[Lancaster] EU to vote on computer software patents.

[Martyn Welch]

> I just found out the EU parliament is voting on Sep 1st on a directive
> which  would legalise unlimited patenting of computer software. I sent
> the following  email to all the North West MEPs - if you want to do the
> same, here are the  addresses,
>
> andy.
>
> linglewood@europarl.eu.int, arlene.mccarthy@easynet.co.uk,
> ratsmep@aol.com,  contact@gary-titley-mep.new.labour.org.uk,
> dsumberg@europarl.eu.int,  chrisdaviesmep@cix.co.uk,
> twynn@europarl.eu.int, ddover@europarl.eu.int,
> briansimpson@lab.u-net.com, jfoster@europarl.eu.int
>


Cheers for the addresses, I have just done the same with this:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing because I have recently heard that, on 1st September, the
European Parliament is to vote on a directive (COM(2002)92 2002/0047)
which would legalise the unlimited patenting of computer software.

I have recently successfully finished a degree in engineering at
Lancaster University, where I am preparing to start a computing PhD. I
currently volunteer the knowledge I have gained to administrate a number
of computer systems for family and friends and I have helped build and
maintain a network of computers that will hopefully allow a large number
of people to gain basic computer skills. Many of these systems run an open
source computer operating system known as 'Linux', which depends for its
existence on the ability of people who are motivated to write software for
free to use their own creativity to write programs as they wish without
having to avoid tripping over previous patents of which in most cases they
were unaware.

Much of this software is written around open standards and many of these
standards have been the main reason for the spread of the internet.
Without these open standards many of the communication tools that the
majority of the internet users use and take for granted each day (such as
E-mail and Web pages) would only work with 1 piece of software; for
example webpages would only be viewable with Microsoft Internet Explorer
and not by Netscape Navigator. Microsoft, among others, have tried in
various ways to erode these common protocols and lock people into
proprietory systems which they control; so far without much success, as
open standards like JavaScript have generally won out over things like
Microsoft's vbscript. Software patenting gives more power to those who
wish to make the internet proprietory at the expense of those who wish to
keep things open. This may seem trivial, however Microsoft has
publically stated that it will not be making any further stand-alone
versions of Internet Explorer
[http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1011859.html]. This would thus force
anyone who wanted to view the webpages to buy Microsoft Windows and not
the many other competing operating systems. Much as use of a single breed
of potatoes lead to the Irish potatoe famine, the wide use of identical
software, such as Microsofts Windows Operating System, is leading to the
easy spread of software viruses which whould have a huge impact on
productivity, such as the Nimda virus
[http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,49681,00.html] or the recent
MsBlaster virus.

In many cases the kinds of patents which are now being allowed, due to a
gradual and deliberate erosion of the letter and spirit of existing law,
cover quite trivial innovations which any competent programmer would think
of naturally as part of their craft. To give an example of the height of
absurdity the situation is reaching, the European Patent Office has
recently granted a patent to Amazon.com covering all
computer-based methods of automatically delivering a gift to someone else.
So if, for example, a shop in Lancaster where I live wanted a web site
which people could use to send a gift to a friend or relative, they would
be bound to pay a license fee to Amazon. This runs counter to the existing
Article 52 of the European Patent Convention of 1973, which explicitly
excludes computer software and business practices from
patentability; currently computer software is covered by copyright law
only, which has a different effect.

Software is protected under copyright law, so any particular
implementation of these standards is legally protected, but another party
is also free to write code which implements the same standard in a
different way, and thus keeping interoperatability. Under patent law the
situation would be different, the concept of that protocol would
protected rather than a particular implementation, so companies would be
able to use the law to lock users into their particular system and thus
create a divided internet where users can only talk to others who have
bought into the same system. In human terms, this would be as if someone
had a patent on a major world language, and could charge license fees from
those they let speak it, and silence the mouths of those they didn't. I
hope you can see why moves in this direction should be
resisted.

I therefore hope that you will resist this trend by voting against the
motion and requesting that the draft directive be rewritten in a way which
takes account of the interests and benefits the broader community of
computer users and professionals, rather than the narrow interests of a
few companies and the lawyers who profit from their activities.

Thank you for taking the time to read this,

yours sincerely,

Martyn Welch MEng MIEE.