So I just noticed a post
claiming - not providing any proof, mind you, but merely
claiming - that the EU is attempting to ban Linux. "Hogwash, " I said to myself, "surely this is some form of misunderstanding." Indeed it is not, and is quite disturbing.
The Knoppix Project website refers to this drastic interpretation of the proposals, which I suggest you read. It links to
this site, which explains the issue further. Apparently the Parliament and the Commission are having communication problems. That is to say, the Parliament says one thing, and the Commission does the other. People, the answer is simple. Fight the powers that be, don't let the Commission ignore the collective voices of the People. Vote for pro-militia measures, and so on and so forth. If you don't keep an eye open, and keep those pens handy for your letters to the ignorant, you'll be subjugated in the worst possible manner.
Having said that, I feel I should expound upon you the beauty - and complete existance in a fabled reality - of the
Patented Workshop page of that self-same site. Check the links they provide there. I did, and I know I found a startling reality. The basis for this entire argument, the reason why "the sky is falling?" Protective patents filed twenty years (that's two decades) ago. People, if you haven't noticed, computer science in the 80's was not a for-profit medium. CompuServe and its ilk operated
at a loss at the time, and patenting this kind of development for
anything but protective reasons was certainly nothing to add to your resume.
Now you're probably noticing that I'm using the word "protective" an awful lot. Why is that? Well, to fully understand that issue, you must understand the history of patents. It was not until recently that the USPTO was abused in such a manner, or for that matter, the Patent Offices of the rest of the world. Originally, one filed for patents in order to keep another from making money off of them. However, if "prior art" could be demonstrated - that is, art in existance prior to the patent, or - more to the point - in existance
demonstrating the issue prior to the patent - the patent would be dismissed. It is this protection for which the original authors filed,
not the overbearing - and potentially illegal - "commercial patents" of today. Keep in mind whilst reading that page that somebody actually made a conscious decision that
nobody should
ever profit off of the control of the mediums specified. It is only by the device author's good graces that we don't pay for it
now, but I'll save merchantability for another discussion on another day.
In closing, patents are a great idea. Software patents even moreso. Unfortunately, more corporations have become convinced that controlling the medium is essential to profitting from the market, and humanity bears the loss. The EU cannot even get along on this one issue, because there is so much bastardization of the issue - on both sides of the fence. Patents should only be granted on a prevention basis, and then only to the original inventor when it is proven that a corporation could use commercial patents to an unfair advantage. The current system needs reform, and the EU is headed in the right direction. Unfortunately, it may not be fast enough.
I stand by the title though; if you want the Commission to listen, don't complain on some page people may never see. Don't have people sign an (easily overlooked) online petition that the Commission could just as easily ignore. Give out addresses. Give out phone numbers. You'll find out how many annoyed letters and phone calls it will take for the Commission to listen to the people it governs by their own consensus. Most importantly, try to turn patents to your advantage. It's been done before, it can certainly be done again.