nature and the way that bureaucrats and their political bosses make plans and then go ahead with them as long as they are not actively opposed. Regardless of how wide reaching these plans might be. Proposals get rubber stamped, without due consideration, at high level committees because the members of the committees have neither the time nor the interest in scrutinising them in detail and this is particularly true when plans can be routed through committees that they are not really related to - as was the case with the various attempts to get software patents approved by sending them through agriculture and fisheries councils of ministers.
The latest controversial EU plan is to allow Israel access to sensitive personal data of EU citizens. The general rule is that sensitive personal data cannot be transferred to 'third countries', i.e. a country outside the EU, unless the country concerned ensures an 'adequate' level of data protection. The operation of the rule in practice has been severely criticised by privacy advocates for many years. It is arguable for example that a number of the countries already on the approved EU 'third country' list, including the US despite their data safe harbour provisions, have data protection regimes that do not meet the minimum EU standards.
The inclusion of Israel on the approved third country list is a sensitive issue for Ireland at the moment, however, due to the reported use of forged Irish passports by an Israeli hit squad targeting a Hamas military commander earlier this year, in a hotel in Dubai. Forged UK passports were also involved but there is no indication yet that the UK government are concerned about Israel becoming an approved third country.
Whether or not the Irish ministers suceed in temporarily blocking Israel's access to this data (and yes it will be only temporary) the dispute is no more than a blip in the vast ocean of the personal data collection/processing/use/abuse/pollution systemic mess that we face as a global society. The way we and future generations deal with that mess is likely to be one of the defining features of the 21st century.
Showing posts sorted by date for query software patents agriculture. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query software patents agriculture. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
MEPs back telecoms package with 3 strikes amendment
The BBC is reporting that MEPs have voted in favour of the telecoms package with the 800 amendments relating to everything from online privacy invasion to lack of due process banning people from the internet for suspected copyright infringement.
You'll recall that the IMCO (Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection) and the ITRE (Committee on Industry, Research and Energy) were considering the package yesterday. There are no direct details from either of these committees yet to see what exactly was discussed or agreed.
UK Conservative MEP Malcolm Harbour has been rolled out to explain how dismayed the MEPs are at the misunderstanding of their intentions. He made a heartfelt plea to be seen to be working towards protecting and improving internet users rights and claimed that this was what the telecoms package was really about.
The IMCO committee is chaired by UK Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy. Now why am I putting those two names together in the recesses of my mind with an IP expansionist agenda? Well it could be because Harbour and McCarthy were a couple of the prime movers, along with rapporteur Janelly Fourtou (wife of Jean-Rene Fourtou, CEO of Vivendi Universal), behind fast tracking the intellectual property rights enforcement directive in 2004? Isn't that nice - Labour and Conservative working in harmony.
They failed at the time to get the absolute worst excesses of the original draft of that directive through - which would have included provisions to jail teenagers (and the managers of the ISPs they used) for swapping songs on the Net - but they are working hard on getting these included in the second IPR enforcement directive, coming to the EU and a member state near you very soon.
McCarthy incidentally was the rapporteur who drove the software patents directive to the edge of implementation too. Software patent anoraks will recall that there were several attempts to slip that one through the agriculture and fisheries committee without discussion.
I presume, therefore, I can be forgiven for not accepting at face value statements from Mr Harbour that he's really looking out for the interests of ordinary Internet users when he supports complex legislative monsters like the telecoms package and its inherent regulatory timebombs. He may even be sincere in that belief but he needs to realise that the interests of agents (commerce), creators and the public are not exactly aligned or coincident though they do sometimes overlap.
Update: Lilian at least is feeling cheered by Mr Harbour's assurances.
You'll recall that the IMCO (Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection) and the ITRE (Committee on Industry, Research and Energy) were considering the package yesterday. There are no direct details from either of these committees yet to see what exactly was discussed or agreed.
UK Conservative MEP Malcolm Harbour has been rolled out to explain how dismayed the MEPs are at the misunderstanding of their intentions. He made a heartfelt plea to be seen to be working towards protecting and improving internet users rights and claimed that this was what the telecoms package was really about.
The IMCO committee is chaired by UK Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy. Now why am I putting those two names together in the recesses of my mind with an IP expansionist agenda? Well it could be because Harbour and McCarthy were a couple of the prime movers, along with rapporteur Janelly Fourtou (wife of Jean-Rene Fourtou, CEO of Vivendi Universal), behind fast tracking the intellectual property rights enforcement directive in 2004? Isn't that nice - Labour and Conservative working in harmony.
They failed at the time to get the absolute worst excesses of the original draft of that directive through - which would have included provisions to jail teenagers (and the managers of the ISPs they used) for swapping songs on the Net - but they are working hard on getting these included in the second IPR enforcement directive, coming to the EU and a member state near you very soon.
McCarthy incidentally was the rapporteur who drove the software patents directive to the edge of implementation too. Software patent anoraks will recall that there were several attempts to slip that one through the agriculture and fisheries committee without discussion.
I presume, therefore, I can be forgiven for not accepting at face value statements from Mr Harbour that he's really looking out for the interests of ordinary Internet users when he supports complex legislative monsters like the telecoms package and its inherent regulatory timebombs. He may even be sincere in that belief but he needs to realise that the interests of agents (commerce), creators and the public are not exactly aligned or coincident though they do sometimes overlap.
Update: Lilian at least is feeling cheered by Mr Harbour's assurances.
Friday, February 04, 2005
JURI buck Commission on SW Patents
The EU parliament's legal affairs committee (JURI)has asked the Commission to start from scratch with their software patents proposal. FFII are pleased but they should be careful about getting too excited. It may be an important statement on behalf of the EU parliament, which has had serious concerns about the software patent proposals for some time. The commission are still at liberty to ignore these concerns, however, and have shown no signs that they are prepared to take the parliament seriously on the issue, with two recent attempts to slip the directive through on the agenda of agriculture and fisheries meetings.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Software patents stymied again
It looks as though Polish undersecretary of science and information technology, Wlodzimierz Marcinski, has scuppered the EU Council's attempts to sneak the software patents directive through on the nod at an agriculture meeting.
The tactics were not particularly subtle but it still requires someone to stand up and be counted and congratulations for Mr Marcinski for being that person. If this thing is to go through then for some remote semblance of basic respectability at least let it be subject to appropriate scrutiny and debate.
There is an argument to be made that patents should possibly be allowed on something that could previously only have been created as a peice of hardware but can now be effected purely in software, such as a particularly cleverly architected media player, which is novel and includes the requisite inventive step. There is also an argument that someone who creates a novel invention should not be precluded from obtaining a patent, just because that invention happens to include a software component. But to allow blanket patenting of software, essentially because it is software and yet if the particular item was created in any other way would be obvious, is stupid policy.
Wrapping something in the cloak of apparently clever technology is does not make it new, inventive or necessarily better but it might. And the generally poor level of undertanding of technology and its architecture often and inevitably leads to poor decision making in the choice, regulation and deployment of that technology. This rule applies whether the context of the decision under consideration is the compulsory use of computers in all courses or the blind allowance of software patents.
The tactics were not particularly subtle but it still requires someone to stand up and be counted and congratulations for Mr Marcinski for being that person. If this thing is to go through then for some remote semblance of basic respectability at least let it be subject to appropriate scrutiny and debate.
There is an argument to be made that patents should possibly be allowed on something that could previously only have been created as a peice of hardware but can now be effected purely in software, such as a particularly cleverly architected media player, which is novel and includes the requisite inventive step. There is also an argument that someone who creates a novel invention should not be precluded from obtaining a patent, just because that invention happens to include a software component. But to allow blanket patenting of software, essentially because it is software and yet if the particular item was created in any other way would be obvious, is stupid policy.
Wrapping something in the cloak of apparently clever technology is does not make it new, inventive or necessarily better but it might. And the generally poor level of undertanding of technology and its architecture often and inevitably leads to poor decision making in the choice, regulation and deployment of that technology. This rule applies whether the context of the decision under consideration is the compulsory use of computers in all courses or the blind allowance of software patents.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Software patents and ID cards sneaking through
More democracy in action in the EU. As was reported recently, the Council are sneaking the software patents directive through during a meeting on Agriculture and Fisheries today.
It will go back to the EU parliament, which opposed it in its current form, once the Council has approved it but don't expect the parliament to have much influence.
The ID cards bill was "debated" in the House of Commons yesterday and the chamber was virtually empty. Compare that with the sessions on MPs salaries when the same chamber is bursting at the seams with MPs and it gives you some indication of the state of our democracy in the UK. Our political representatives are more concerned about their own salaries than an issue of fundamental importance such as the introduction of national identity cards. No other Western democracy has introduced ID cards in peacetime and we're passing it through without interest or debate.
Paraphrasing Edmund Burke (and various others since, including Albert Einstein), for evil to prosper it requires only that good people do nothing. Most MPs are basically decent people but in this instance they are doing nothing.
It will go back to the EU parliament, which opposed it in its current form, once the Council has approved it but don't expect the parliament to have much influence.
The ID cards bill was "debated" in the House of Commons yesterday and the chamber was virtually empty. Compare that with the sessions on MPs salaries when the same chamber is bursting at the seams with MPs and it gives you some indication of the state of our democracy in the UK. Our political representatives are more concerned about their own salaries than an issue of fundamental importance such as the introduction of national identity cards. No other Western democracy has introduced ID cards in peacetime and we're passing it through without interest or debate.
Paraphrasing Edmund Burke (and various others since, including Albert Einstein), for evil to prosper it requires only that good people do nothing. Most MPs are basically decent people but in this instance they are doing nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)