[Wylug-discuss] [Fwd: EU patent officials meeting this week. Letters needed *now*]

James Holden (Wylug) wylug at jamesholden.net
Tue Oct 21 08:01:28 BST 2003


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
Action please...! Stop these idiots!

ffiiuk-help at ffii.org wrote:

>[SWPAT] EU patent officials meeting this week. Letters needed *now*.
>
>
>        Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure UK
>
>
>Dear UK Supporter[1],
>
>The European Parliament voted in September for a clear exclusion[2] of
>software from patentability, having heard powerful arguments from
>economists[3], scientists[4], small business associations[5] and MEPs[6]
>that software patents would be bad for e-commerce[7], bad for small
>businesses[8], and bad for innovation[9].
>
>But this vote is in danger of being set aside[10] at a meeting of the EU's
>Competitiveness Council of Ministers[11] on 10 November. The ministers'
>meeting is to be "negotiated" at a meeting of senior patent officials[12]
>from across Europe even sooner: this Thursday 23 October.
>
>If UK ministers cannot be convinced otherwise before 10 November, it
>is believed they will push for the Council to adopt a November 2002
>draft text[13], which is even worse than the infamous McCarthy
>report[14]. The European Parliament's rules for second reading make it
>very difficult for MEPs to fix a bad text from the Council.
>
>So far UK ministers have been sleepwalking, automatically following a
>Patent Office script.  The FFII is therefore calling for all supporters
>to contact their local MPs, as soon as possible.  We have until 10 November
>at the latest to wake up UK ministers up the dangers of software patents.
>If at all possible we need to try to make an impact before this Thursday.
>
>It could be our last good chance to stop software patents in Europe.
>
>Every letter could be the one which tips the balance.
>
>Every letter counts.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Contents of this Alert:
>
>     * How important is the Council of Ministers?
>     * What is the UK position?
>     * Are software patents good for software developers?
>     * What does the minister need to know?
>     * Who to contact
>     * How to be effective
>     * How to stay in touch
>
>   A web version can be found at
>   	http://www.ffii.org.uk/council.html
>
>   Supporters elsewhere in Europe should see this page at FFII[15]
>   to for information on who to contact, and what else you can do.
>
>
>How important is the Council of Ministers' decision?
>
>   VERY. The European Parliament's rules for second reading make it far
>   more difficult for MEPs to fix a bad text from the Council, because
>   any amendments need an absolute majority[16] of all of the 623 elected
>   MEPs -- ie usually far more than 50% of those actually voting in the
>   chamber.
>
>
>What is the UK position?
>
>   UK policy has so far been led by the UK Patent Office[17]. The UKPO
>   has been particularly active in lobbying[18] for unlimited
>   patentability and is unlikely to support a platform which is
>   acceptable to anyone except the patent industry.
>
>   Unless they can be convinced otherwise, UK Government ministers are
>   being led by UKPO officials to support the November 2002 draft[19]
>   drawn up by patent offices across Europe. The Nov 2002 version
>   actively supports software patenting, unlike the September 2003
>   European Parliament text[20].
>
>   Replies from ministers[21] are claiming that the UK Patent Office's
>   consultation[22] 3 years ago produced results which were "broadly in
>   favour" of the UKPO position. In fact, the views[23] of software
>   professionals (as opposed to patent professionals) were overwhelmingly
>   against software patents.
>
>
>Are software patents good for software developers?
>
>   NO. "Software patents are like landmines for programmers. At each
>   design decision, there is a chance you will step on a patent and it
>   will destroy your project. Considering the large number of ideas that
>   must be combined in a modern program, the danger becomes very large."
>   -- Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU project.
>
>   Supporters of e-patents often make the simple equation
>   	patents ==innovation == growth.
>   One of the most interesting articles to rebut this is "e-Patents and
>   financial investing"[24] by Laura Creighton, a software venture
>   capitalist. It explains why software patents are not necessary, nor
>   usually even helpful, and give surprisingly little real protection.
>
>   Software patents are bad for e-commerce[25], bad for small
>   businesses[26] and bad for innovation[27]. That is why leading
>   economists[28], scientists[29], small business associations[30], and
>   MEPs[31] all urged the European Parliament to vote against software
>   patents.
>
>
> What does the minister needs to know?
>
>     * Our central request is for the the Council of Ministers not to
>       adopt its draft November 2002 text[32] unamended, but instead to
>       substantially revise it, adopting and building on the Parliament
>       amendments.
>
>     * Most importantly, we need to convince the Government that software
>       patents are a bad idea. Ministers should not just follow the
>       advice of the UK Patent Office (UKPO) uncritically. Currently UKPO
>       are both judge and jury, and about as likely to campaign for real
>       limits on software patents as turkeys are to vote for Christmas.
>       Ministers must be challenged to consider for themselves what is
>       really in the best interests of the UK software industry and all
>       UK computer users,
>
>     * Free software is directly threatened[33] by software patents. But
>       it is essential that the campaign against software patents is not
>       just "special pleading" by supporters of Open Source - "free-love,
>       open-standard, freeware fanatics" according to one patent lawyer.
>       The entire industry would be damaged by patenting and litigation.
>       If you write about free software, please make clear how important
>       it is to the whole software industry and commercial end-users.
>
>     * The directive claims to allow the patenting of new "technical"
>       devices, but not the patenting of "generic pure software". But
>       the EPO regards almost any software innovation as "technical"[34].
>       Without an explicit definition, European Courts will be forced to
>       follow the EPO doctrine. The European Parliament's most important
>       amendment is its new very clear definition of what is and what is
>       not "technical".
>
>     * The November 2002 draft also makes abstract data processing a
>       field of technology[35]; has no article 6a to allow
>       interoperability[36] -- and it would allow program claims[37], so
>       that just discussing code on a website can be a direct patent
>       infringement. Ministers must re-open the November 2002 text. Every
>       letter counts.
>
>
> Who to contact
>
>     * WRITE to your local MP as soon as possible with your concerns
>       about software patents, and ask your MP to bring them to the
>       attention of Stephen Timms MP[38], the minister for e-commerce at
>       the DTI.
>
>     * BY ASKING your local MP to forward your concerns, you should get a
>       reply personally signed by the minister. You could of course just
>       write to the minister directly; but if you do, you will just
>       receive a standard civil service reply, and the minister will
>       never see it.
>
>     * FIND your local MPs by typing your postcode into www.faxyourmp.com
>       Then WRITE to your MP at:
>
>           Name of MP,
>           House of Commons,
>           London,
>           SW1A 0AA
>
>     * COPY your letters to uk-parl-sent @ ffii.org.uk, and replies to
>       uk-parl-replies @ ffii.org.uk
>
>       You should only write to your own local MP. You may also wish to
>       send a blind copy of your letter to [39]Richard Mulcahy at the
>       Patent Office.
>
>
> How to be effective
>
>     * DO: make your letter personal. Explain who you are, how this issue
>       affects you, and why it matters to you.
>
>     * DON'T: write the same as everybody else. MPs ignore form letters.
>       Decide which is the most logical or important starting point for
>       you, and then bring in other points around that.
>
>     * IF you are:
>          + a small business: tell your MP why and how a rush to software
>            patents would afftect your business. Be sure to mention your
>            turnover and number of employees -- real money and real jobs
>            are at stake.
>          + a user of software: tell your MP what makes you afraid of
>            monopolisation and loss of choice.
>          + a member of a political party, a trade union, a university, a
>            consumer organisation, a business association, or any other
>            sort of organised body: think how you can mobilise your
>            organisation to make its voice heard.
>          + a consultant: explain to your clients - and the MP - why
>            software patents will make it harder for you to solve their
>            problems.
>
>     * DO: be polite, reasonable and well-informed (insane abuse doesn't
>       help). Be focussed and to the point. If your letter is very long,
>       write a short one-page executive summary bulletting the main
>       points, and use it as a covering letter to introduce the full
>       brain dump.
>
>     * DO: spread the word. There is very little time, and we need to make a
>       huge impact. So unless you want to see legislation for unlimited
>       patentability, pass the message on to other people. Encourage them to
>       write.
>
>
> How to stay in touch
>
>     * Join the FFII list of supporters[40]
>     * Sign the Eurolinux petition[41] against software patents.
>     * If you want to do more, or to keep in touch with the campaign
>       daily, join the ffii-uk email list at ffii.org.uk - further
>       instructions on the FFII-UK main page[42].
>     _________________________________________________________________
>
>References
>
>   1. You have signed the Petition http://noepatents.org
>      and/or Call for Action
>      http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/demands/
>      and thereby explicitely allowed us to send occasional
>      alerts.  We make very rare use of this permission.
>
>   2. http://swpat.ffii.org/journal/03/fsfr1010/index.en.html
>   3. http://www.researchineurope.org/policy/patentdirltr.htm
>   4. http://www.greens-efa.org/pdf/documents/SoftwarePatenting/petitiontoEP_EN.pdf
>   5. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/ceapme0309/index.en.html
>   6. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/plen0309/deba/#framm
>   7. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#ecommerce
>   8. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#developers
>   9. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#innovation
>  10. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39116709,00.htm
>  11. http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/CouncilOfMinisters
>  12. http://register.consilium.eu.int/scripts/utfregisterDir/WebDriver.exe?MIval=result&MIlang=EN&key=REGISTER&ssf=DATE_DOCUMENT+DESC&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=400&what=simple&ff_TITRE=working+intellectual+property+patents&ff_FT_TEXT=&ff_SOUS_COTE_MATIERE=&dd_DATE_REUNION=&button1=Search+Now
>  13. http://www.ffii.org.uk/nov2002.html
>  14. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/amccarthy0302/index.en.html
>  15. http://swpat.ffii.org/group/todo/index.en.html
>  16. http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+RULES-EP+20030201+RULE-080+DOC+XML+V0//EN&HNAV=Y
>  17. http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/issues/softpat.htm
>  18. http://swpat.ffii.org//players/uk/index.en.html
>  19. http://www.ffii.org.uk/nov2002.html
>  20. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/
>  21. http://www.ffii.org.uk/hewitt.html
>  22. http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/conclusions.htm
>  23. http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/responses/comsoft/index.htm
>  24. http://www.vrijschrift.org/swpat/030508_1/
>  25. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#ecommerce
>  26. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#developers
>  27. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#innovation
>  28. http://www.researchineurope.org/policy/patentdirltr.htm
>  29. http://www.greens-efa.org/pdf/documents/SoftwarePatenting/petitiontoEP_EN.pdf
>  30. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/ceapme0309/index.en.html
>  31. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/plen0309/deba/#framm
>  32. http://www.ffii.org.uk/nov2002.html
>  33. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html
>  34. http://www.ffii.org.uk/technical.html
>  35. http://www.ffii.org.uk/fields_of_tech.html
>  36. http://www.ffii.org.uk/interop.html
>  37. http://www.ffii.org.uk/program_claims.html
>  38. http://www.dti.gov.uk/ministers/ministers/timms.html
>  39. http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/issues/softpat.htm
>  40. http://aktiv.ffii.org/?l=en
>  41. http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html?LANG=en
>  42. http://www.ffii.org.uk/index.html
>
>


--
Delivered-To: james at 2dcube.co.uk
Date: 21 Oct 2003 04:56:33 -0000
To: james at jamesholden.co.uk
Subject: EU patent officials meeting this week. Letters needed *now*
From: ffiiuk-help at ffii.org

[SWPAT] EU patent officials meeting this week. Letters needed *now*.


        Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure UK


Dear UK Supporter[1],

The European Parliament voted in September for a clear exclusion[2] of
software from patentability, having heard powerful arguments from
economists[3], scientists[4], small business associations[5] and MEPs[6]
that software patents would be bad for e-commerce[7], bad for small
businesses[8], and bad for innovation[9].

But this vote is in danger of being set aside[10] at a meeting of the EU's
Competitiveness Council of Ministers[11] on 10 November. The ministers'
meeting is to be "negotiated" at a meeting of senior patent officials[12]
from across Europe even sooner: this Thursday 23 October.

If UK ministers cannot be convinced otherwise before 10 November, it
is believed they will push for the Council to adopt a November 2002
draft text[13], which is even worse than the infamous McCarthy
report[14]. The European Parliament's rules for second reading make it
very difficult for MEPs to fix a bad text from the Council.

So far UK ministers have been sleepwalking, automatically following a
Patent Office script.  The FFII is therefore calling for all supporters
to contact their local MPs, as soon as possible.  We have until 10 November
at the latest to wake up UK ministers up the dangers of software patents.
If at all possible we need to try to make an impact before this Thursday.

It could be our last good chance to stop software patents in Europe.

Every letter could be the one which tips the balance.

Every letter counts.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents of this Alert:

     * How important is the Council of Ministers?
     * What is the UK position?
     * Are software patents good for software developers?
     * What does the minister need to know?
     * Who to contact
     * How to be effective
     * How to stay in touch

   A web version can be found at
   	http://www.ffii.org.uk/council.html

   Supporters elsewhere in Europe should see this page at FFII[15]
   to for information on who to contact, and what else you can do.


How important is the Council of Ministers' decision?

   VERY. The European Parliament's rules for second reading make it far
   more difficult for MEPs to fix a bad text from the Council, because
   any amendments need an absolute majority[16] of all of the 623 elected
   MEPs -- ie usually far more than 50% of those actually voting in the
   chamber.


What is the UK position?

   UK policy has so far been led by the UK Patent Office[17]. The UKPO
   has been particularly active in lobbying[18] for unlimited
   patentability and is unlikely to support a platform which is
   acceptable to anyone except the patent industry.

   Unless they can be convinced otherwise, UK Government ministers are
   being led by UKPO officials to support the November 2002 draft[19]
   drawn up by patent offices across Europe. The Nov 2002 version
   actively supports software patenting, unlike the September 2003
   European Parliament text[20].

   Replies from ministers[21] are claiming that the UK Patent Office's
   consultation[22] 3 years ago produced results which were "broadly in
   favour" of the UKPO position. In fact, the views[23] of software
   professionals (as opposed to patent professionals) were overwhelmingly
   against software patents.


Are software patents good for software developers?

   NO. "Software patents are like landmines for programmers. At each
   design decision, there is a chance you will step on a patent and it
   will destroy your project. Considering the large number of ideas that
   must be combined in a modern program, the danger becomes very large."
   -- Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU project.

   Supporters of e-patents often make the simple equation
   	patents ==innovation == growth.
   One of the most interesting articles to rebut this is "e-Patents and
   financial investing"[24] by Laura Creighton, a software venture
   capitalist. It explains why software patents are not necessary, nor
   usually even helpful, and give surprisingly little real protection.

   Software patents are bad for e-commerce[25], bad for small
   businesses[26] and bad for innovation[27]. That is why leading
   economists[28], scientists[29], small business associations[30], and
   MEPs[31] all urged the European Parliament to vote against software
   patents.


 What does the minister needs to know?

     * Our central request is for the the Council of Ministers not to
       adopt its draft November 2002 text[32] unamended, but instead to
       substantially revise it, adopting and building on the Parliament
       amendments.

     * Most importantly, we need to convince the Government that software
       patents are a bad idea. Ministers should not just follow the
       advice of the UK Patent Office (UKPO) uncritically. Currently UKPO
       are both judge and jury, and about as likely to campaign for real
       limits on software patents as turkeys are to vote for Christmas.
       Ministers must be challenged to consider for themselves what is
       really in the best interests of the UK software industry and all
       UK computer users,

     * Free software is directly threatened[33] by software patents. But
       it is essential that the campaign against software patents is not
       just "special pleading" by supporters of Open Source - "free-love,
       open-standard, freeware fanatics" according to one patent lawyer.
       The entire industry would be damaged by patenting and litigation.
       If you write about free software, please make clear how important
       it is to the whole software industry and commercial end-users.

     * The directive claims to allow the patenting of new "technical"
       devices, but not the patenting of "generic pure software". But
       the EPO regards almost any software innovation as "technical"[34].
       Without an explicit definition, European Courts will be forced to
       follow the EPO doctrine. The European Parliament's most important
       amendment is its new very clear definition of what is and what is
       not "technical".

     * The November 2002 draft also makes abstract data processing a
       field of technology[35]; has no article 6a to allow
       interoperability[36] -- and it would allow program claims[37], so
       that just discussing code on a website can be a direct patent
       infringement. Ministers must re-open the November 2002 text. Every
       letter counts.


 Who to contact

     * WRITE to your local MP as soon as possible with your concerns
       about software patents, and ask your MP to bring them to the
       attention of Stephen Timms MP[38], the minister for e-commerce at
       the DTI.

     * BY ASKING your local MP to forward your concerns, you should get a
       reply personally signed by the minister. You could of course just
       write to the minister directly; but if you do, you will just
       receive a standard civil service reply, and the minister will
       never see it.

     * FIND your local MPs by typing your postcode into www.faxyourmp.com
       Then WRITE to your MP at:

           Name of MP,
           House of Commons,
           London,
           SW1A 0AA

     * COPY your letters to uk-parl-sent @ ffii.org.uk, and replies to
       uk-parl-replies @ ffii.org.uk

       You should only write to your own local MP. You may also wish to
       send a blind copy of your letter to [39]Richard Mulcahy at the
       Patent Office.


 How to be effective

     * DO: make your letter personal. Explain who you are, how this issue
       affects you, and why it matters to you.

     * DON'T: write the same as everybody else. MPs ignore form letters.
       Decide which is the most logical or important starting point for
       you, and then bring in other points around that.

     * IF you are:
          + a small business: tell your MP why and how a rush to software
            patents would afftect your business. Be sure to mention your
            turnover and number of employees -- real money and real jobs
            are at stake.
          + a user of software: tell your MP what makes you afraid of
            monopolisation and loss of choice.
          + a member of a political party, a trade union, a university, a
            consumer organisation, a business association, or any other
            sort of organised body: think how you can mobilise your
            organisation to make its voice heard.
          + a consultant: explain to your clients - and the MP - why
            software patents will make it harder for you to solve their
            problems.

     * DO: be polite, reasonable and well-informed (insane abuse doesn't
       help). Be focussed and to the point. If your letter is very long,
       write a short one-page executive summary bulletting the main
       points, and use it as a covering letter to introduce the full
       brain dump.

     * DO: spread the word. There is very little time, and we need to make a
       huge impact. So unless you want to see legislation for unlimited
       patentability, pass the message on to other people. Encourage them to
       write.


 How to stay in touch

     * Join the FFII list of supporters[40]
     * Sign the Eurolinux petition[41] against software patents.
     * If you want to do more, or to keep in touch with the campaign
       daily, join the ffii-uk email list at ffii.org.uk - further
       instructions on the FFII-UK main page[42].
     _________________________________________________________________

References

   1. You have signed the Petition http://noepatents.org
      and/or Call for Action
      http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/demands/
      and thereby explicitely allowed us to send occasional
      alerts.  We make very rare use of this permission.

   2. http://swpat.ffii.org/journal/03/fsfr1010/index.en.html
   3. http://www.researchineurope.org/policy/patentdirltr.htm
   4. http://www.greens-efa.org/pdf/documents/SoftwarePatenting/petitiontoEP_EN.pdf
   5. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/ceapme0309/index.en.html
   6. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/plen0309/deba/#framm
   7. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#ecommerce
   8. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#developers
   9. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#innovation
  10. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39116709,00.htm
  11. http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/CouncilOfMinisters
  12. http://register.consilium.eu.int/scripts/utfregisterDir/WebDriver.exe?MIval=result&MIlang=EN&key=REGISTER&ssf=DATE_DOCUMENT+DESC&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=400&what=simple&ff_TITRE=working+intellectual+property+patents&ff_FT_TEXT=&ff_SOUS_COTE_MATIERE=&dd_DATE_REUNION=&button1=Search+Now
  13. http://www.ffii.org.uk/nov2002.html
  14. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/amccarthy0302/index.en.html
  15. http://swpat.ffii.org/group/todo/index.en.html
  16. http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+RULES-EP+20030201+RULE-080+DOC+XML+V0//EN&HNAV=Y
  17. http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/issues/softpat.htm
  18. http://swpat.ffii.org//players/uk/index.en.html
  19. http://www.ffii.org.uk/nov2002.html
  20. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/
  21. http://www.ffii.org.uk/hewitt.html
  22. http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/conclusions.htm
  23. http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/responses/comsoft/index.htm
  24. http://www.vrijschrift.org/swpat/030508_1/
  25. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#ecommerce
  26. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#developers
  27. http://elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/swpat/why.html#innovation
  28. http://www.researchineurope.org/policy/patentdirltr.htm
  29. http://www.greens-efa.org/pdf/documents/SoftwarePatenting/petitiontoEP_EN.pdf
  30. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/ceapme0309/index.en.html
  31. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/plen0309/deba/#framm
  32. http://www.ffii.org.uk/nov2002.html
  33. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html
  34. http://www.ffii.org.uk/technical.html
  35. http://www.ffii.org.uk/fields_of_tech.html
  36. http://www.ffii.org.uk/interop.html
  37. http://www.ffii.org.uk/program_claims.html
  38. http://www.dti.gov.uk/ministers/ministers/timms.html
  39. http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/issues/softpat.htm
  40. http://aktiv.ffii.org/?l=en
  41. http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html?LANG=en
  42. http://www.ffii.org.uk/index.html
--





More information about the Wylug-discuss mailing list