[Nottingham] Software Patents
Kev
kev.linux at ntlworld.com
Tue Jun 28 06:45:01 BST 2005
I'm also of the opinion that Software Patents are a done deal. The European
Parliament is a corrupt organisation, which lacks any real backbone. Just
follow the money to find which way the vote will finally go
Kev
On Monday 27 Jun 2005 21:30, Malcolm Read wrote:
> 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
>
>
> ###########################################################################
>######
More information about the Nottingham
mailing list