[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