[Conet] Software Patents

[Gordon]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_006D_01C3998A.84A44300
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi there folks,
This item could concern all of us one way or another ?.
Anyone who writes or develops software could become liable !.
If you want the full story the attached doc does that .
I would urge all, to FAX/mail MP and MEP. www.FaxYourMP.com
The future, especially for small businesses and possibly some charities will
be a wipe-out for those trying to develop software.
They or I will not be able to compete with larger companies and therefore
all users will be held to ransom !.

Is this what the British Government wants ?.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/03

------=_NextPart_000_006D_01C3998A.84A44300
Content-Type: text/plain;
	name="SWPAT1.1.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="SWPAT1.1.txt"

[SWPAT] EU patent officials meeting this week. Letters needed *now*.


Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure UK


Dear UK Supporter[1],

The European Parliament voted in September for a clear exclusion[2] of
software from patentability, having heard powerful arguments from
economists[3], scientists[4], small business associations[5] and MEPs[6]
that software patents would be bad for e-commerce[7], bad for small
businesses[8], and bad for innovation[9].

But this vote is in danger of being set aside[10] at a meeting of the =
EU's
Competitiveness Council of Ministers[11] on 10 November. The ministers'=20
meeting is to be "negotiated" at a meeting of senior patent =
officials[12]=20
from across Europe even sooner: this Thursday 23 October.

If UK ministers cannot be convinced otherwise before 10 November, it
is believed they will push for the Council to adopt a November 2002=20
draft text[13], which is even worse than the infamous McCarthy
report[14]. The European Parliament's rules for second reading make it
very difficult for MEPs to fix a bad text from the Council.

So far UK ministers have been sleepwalking, automatically following a
Patent Office script. The FFII is therefore calling for all supporters
to contact their local MPs, as soon as possible. We have until 10 =
November=20
at the latest to wake up UK ministers up the dangers of software =
patents.
If at all possible we need to try to make an impact before this =
Thursday.

It could be our last good chance to stop software patents in Europe.

Every letter could be the one which tips the balance.

Every letter counts.

A web version can be found at=20
http://www.ffii.org.uk/council.html

Who to contact

* WRITE to your local MP as soon as possible with your concerns
about software patents, and ask your MP to bring them to the
attention of Stephen Timms MP[38], the minister for e-commerce at
the DTI.

* BY ASKING your local MP to forward your concerns, you should get a
reply personally signed by the minister. You could of course just
write to the minister directly; but if you do, you will just
receive a standard civil service reply, and the minister will
never see it.



What is the UK position?

UK policy has so far been led by the UK Patent Office[17]. The UKPO
has been particularly active in lobbying[18] for unlimited
patentability and is unlikely to support a platform which is
acceptable to anyone except the patent industry.

Unless they can be convinced otherwise, UK Government ministers are
being led by UKPO officials to support the November 2002 draft[19]
drawn up by patent offices across Europe. The Nov 2002 version
actively supports software patenting, unlike the September 2003
European Parliament text[20].

Replies from ministers[21] are claiming that the UK Patent Office's
consultation[22] 3 years ago produced results which were "broadly in
favour" of the UKPO position. In fact, the views[23] of software
professionals (as opposed to patent professionals) were overwhelmingly
against software patents.


Are software patents good for software developers?

NO. "Software patents are like landmines for programmers. At each
design decision, there is a chance you will step on a patent and it
will destroy your project. Considering the large number of ideas that
must be combined in a modern program, the danger becomes very large."
-- Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU project.

Supporters of e-patents often make the simple equation=20
patents =3D=3Dinnovation =3D=3D growth.=20
One of the most interesting articles to rebut this is "e-Patents and
financial investing"[24] by Laura Creighton, a software venture=20
capitalist. It explains why software patents are not necessary, nor=20
usually even helpful, and give surprisingly little real protection.

Software patents are bad for e-commerce[25], bad for small
businesses[26] and bad for innovation[27]. That is why leading
economists[28], scientists[29], small business associations[30], and
MEPs[31] all urged the European Parliament to vote against software
patents.


What does the minister needs to know?

* Our central request is for the the Council of Ministers not to
adopt its draft November 2002 text[32] unamended, but instead to
substantially revise it, adopting and building on the Parliament
amendments.

* Most importantly, we need to convince the Government that software
patents are a bad idea. Ministers should not just follow the
advice of the UK Patent Office (UKPO) uncritically. Currently UKPO
are both judge and jury, and about as likely to campaign for real
limits on software patents as turkeys are to vote for Christmas.
Ministers must be challenged to consider for themselves what is
really in the best interests of the UK software industry and all
UK computer users,


* The directive claims to allow the patenting of new "technical"
devices, but not the patenting of "generic pure software". But
the EPO regards almost any software innovation as "technical"[34].
Without an explicit definition, European Courts will be forced to
follow the EPO doctrine. The European Parliament's most important
amendment is its new very clear definition of what is and what is
not "technical".

* The November 2002 draft also makes abstract data processing a
field of technology[35]; has no article 6a to allow
interoperability[36] -- and it would allow program claims[37], so
that just discussing code on a website can be a direct patent
infringement. Ministers must re-open the November 2002 text.
=20
Every letter counts.

 References

1. You have signed the Petition http://noepatents.org
and/or Call for Action
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/demands/
and thereby explicitely allowed us to send occasional
alerts. We make very rare use of this permission.

2. http://swpat.ffii.org/journal/03/fsfr1010/index.en.html
3. http://www.researchineurope.org/policy/patentdirltr.htm
4. =
http://www.greens-efa.org/pdf/documents/SoftwarePatenting/petitiontoEP_EN=
.pdf
5. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/ceapme0309/index.en.html
6. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/plen0309/deba/#framm
7. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#ecommerce
8. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#developers
9. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#innovation
10. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39116709,00.htm
11. http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/CouncilOfMinisters
12. =
http://register.consilium.eu.int/scripts/utfregisterDir/WebDriver.exe?MIv=
al=3Dresult&MIlang=3DEN&key=3DREGISTER&ssf=3DDATE_DOCUMENT+DESC&fc=3DREGA=
ISEN&srm=3D25&md=3D400&what=3Dsimple&ff_TITRE=3Dworking+intellectual+prop=
erty+patents&ff_FT_TEXT=3D&ff_SOUS_COTE_MATIERE=3D&dd_DATE_REUNION=3D&but=
ton1=3DSearch+Now
13. http://www.ffii.org.uk/nov2002.html
14. =
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/amccarthy0302/index.en.html
15. http://swpat.ffii.org/group/todo/index.en.html
16. =
http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=3D-//EP//TEXT+RULES-EP+200=
30201+RULE-080+DOC+XML+V0//EN&HNAV=3DY
17. http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/issues/softpat.htm
18. http://swpat.ffii.org//players/uk/index.en.html
19. http://www.ffii.org.uk/nov2002.html
20. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/
21. http://www.ffii.org.uk/hewitt.html
22. http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/conclusions.htm
23. =
http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/responses/comsoft/index.htm
24. http://www.vrijschrift.org/swpat/030508_1/
25. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#ecommerce
26. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#developers
27. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#innovation
28. http://www.researchineurope.org/policy/patentdirltr.htm
29. =
http://www.greens-efa.org/pdf/documents/SoftwarePatenting/petitiontoEP_EN=
.pdf
30. =
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/ceapme0309/index.en.html
31. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/plen0309/deba/#framm
32. http://www.ffii.org.uk/nov2002.html
33. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html
34. http://www.ffii.org.uk/technical.html
35. http://www.ffii.org.uk/fields_of_tech.html
36. http://www.ffii.org.uk/interop.html
37. http://www.ffii.org.uk/program_claims.html
38. http://www.dti.gov.uk/ministers/ministers/timms.html
39. http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/issues/softpat.htm
40. http://aktiv.ffii.org/?l=3Den
41. http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html?LANG=3Den
42. http://www.ffii.org.uk/index.html

------=_NextPart_000_006D_01C3998A.84A44300--