[Lancaster] directive COM(2002)92 2002/0047

[max]

Dear Arlene McCarthy

I am writing to you on behalf of the directors of SCN Ltd, a Training 
Consultancy based in NW England. 

We would like to ask you to vote against the software patent directive 
COM(2002)92 2002/0047. I have included a more detailed letter below drafted 
by FFII - a group which we have no links with, but I feel have concisely 
explained good reasons for rejecting the directive.

If the directive were passed our company would have to reassess the work we 
can undertake, and it is entirely possible that we would have to cease 
consultancy in the area of software within a few months, leading to 
retrenching, and very probably the end of our company. Patenting, rather than 
copyrighting of software is untenable to all but the largest companies with 
highly paid lawyers - innovation is stifled, and work that is undertaken 
using established procedures is jeopardised as patents are granted on 
standard practices of software development.

yours sincerely

Max Hetzberg
ICT co-ordinator, Seeds for Change Network Ltd.

----------------------------------------------

On Monday 1st September, the European Parliament will decide about the 
software patent directive COM(2002)92 2002/0047, euphemistically titled "on 
the patentability of computer-implemented inventions".

The directive draft as amended by the rapporteur Arlene McCarthy with support 
of the Legal Affairs Committe would make calculation rules and business 
methods such as Amazon One Click Shopping patentable, as in the USA. 30,000 
US-style software patents which the European Patent Office has recently 
granted against the letter and spirit of the current law would become 
enforceable in Europe, and national judges, who have criticised the EPO's 
practise[1] and refused to follow it[2], would moreover be obliged to make 
practically anything man-made under the sun (or "all practical problem 
solutions", as a leading EPO judge put it) patentable.

These plans are not popular. They have met strong criticism from

    * Our Call for Action, signed by 350 organisations and companies and 15000 
individuals, which asks for rejection of the directive and proposes a 
comprehensive set of amendments which could make the directive acceptable.
    * A recent petition of 10 leading economists to the European Parliament
    * A recent petition of 30 famous European computer scientists to the 
European Parliament
    * The Eurolinux Petition for a Free Europe without Software Patents, 
supported by 160,000 signatories, including 2000 CEOs and 3000 scientists
    * The Opinions of the CULT and ITRE Committees
    * The Opinion of the Economic and Social Council of the European Union
    * Opinions from the German Monopoly Commission, the Council of Regions of 
the European Union, the German Chamber of Commerce, several confederations of 
Small and Medium Enterprises, the French State Planning Commission, the 
French Government, several economic and legal studies ordered by the EU and 
many others.

The critics believe that property in software is adequately protected by 
copyright and that patents stifle innovation and discourage investments in 
software development. Their criticism is based on an ethical consensus of 
software developpers as well as on economic research.

The arguments of these critics have however been consistently disregarded by 
the proponents of the current directive proposal.

We have been waiting in vain for an answer to the following two questions[3]:

   1. What should be patentable and what not? Which of of the software patents 
granted by the EPO, if any, should be excluded from patentability? Please 
explain, citing a set of sample patent claims!
   2. How is this achieved by the proposed directive? Please explain for each 
sample patent claim, which provisions of the directive, if any, would exclude 
it from patentability!

We urge you:

   1. Please reject the directive as long as the two basic questions have not 
been answered!
   2. Please reject the directive as long as it relies on abstract criteria 
such as "technical contribution" without clarifying how these concepts 
exclude some sample patent claims!
   3. Please reject the directive as long as it does not reliably exclude 
patents on subject matter such as algorithms and business methods, whose 
patentability can not be shown to be in the best interests of innovation and 
productivity!

To let you understand better what is at stake, we have put together an outdoor 
performance and a conference on the subject of software patents. We could be 
very happy if you could come to Place du Luxembourg on Wednesday at 
12:00-14:00 and to Room A1E1 at 14:00-16:00 to exchange views with software 
developers, scientists and concerned citizens.

Yours Sincerely,