Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Germany will violate international agreements with Unitary Patent, says FFII

ffii.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 283 posts

Re: Germany will violate international agreements with Unitary Patent, says FFII

#261

Post by imtringued »

tssva wrote: post #28
tpetry wrote: post #7

As a german i am quite sure they will ratify software patents. The very sad part is the people deciding this have absolutely no understanding what they are doing and that they open the box of pandora. There is currently almost no invest money in european startups, and if everyone of these startups is liable for bogus software patents they will have absolutely no chance on getting big.

I don't like software patents but I have a hard time buying that it will limit investment further. It hasn't significantly done so in the US where software patents have long existed. I imagine it may spur investment because investors see software patents as protecting their investments in startups from both other startups and established companies. Edited to correct a typo kindly pointed out by a comment below.

There are two types of innovation. Corporate innovation and voluntary innovation. Both types of innovation are important but corporate innovation can only exist if there is some sort of intellectual property system. The IP system doesn't create innovation on its own, the potential for innovation has to already exist and the IP system is merely enabling it. Therefore when you are introducing an IP system you are making a trade off between the two types.

If you have no IP system then you are too dependent on people innovating for the sake of innovation because they enjoy it. If you have an extreme IP system then you are too dependent on corporations innovating for the sake of profit maximization. Both extremes limit overall innovation. There is a sweet spot in the middle where you both maximize corporate and voluntary innovation. The current copyright system is the closest to that sweet spot but it's leaning closer to corporate than voluntary because of its long duration. The current IP protection is good for both corporations and the open source/FOSS community. There is an opportunity to commercialize opensource software and make it easier to sponsor the developers but if the current system was kept until the end of humanity we wouldn't miss out on too much innovation.

But this article isn't about keeping what we have. Software is about to receive an additional IP system. One that is completely inaccessible to voluntary innovation. We are bound to leave the sweet spot at this rate and prioritize corporate innovation above everything else, even if it means there will be less innovation overall.

Re: Germany will violate international agreements with Unitary Patent, says FFII

#262

Post by imtringued »

Brakenshire wrote: post #97
akerro wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At least we're not the only country wanting to violate international agreements at present Countries do it all the time and there are conflicts because it all the time everywhere. UK is slightly different because EU is much stronger than UK, withdrawal agreement is important to keep food, medicine and skills flowing between borders. UK government is planning and making first successful steps towards breaking withdra…

The EU probably will lose the same in absolute terms, but it will be spread over 400 million people not 60 million. So in terms of rational policy making the EU should want a deal as much as the UK, but of course in practice if the impact is less diffuse it’s just less politically important.

The problem is on the UK side. They simply don't know what they want. The EU obviously wants to keep its members.

Re: Germany will violate international agreements with Unitary Patent, says FFII

#264

Post by imtringued »

mehrdadn wrote: post #50
chki wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First Google result: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/the-european-u... >The people pushing for more integration are politicians and bureaucrats, not normal people. That's simply not true. There are multiple civil society organizations pushing for a closer union. People are voting for parties that are explicitly pro-European.

I don't know who's right but France has some 65M people whereas e.g. Lithuania has 3M people. And France provides 15% of the EU budget whereas (say) Lithuania provides 0.3%. I'm not sure listing all countries on a bar chart as if their opinions have equal impact on the fate of the EU is an accurate way to illustrate the situation? Would the EU do just fine after losing the UK and a country like France? Would Germans…

>Would Germans still love the EU so much after they realize they're paying twice as much into the EU as the next country? Maybe you could argue it would, but I guess it seems far from obvious to me.

It would be shameful if we didn't, because helping poorer countries grow is the entire point of these transfer payments. The bigger issue is that there is lots of abuse and it doesn't actually improve the grand picture. Money is nice but only if it's used responsibly. If there was a way to reduce corruption in Eastern European countries they would grow on their own without any transfer payments. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your perspective), that's outside the scope of the EU.

It's the age old "give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish".

Re: Germany will violate international agreements with Unitary Patent, says FFII

#265

Post by imtringued »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #239
nix23 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>EU was basically just a free trade zone Exactly! That's what the EU should be and nothing more.

The EU has never been "just a free trade zone", though. It has always had a political element. To quote a 1963 Court of Justice judgment: "The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields and the subjects of which comprise not only member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislati…

The trade union, although critical to our modern day understanding of the EU, was actually not the primary goal, it was all about politics, primarily about maintaining peaceful diplomatic relationships between countries. It's just that doing business together is one of the more effective means to be friendly to each other.

Re: Germany will violate international agreements with Unitary Patent, says FFII

#266

Post by jariel »

fakedang wrote: post #254
jariel wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are misunderstanding the nature of this stuff. This is not corruption, it's just favours. Nobody is awarding a major contract to get their kid an associate job at McKinsey. The contract is awarded to McKinsey, if the person holding the purse has someone looking to get into such a role, then it's a nice thing that McKinsey can do in return. My mother was a director of customer service and used to hire all of my…

Except McKinsey didn't hire them after getting the contracts, but before, which clearly positions it to get many contracts. A few years back, it was clear as day that most of the govt business went to McKinsey in the Middle East, while BCG and Bain often received scraps. Relevant article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-growing-saudi-business-mckin...

It's nothing. McKinsey is a huge outfit, hiring 8 analysts is nothing. In fact it will help McKinsey more than anyone else as it would help them develop closer relationships with House of Saud.

The Saudi government is not giving McKinsey huge contracts because so and so's kid got hired there - point blank.

Also remember these kids are already stinking rich they don't even need to work.

And it's also a part of the world where business is done on the basis of relationships.

When a firm is giving Ferraris as 'kickbacks' then it's corruption but not this.

Re: Germany will violate international agreements with Unitary Patent, says FFII

#267

Post by jariel »

kazen44 wrote: post #170
Joeri wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. Von der leyen was proposed by the council, consisting of representatives from every country, and by extension representative for the voters in every country. She was then confirmed by a majority of the EU parliament, which is directly elected by the citizens. Every EU citizen voted in those elections, or had the opportunity to. So, if only a “very few” voted that is on them. If their elected representatives…

also, in european politics, direct election of officials rarely happens. (unlike in american politics). People usually vote for parties and the persons within them, not an individual.

This isn't so important though. Canada UK are the same. You don't technically elect a Prime Minister.

But - the party, platforms, PM etc are very transparent, and elections are held on that basis.

If the Conservative Party of the UK ran with B. Johnson and Brexit, but then after the election decided to make some randome guy from Scotland - that nobody ever heard of - the Prime Minister, and said Scot made a 'Throne Speech' with some completely different agenda ...

...there would be a revoluion.

And of course PM has to be someone elected at their riding for good reason.

It's simply not good enough to say 'someone voted somewhere' so therefore 'it's democracy and we can do what we want'.

Re: Germany will violate international agreements with Unitary Patent, says FFII

#268

Post by imtringued »

newbie578 wrote: post #110
mamon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact I think EU should take few steps back: the perfect state was before Lisbon treaty, when EU was basically just a free trade zone. Since Lisbon they try to make it a single country, with unified policy on international affairs, military, etc, which doesn't make sense.

Fascinating, this is such a hot topic which is going to be debated for decades. I for one think that EU needs to take several steps forward. I personally am for a single country, or how federalists like to say, United States of Europe. It seems to me like the "best case" scenario geopolitically and economically for EU.

I feel so too but the goals that I want the EU to achieve do not necessarily require a single federation. If they find a different method I'll be happy either way.

Re: Germany will violate international agreements with Unitary Patent, says FFII

#269

Post by imtringued »

ricohboy wrote: post #233
kilburn wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> heck EU members don't really have a name do they? This is very funny assuming you are from the USA. What do you call yourselves?

Americans? Do you identify as solely as European?

Nobody only possesses only one identity. People are complex.

Re: Germany will violate international agreements with Unitary Patent, says FFII

#270

Post by zoobab »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #242
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW patents cover inventions, not ideas. An invention is there implementation of an idea. They also require the submission of a workable embodiment in order to be granted. USA does blur the lines with its broad software patents and business method patents. But we in Europe have software patents to, they're just for inventions, not ideas. This post is my personal opinion and does not relate to my employment.

FWIW patents cover inventions, not ideas. A true but useless statement. An idea is not patentable. An idea implemented in a computer program is.

"An idea implemented in a computer program is."

Not according to EPC art52.2 (in Europe).

And not according to Alice jurisprudence (in the US).

But the patent lobby, including the patent offices, are at work trying to destroy those.

Post reply on HN