[Lancaster] more mep letters

Tue Sep 2 16:36:01 2003

--Boundary-00=_6hLV/IJxu911mJg
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I've attached some more letters to & from meps if anyone wants to read them.
robert atkins sent me the same form letter as to martyn.
The important one is probably the one from mccarthy, as she's the one who has 
been most involved in drafting this report.

andy.

-- 
Please don't send me html mail or un-notified attachments. These will be 
automatically filed under 'probable spam' unless I'm expecting an email which 
hasn't come.
If you do need to send an attachment or html mail, put [attachment] or [html] 
in the subject line.
Thanks, andy.

--Boundary-00=_6hLV/IJxu911mJg
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii";
  name="mail-to-wynne1.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="mail-to-wynne1.txt"

I'm pleased to hear that opposition to this proposal is at least being taken 
seriously enough for the vote to have been postponed. However, you have not 
answered my (implied) original question as to your and your party's views on 
this matter, and how you are intending to vote. 

Having looked through some of the patents that have been granted recently 
under the current law, it is pretty clear to me that the existing system is 
being abused to the detriment of everybody who works with computers in 
europe, and I'm not convinced that the proposal offers any real guarantees 
that this will not continue to happen. For example, the Amazon patent which I 
mentioned in my original letter, and a patent granted to Adobe in 2002 on the 
concept of using tabbed palettes in the graphical interface of their 
Photoshop software. This is hardly a patentable invention, just a simple 
concept which any programmer might come up with when faced with the problem 
of displaying a lot of information in a small amount of screen space. There 
are also more borderline cases, such as the patent on run-length encoding 
which has now stopped the JPEG compressed image format from being a truly 
open standard. 'Run-length encoding' might sound like quite a technical 
concept, but really it's just like if you had to convey the information 
'aaaaaaaabbbbcccccd' you'd write a8b4c5d1 (i.e. eight a's, four b's, five 
c's, and one d.). Again, not a major technical innovation, just part of the 
usual craft of programming. To my mind, the value of having open standards in 
this case far outweighs the supposed intellectual property of whoever filed 
this patent.

More generally, I can see that there is some limited argument for saying that 
times have changed since the original patent law was created, when inventing 
things was about thinking of designs for actual physical objects, and that if 
someone has spent a great deal of time working on some kind of information 
processing algorithm, they should have some protection against people 
exploiting that invention. However, firstly it's pretty clear that many if 
not most of the patents being granted at the moment do not fall into this 
category. Secondly, there are genuine questions about whether the patent 
system as it stands does offer any real benefit to the industries that use 
it, and I'm not sure that the people who drafted the report have made any 
real effort to answer these questions: I am not enough of an economist or 
businessman to be able to judge this for myself, but the view of the FFII and 
EUROLINUX that the directive has been drafted by a closed group of patent 
lawyers and a small clique of large software companies to promote their own 
agenda without any genuine outside consultation seems entirely plausible to 
me. This is particularly important given that software has an entirely 
different economics to physical manufactured goods, as the marginal cost of 
production is almost zero, so ideas from traditional patenting should not be 
extended to this field without careful and honest thought. Thirdly, even if 
some limited patent protection should be given to software, there are other 
things that should be balanced against against these proprietory rights, such 
as the need for open standards in the exchange of computer information. For 
example, if Microsoft were allowed to patent the file format used by their 
'Word' program, I would have been unable to read the email attachment sent to 
me by one of your colleagues in that format, as I am running a linux system. 
Fourthly, given that the existing law which forbids software patenting is 
currently being abused by the patent lobby, to me the political reality of 
the situation is that any concession towards patenting of software will 
simply strengthen this trend and reward their behaviour, so if I had to come 
down on one side or the other on this issue, I would support the FFII line 
that patenting should be reserved for purely technical inventions in the 
traditional sense.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to reply stating your own views on this 
issue, and how you are intending to vote at the end of the month.

Andrew Baxter

On Thursday 28 August 2003 9:19 am, you wrote:
> The Arlene McCarthy report has been taken off next weeks agenda and will be
> voted on at the endof September.  The reason is to find a compromise with
> those who oppose it.  There is a lot of opposition to it and Arlene
> McCarthy is trying to make sure it is acceptable to the majority of
> members.
>
> TERRY WYNN MEP
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Simpson MEP" <briansimpson@lab.u-net.com>
> To: <andy@earthsong.free-online.co.uk>
> Cc: "terry" <terry_wynn.labour@virgin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 12:58 PM
> Subject: Re: please vote against computer software patents.
>
> > Dear Andrew,
> >
> > Thank you for your mail.  I have passed it on to my colleague Terry Wynn
>
> MEP
>
> > who has special responsibility for the Lancaster area out of the four
>
> Labour
>
> > North West MEPs.  I am sure Terry will respond to you as soon as he is
>
> able.
>
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
> > Brian Simpson MEP
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Andrew Baxter <andy@earthsong.free-online.co.uk>
> > To: <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>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 7:45 AM
> > Subject: please vote against computer software patents.
> >
> > > hello,
> > >
> > > I am writing because I have recently heard that the European Parliament
>
> is
>
> > to
> >
> > > vote on Sep 1st on a directive (COM(2002)92 2002/0047) which would
> >
> > legalise
> >
> > > the unlimited patenting of computer software and business models
> >
> > implemented
> >
> > > using this, against current practice and the opinion of a wide body of
> >
> > people
> >
> > > in the computer industry. Although I am not a professional programmer,
> > > I
> >
> > am a
> >
> > > user of and part-time contributor to the 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 release to use
> > > their
> >
> > own
> >
> > > creativity to write programs as they wish without having to avoid
>
> tripping
>
> > > over previous patents which in most cases they may not even be aware
> > > of.
> > >
> > > In many cases the kinds of patents which are now being allowed through,
> >
> > 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.
> > >
> > > In other words, lawyers paid by large computer companies have for years
> >
> > been
> >
> > > using their rhetorical skills to deliberately erode the clearly stated
> >
> > view
> >
> > > of the European Community on the issue of software patents, in a way
>
> that
>
> > is
> >
> > > harmful to free innovation in the industry and in the end benefits
>
> no-one,
>
> > > and are now looking to the EC to enshrine their activities in new law.
> > >
> > > I 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 of 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.
> > >
> > > I have included some web references at the end of this email which you
> >
> > might
> >
> > > wish to read if you want to look into this issue for yourself. Having
>
> made
>
> > my
> >
> > > main point, I would like to finish with some words on open source
>
> software
>
> > > and the importance of open standards in making the internet what it is,
> >
> > which
> >
> > > you may read or not as you wish. I am writing this email on a program
> >
> > called
> >
> > > kmail which is part of the linux open source operating system. It
>
> probably
>
> > > looks much like the program running on the computer screen you are now
>
> sat
>
> > in
> >
> > > front of reading this email - a window I can type messages into, a
> >
> > scrolling
> >
> > > list of received messages, buttons to press to send and receive mail
> > > and
> >
> > so
> >
> > > on. This program and the others on my computer have been written by
>
> people
>
> > > across the world who enjoy writing software for others to use, and
>
> prefer
>
> > to
> >
> > > work in a spirit of open collaboration similar to the tradition of
> >
> > academic
> >
> > > research, where although due credit is given to previous work, others
>
> are
>
> > > free to build on that as they wish. Having downloaded my own copy for
> >
> > free, I
> >
> > > do what I can to put back into this community by giving advice to other
> >
> > users
> >
> > > on the internet newsgroups and writing small programs. A nice thing
>
> about
>
> > > linux from my point of view as someone somewhere between the complete
> >
> > novice
> >
> > > and the experienced programmer is that if I see a simple problem with
>
> the
>
> > > system that I know how to fix, I can do it myself, then make the patch
> > > available for others to use. Although open source software is not
>
> exactly
>
> > > mainstream, it is one of the more interesting social developments in
> > > the computer world in recent years, and is gathering momentum as time
> > > goes
>
> by,
>
> > > particularly among the younger generation of computer programmers, and
> >
> > many
> >
> > > talented people across the world are putting their energy into it. It
> >
> > should
> >
> > > also not be written off as marginal - for example the latest Macintosh
> > > operating system uses an open source system as its core, and just under
> >
> > half
> >
> > > of the web's busiest sites use the open source program 'apache' as
> > > their webserver. If the current trend towards patenting ever more
> > > trivial
> >
> > software
> >
> > > innovations is allowed to continue, this movement, which I wish to see
> > > flourish, will be threatened, as many of the people writing open source
> >
> > code
> >
> > > do not have the financial resources to defend themselves against patent
> > > infringement suits which, as is the way of these things, may in some
>
> cases
>
> > > not be justified even in the narrowest sense.
> > >
> > > Another area in which software patenting may have a bad effect is in
> > > its impact on the open standards which the internet is currently based
> > > on.
>
> At
>
> > the
> >
> > > moment, these are discussed among a range of interested parties, then
> > > published as official standards which anyone may use. So although there
> >
> > are
> >
> > > many different web browsers and editors on a range of computer
>
> platforms,
>
> > > some of which are proprietory, the protocols which these programs use
> > > to
> >
> > talk
> >
> > > to each other are open, preventing any one organisation from
> > > controlling
> >
> > the
> >
> > > system. Similarly with things like email - I can send an email to
> > > anyone
> >
> > who
> >
> > > has an address, and it does not matter that their mailreader is Eudora,
> >
> > but
> >
> > > mine is kmail. 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 Java /
> > > JavaScript have generally won out over things like Microsoft's similar
> > > technology. However, software patenting gives more power to those who
>
> wish
>
> > to
> >
> > > make the internet proprietory, and takes it from those who wish to keep
> > > things open. If software is protected under copyright law, then the
> > > particular code someone has written to implement a means of
>
> communication
>
> > is
> >
> > > legally protected, but another party is also free to write code which
>
> does
>
> > > the same thing in a different way, and thus keep communication open.
>
> 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 stop the mouths of those they didn't. I hope you
> >
> > can
> >
> > > see why moves in this direction should be resisted.
> > >
> > > Thank you for taking the time to read this,
> > >
> > > yours sincerely, andrew baxter.
> > >
> > > http://swpat.ffii.org/ - Foundation for a Free Information
>
> Infrastructure
>
> > > http://ukcdr.org/ - Campaign for digital rights, uk.
> > > http://www.fsf.org/ - free software foundation.
> > > http://www.durak.org/sean/pubs/bss/ - web server market share.
> > > http://www.linux.org/info/index.html - linux online
> > >
> > > --
> > > Please don't send me html mail or un-notified attachments. These will
> > > be automatically filed under 'probable spam' unless I'm expecting an
> > > email
> >
> > which
> >
> > > hasn't come.
> > > If you do need to send an attachment or html mail, put [attachment] or
> >
> > [html]
> >
> > > in the subject line.
> > > Thanks.

-- 
Please don't send me html mail or un-notified attachments. These will be 
automatically filed under 'probable spam' unless I'm expecting an email which 
hasn't come.
If you do need to send an attachment or html mail, put [attachment] or [html] 
in the subject line.
Thanks, andy.

--Boundary-00=_6hLV/IJxu911mJg
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii";
  name="wynne-mail2.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="wynne-mail2.txt"

I am no expert on this particular subject, Arlene McCarthy is and I would
normally follow the lead on such an issue.  However this has been postponed
so we can listen to all the arguments and once done, I will then make up my
mind how to vote and will bear your comments in mind and I am grateful for
these and the information you have given.

Once again then you for contacting me.

TERRY WYNN MEP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Baxter" <andy@earthsong.free-online.co.uk>
To: "Terry Wynn" <terry_wynn.labour@virgin.net>
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: please vote against computer software patents.

> I'm pleased to hear that opposition to this proposal is at least being
taken
> seriously enough for the vote to have been postponed. However, you have
not
> answered my (implied) original question as to your and your party's views
on
> this matter, and how you are intending to vote.
>
> Having looked through some of the patents that have been granted recently
> under the current law, it is pretty clear to me that the existing system
is
> being abused to the detriment of everybody who works with computers in
> europe, and I'm not convinced that the proposal offers any real guarantees
> that this will not continue to happen. For example, the Amazon patent
which I
> mentioned in my original letter, and a patent granted to Adobe in 2002 on
the
> concept of using tabbed palettes in the graphical interface of their
> Photoshop software. This is hardly a patentable invention, just a simple
> concept which any programmer might come up with when faced with the
problem
> of displaying a lot of information in a small amount of screen space.
There
> are also more borderline cases, such as the patent on run-length encoding
> which has now stopped the JPEG compressed image format from being a truly
> open standard. 'Run-length encoding' might sound like quite a technical
> concept, but really it's just like if you had to convey the information
> 'aaaaaaaabbbbcccccd' you'd write a8b4c5d1 (i.e. eight a's, four b's, five
> c's, and one d.). Again, not a major technical innovation, just part of
the
> usual craft of programming. To my mind, the value of having open standards
in
> this case far outweighs the supposed intellectual property of whoever
filed
> this patent.
>
> More generally, I can see that there is some limited argument for saying
that
> times have changed since the original patent law was created, when
inventing
> things was about thinking of designs for actual physical objects, and that
if
> someone has spent a great deal of time working on some kind of information
> processing algorithm, they should have some protection against people
> exploiting that invention. However, firstly it's pretty clear that many if
> not most of the patents being granted at the moment do not fall into this
> category. Secondly, there are genuine questions about whether the patent
> system as it stands does offer any real benefit to the industries that use
> it, and I'm not sure that the people who drafted the report have made any
> real effort to answer these questions: I am not enough of an economist or
> businessman to be able to judge this for myself, but the view of the FFII
and
> EUROLINUX that the directive has been drafted by a closed group of patent
> lawyers and a small clique of large software companies to promote their
own
> agenda without any genuine outside consultation seems entirely plausible
to
> me. This is particularly important given that software has an entirely
> different economics to physical manufactured goods, as the marginal cost
of
> production is almost zero, so ideas from traditional patenting should not
be
> extended to this field without careful and honest thought. Thirdly, even
if
> some limited patent protection should be given to software, there are
other
> things that should be balanced against against these proprietory rights,
such
> as the need for open standards in the exchange of computer information.
For
> example, if Microsoft were allowed to patent the file format used by their
> 'Word' program, I would have been unable to read the email attachment sent
to
> me by one of your colleagues in that format, as I am running a linux
system.
> Fourthly, given that the existing law which forbids software patenting is
> currently being abused by the patent lobby, to me the political reality of
> the situation is that any concession towards patenting of software will
> simply strengthen this trend and reward their behaviour, so if I had to
come
> down on one side or the other on this issue, I would support the FFII line
> that patenting should be reserved for purely technical inventions in the
> traditional sense.
>
> Perhaps you would be kind enough to reply stating your own views on this
> issue, and how you are intending to vote at the end of the month.
>
> Andrew Baxter
>
> On Thursday 28 August 2003 9:19 am, you wrote:
> > The Arlene McCarthy report has been taken off next weeks agenda and will
be
> > voted on at the endof September.  The reason is to find a compromise
with
> > those who oppose it.  There is a lot of opposition to it and Arlene
> > McCarthy is trying to make sure it is acceptable to the majority of
> > members.
> >
> > TERRY WYNN MEP
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Brian Simpson MEP" <briansimpson@lab.u-net.com>
> > To: <andy@earthsong.free-online.co.uk>
> > Cc: "terry" <terry_wynn.labour@virgin.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 12:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: please vote against computer software patents.
> >
> > > Dear Andrew,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your mail.  I have passed it on to my colleague Terry
Wynn
> >
> > MEP
> >
> > > who has special responsibility for the Lancaster area out of the four
> >
> > Labour
> >
> > > North West MEPs.  I am sure Terry will respond to you as soon as he is
> >
> > able.
> >
> > > Yours sincerely,
> > >
> > > Brian Simpson MEP
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Andrew Baxter <andy@earthsong.free-online.co.uk>
> > > To: <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>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 7:45 AM
> > > Subject: please vote against computer software patents.
> > >
> > > > hello,
> > > >
> > > > I am writing because I have recently heard that the European
Parliament
> >
> > is
> >
> > > to
> > >
> > > > vote on Sep 1st on a directive (COM(2002)92 2002/0047) which would
> > >
> > > legalise
> > >
> > > > the unlimited patenting of computer software and business models
> > >
> > > implemented
> > >
> > > > using this, against current practice and the opinion of a wide body
of
> > >
> > > people
> > >
> > > > in the computer industry. Although I am not a professional
programmer,
> > > > I
> > >
> > > am a
> > >
> > > > user of and part-time contributor to the 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 release to use
> > > > their
> > >
> > > own
> > >
> > > > creativity to write programs as they wish without having to avoid
> >
> > tripping
> >
> > > > over previous patents which in most cases they may not even be aware
> > > > of.
> > > >
> > > > In many cases the kinds of patents which are now being allowed
through,
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > In other words, lawyers paid by large computer companies have for
years
> > >
> > > been
> > >
> > > > using their rhetorical skills to deliberately erode the clearly
stated
> > >
> > > view
> > >
> > > > of the European Community on the issue of software patents, in a way
> >
> > that
> >
> > > is
> > >
> > > > harmful to free innovation in the industry and in the end benefits
> >
> > no-one,
> >
> > > > and are now looking to the EC to enshrine their activities in new
law.
> > > >
> > > > I 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 of 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.
> > > >
> > > > I have included some web references at the end of this email which
you
> > >
> > > might
> > >
> > > > wish to read if you want to look into this issue for yourself.
Having
> >
> > made
> >
> > > my
> > >
> > > > main point, I would like to finish with some words on open source
> >
> > software
> >
> > > > and the importance of open standards in making the internet what it
is,
> > >
> > > which
> > >
> > > > you may read or not as you wish. I am writing this email on a
program
> > >
> > > called
> > >
> > > > kmail which is part of the linux open source operating system. It
> >
> > probably
> >
> > > > looks much like the program running on the computer screen you are
now
> >
> > sat
> >
> > > in
> > >
> > > > front of reading this email - a window I can type messages into, a
> > >
> > > scrolling
> > >
> > > > list of received messages, buttons to press to send and receive mail
> > > > and
> > >
> > > so
> > >
> > > > on. This program and the others on my computer have been written by
> >
> > people
> >
> > > > across the world who enjoy writing software for others to use, and
> >
> > prefer
> >
> > > to
> > >
> > > > work in a spirit of open collaboration similar to the tradition of
> > >
> > > academic
> > >
> > > > research, where although due credit is given to previous work,
others
> >
> > are
> >
> > > > free to build on that as they wish. Having downloaded my own copy
for
> > >
> > > free, I
> > >
> > > > do what I can to put back into this community by giving advice to
other
> > >
> > > users
> > >
> > > > on the internet newsgroups and writing small programs. A nice thing
> >
> > about
> >
> > > > linux from my point of view as someone somewhere between the
complete
> > >
> > > novice
> > >
> > > > and the experienced programmer is that if I see a simple problem
with
> >
> > the
> >
> > > > system that I know how to fix, I can do it myself, then make the
patch
> > > > available for others to use. Although open source software is not
> >
> > exactly
> >
> > > > mainstream, it is one of the more interesting social developments in
> > > > the computer world in recent years, and is gathering momentum as
time
> > > > goes
> >
> > by,
> >
> > > > particularly among the younger generation of computer programmers,
and
> > >
> > > many
> > >
> > > > talented people across the world are putting their energy into it.
It
> > >
> > > should
> > >
> > > > also not be written off as marginal - for example the latest
Macintosh
> > > > operating system uses an open source system as its core, and just
under
> > >
> > > half
> > >
> > > > of the web's busiest sites use the open source program 'apache' as
> > > > their webserver. If the current trend towards patenting ever more
> > > > trivial
> > >
> > > software
> > >
> > > > innovations is allowed to continue, this movement, which I wish to
see
> > > > flourish, will be threatened, as many of the people writing open
source
> > >
> > > code
> > >
> > > > do not have the financial resources to defend themselves against
patent
> > > > infringement suits which, as is the way of these things, may in some
> >
> > cases
> >
> > > > not be justified even in the narrowest sense.
> > > >
> > > > Another area in which software patenting may have a bad effect is in
> > > > its impact on the open standards which the internet is currently
based
> > > > on.
> >
> > At
> >
> > > the
> > >
> > > > moment, these are discussed among a range of interested parties,
then
> > > > published as official standards which anyone may use. So although
there
> > >
> > > are
> > >
> > > > many different web browsers and editors on a range of computer
> >
> > platforms,
> >
> > > > some of which are proprietory, the protocols which these programs
use
> > > > to
> > >
> > > talk
> > >
> > > > to each other are open, preventing any one organisation from
> > > > controlling
> > >
> > > the
> > >
> > > > system. Similarly with things like email - I can send an email to
> > > > anyone
> > >
> > > who
> > >
> > > > has an address, and it does not matter that their mailreader is
Eudora,
> > >
> > > but
> > >
> > > > mine is kmail. 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 Java /
> > > > JavaScript have generally won out over things like Microsoft's
similar
> > > > technology. However, software patenting gives more power to those
who
> >
> > wish
> >
> > > to
> > >
> > > > make the internet proprietory, and takes it from those who wish to
keep
> > > > things open. If software is protected under copyright law, then the
> > > > particular code someone has written to implement a means of
> >
> > communication
> >
> > > is
> > >
> > > > legally protected, but another party is also free to write code
which
> >
> > does
> >
> > > > the same thing in a different way, and thus keep communication open.
> >
> > 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 stop the mouths of those they didn't. I hope
you
> > >
> > > can
> > >
> > > > see why moves in this direction should be resisted.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for taking the time to read this,
> > > >
> > > > yours sincerely, andrew baxter.
> > > >
> > > > http://swpat.ffii.org/ - Foundation for a Free Information
> >
> > Infrastructure
> >
> > > > http://ukcdr.org/ - Campaign for digital rights, uk.
> > > > http://www.fsf.org/ - free software foundation.
> > > > http://www.durak.org/sean/pubs/bss/ - web server market share.
> > > > http://www.linux.org/info/index.html - linux online
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Please don't send me html mail or un-notified attachments. These
will
> > > > be automatically filed under 'probable spam' unless I'm expecting an
> > > > email
> > >
> > > which
> > >
> > > > hasn't come.
> > > > If you do need to send an attachment or html mail, put [attachment]
or
> > >
> > > [html]
> > >
> > > > in the subject line.
> > > > Thanks.
>
> --
> Please don't send me html mail or un-notified attachments. These will be
> automatically filed under 'probable spam' unless I'm expecting an email
which
> hasn't come.
> If you do need to send an attachment or html mail, put [attachment] or
[html]
> in the subject line.
> Thanks, andy.
>
>

--Boundary-00=_6hLV/IJxu911mJg
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii";
  name="mccarthy-mail1.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="mccarthy-mail1.txt"

Dear Andrew Baxter,

Thank you for your correspondence concerning the draft directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.

The European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee has voted on my report on the directive and there will be continuing debate and further democratic scrutiny before the directive becomes law.

At this early stage of legislative process, it is nonetheless important to establish the facts about what the draft EU directive and what I, as the Parliament's rapporteur, are aiming to achieve in the amendments tabled to the Commission proposal.

It has been suggested that the Parliament's report will for the first time allow the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. This is simply not true. The patenting of computer-implemented inventions is not a new phenomenon. Patents involving the use of software have been applied for and granted since the earliest days of the European Patent Office (EPO). Out of over 110,000 applications received at the EPO in 2001, 16,000 will have dealt with inventions in computer-implemented technologies. Indeed, even without an EU directive, these patents will continue to be filed, not only to the EPO but also to national patent offices.

As you will be aware, in the US and increasingly in Japan, patents have been granted for what is essentially pure software. Some EPO and national court rulings indicate that Europe may be drifting towards extending the scope of patentability to inventions which would traditionally have not been patentable, as well as pure business methods. It is clear that Europe needs a uniform legal approach which draws a line between what can and cannot be patented, and prevents the drift towards the patentability of software per se.

My intention is clear in the amendments tabled and in a new Article 4 in the text, to preclude; the patentability of software as such; the patentability of business methods; algorithms; and mathematical methods. Article 4 clearly states that in order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be susceptible to industrial applications, be new, and involve an inventive step. Moreover I have added a requirement for a technical contribution in order to ensure that the mere use of a computer does not lead to a patent being granted.

Furthermore, the amended directive contains new provisions on decompilation that will assist software developers. While it is not possible to comment on whether any patent application would be excluded from the directive, the directive, as amended, would not permit the patentability of Amazon's 'one-click' method. As far as software itself is concerned, it will not be possible to patent a software product. Software itself will continue to be able to be protected by copyright.

With an EU directive, legislators will have scrutiny over the EPO and national court's decisions. With, in addition, the possibility of having a definitive ruling from the European Court in Luxembourg, thus ensuring a restrictive interpretation of the EU directive and a greater degree of legal certainty in the field of patentability of computer-implemented inventions.

Some concerns have been raised that the directive may have an adverse effect on the development of open source software and small software developers. I support the development of open source software and welcome the fact that the major open-source companies are recording a 50% growth in world-wide shipment of its products. 

In the amended proposal, I have imposed a requirement on the Commission to monitor the impact of the directive, in particular its effect on small and medium sized enterprises, and to look at any potential difficulties in respect of the relationship between patent protection of computer-implemented inventions and copyright protection.

Many small companies have given their support to this directive, which will give them more legal certainty as it offers the possibility of protection for their R&D investment, and so assists in spin-off creation and technology transfer and generating new funds for new investments. 

Indeed recently, a small ten-person company in an economic black-spot in the UK granted a licence to a US multinational for its voice recognition software patents. Without European patent protection in this field, the small company could have found itself in the perverse situation whereby its R&D efforts and investment would simply have been taken by a large multinational company, who, with its team of patent lawyers, would have filed a patent on this invention. The EU company could have been faced subsequently with patent infringement proceedings.

Some lobbyists would like us to believe that having no patents is an option - it is not. No patents would put EU software developers at a severe disadvantage in the global market place, and would hand over the monopoly on patents to multinational companies.

The work I have done is an honest attempt to approach this matter objectively, and to produce balanced legislation, taking into account the needs and interests of all sectors of the software development industry and small businesses in Europe. No doubt there will be more debate and refinements to the legislation before a final text is agreed under the EU legislation process.

At a time when many of our traditional industries are migrating to Asia and when Europe needs increasingly to rely on its inventiveness to reap rewards, it is important to have the option of the revenue secured by patents and the licensing out of computer-implemented technologies.

Software development is a major European industry. In 1998 alone the value of the EU software market was �39 billion. Most of this will be protected by copyright, but genuine computer-implemented inventions must have the possibility, for the future of competitiveness of our industry, to have patent protection.

Yours sincerely

Arlene McCarthy MEP

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience

--Boundary-00=_6hLV/IJxu911mJg--