[Nottingham] Software Patents
Malcolm Read
malcolm_read at ntlworld.com
Mon Jun 27 21:34:05 BST 2005
Software Patents
=============
I have emailed all 6 midlands MEPs.
I got replies from only 2:
Bill Newton Dunn and Christopher Heaton-Haris.
Both appear to have made their minds up that these are a good thing!
I took a line "what is your policy on..."
When I saw they were in favour of patents, I asked for more information / explanation.
I got no reply at all from Christopher Heaton-Harris to this email. (Clearly he know nothing!)
But I did get a series of replies from Bill Netwon Dunn, which seem to prove beyond all doubt
1) he doesn't understand the issue
2) he has made his mind up and is not to be convinced by the pleas of mere constituents of confused by facts!
I fear that this legislation is going through no matter what we do. Nevertheless, we (i.e. ALL of us) need to at least TRY to prevent it in any way we can!
I attach both emails below....delimited by hashes (#s)
Sorry, but by the nature of emails you need to start at the bottom & read up!
##########################################################################################
Sorry, but no abstention.
I am for freedom of choice - those who wish to patent may do so, those who do not need not do so. If you wish to ban patents for more of software than I without providing the choice to everybody, then as the practioner you need to persuade me why you want to limit freedom.
Bill Newton Dunn
-----Original Message-----
From: Malcolm Read [mailto:malcolm_read at ntlworld.com]
Sent: Sun 6/26/2005 10:53 PM
To: NEWTON DUNN William
Cc:
Subject: Re: Software Patents Legislation
Bill,
I haven't done any lobbying yet.
All I have done is asked you to give some examples in order that I can understand the difference between "pure software" & "software which has practical applications".
More importantly, given that you are the one voting, I want to be sure that YOU understand the difference.
So, given you have "followed all the arguments" it should only take you a couple of minutes to write down some examples or even give me the URL of a web site that explains the difference.
If you can't, then I urge you to abstain on the grounds that you clearly don't understand what you are voting on.
Regards,
Dr Malcolm G Read
----- Original Message -----
From: NEWTON DUNN William
To: Malcolm G. Read
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: Software Patents Legislation
I have listeneed to endless lobying form all sides, including yourself. having doen so, I have made up my mind and will be following the Liberal whip which represents, in my opinion, the right solution. You can follow all the arguments (which are not only mine but those, I believe, of the majority of the parliament) in the debate and texts.
Bill Newton Dunn
-----Original Message-----
From: Malcolm G. Read [mailto:malcolm_read at ntlworld.com]
Sent: Sun 6/26/2005 12:19 AM
To: NEWTON DUNN William
Cc:
Subject: Re: Software Patents Legislation
Bill,
So you can't actually give me any examples then.
This is rather disappointing & gives me the worry that you don't
actually understand what you are voting on.
Please prove me wrong!
Dr. Malcolm G. Read
PS Thanks for at least taking the time to reply; some MEPs don't even
bother.
NEWTON DUNN William wrote:
> If you wish to see the choice of different definitions now on the
> table, you should examine the various amendments, now tabled, to the
> Council's First Reading, and see what the choice now is for the
> parliament's Second Reading for debate and vote in about ten days
> time. None are tabled by me. This is not my specialist field. If you
> want to lobby, you should be talking to the committee's rapporteur and
> the shadow rapporteurs of the other political groups. They are the
> MEPs who are shaping the dialogue and tabling the amendments, and
> leadign the debate and the voting.
> Bill Newton Dunn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Malcolm Read [mailto:malcolm_read at ntlworld.com]
> *Sent:* Sat 6/25/2005 7:20 PM
> *To:* NEWTON DUNN William
> *Cc:*
> *Subject:* Re: Software Patents Legislation
>
> Bill
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> Could you just explain the difference between "pure software" &
> "software which has practical applications".
> In particular could you give a few examples of each, so we both
> know what you are talking about.
>
> Regards,
> Dr. Malcolm G. Read
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* NEWTON DUNN William <mailto:wnewton at europarl.eu.int>
> *To:* Malcolm Read <mailto:malcolm_read at ntlworld.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 24, 2005 8:24 PM
> *Subject:* RE: Software Patents Legislation
>
> I shall follow my Liberal Group whip. It has not yet been
> shown to me. I hope it will not support granting patents to
> pure software but will support granting patents to software
> which has practical applications. That is how I would wish to
> vote.
> Best wishes
> Bill Newton Dunn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Malcolm Read [mailto:malcolm_read at ntlworld.com]
> *Sent:* Fri 6/24/2005 7:23 PM
> *To:* NEWTON DUNN William
> *Cc:*
> *Subject:* Software Patents Legislation
>
> Bill,
>
> The vote in the Second Reading on the software patent
> directive is in 11-13 work days, on 5-7 July.
> Can I therefore ask what your opinion is on this matter,
> i.e. how you are going to vote & why.
>
> Thanks,
> Dr. Malcolm G. Read
##########################################################################################
Chris,
Thank you very much for your prompt reply.
In the interests of clarity, it would be very helpful if you explained the difference between "pure software" and "other categories of inventions where software produces a genuine technical effect".
Can you give me at least a couple of examples of each.
Thanks again,
Dr. Malcolm G. Read
----- Original Message -----
From: HEATON-HARRIS Christopher
To: malcolm_read at ntlworld.com
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Software Patents legislation
Dear Malcolm,
Thank you for your letter on software patentability. I appreciate your taking the time to contact me about this important issue. As a Conservative M.E.P., I support the Directive on Computer Implemented Inventions.
The proposal is designed to facilitate competition, clarify and harmonise existing regulations, and to enable patent inspectors to work within an unambiguous legal framework. In no way does the proposal extend existing European Patent Law into new areas. The Directive clarifies existing EU Patent Law and provides patent inspectors with a common framework within which to examine and if appropriate, grant patents for genuine innovations involving digital technology. An explicit objective of the proposal is to ensure that computer software or business methods that do not involve new innovative concepts, making a technical contribution, are excluded from patents. This will give the EU a distinctive and different position from the US and Japan.
Europe already has a centralised system for patent applications, yet there still exists some intra-E.U. variation with regards to the handling of applications. This is why a harmonised system which gives patent inspectors an unambiguous legal framework to work within is necessary. Such a framework would provide secure legal grounds for refusing a patent for an invention involving pure software and algorithms which, can be sustained if later challenged in court. The Directive should not affect the development of open source software.
The patentability rules must be broad enough to ensure that pure software and business methods are effectively excluded. At the same time, they must not be so all embracing that they damage the legitimate protection afforded to other categories of inventions where software produces a genuine technical effect.
It is important to consider the impact of the Directive for the EU to remain competitive in global markets. If Europe's capacity to protect innovation in the field of technology is reduced, compared to other regions of the world, we may in the long run no longer be able to sustain our standard of living by innovation.
Ultimately, I would like to see a Directive which will safeguard the European economy against patents on pure software and business methods. At the same time, I will do all that is within my capability to preserve a balanced patent regime which will protect innovators and encourage innovation.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should I be of any further assistance.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Heaton-Harris MEP
#################################################################################
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/nottingham/attachments/20050627/ce1c63c9/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Nottingham
mailing list