FSFE-IE August 2003

fsfe-ie@lists.fsfe.org

14 participants
20 discussions

patents status withdrawl etc.
by Ciaran O'Riordan 04 Sep '03

04 Sep '03

As we know, the proposal has been sent back to JURI so that they can produce something less contraversial. Brian Crowley is the only Irish MEP on JURI, I'm told by Alex Macfie that the "the UK lobbyists" have been in contact with Mr. Crowley, and he's anti-swpats. I've requested more details from Alex (and details of where this action was coordinated). Alex also says that a Portuguese MEP has tabled the FFII mini-proposal as an amendment. If this amendment makes it to the plenary we should tell our MEPs to vote Yes on it. We should probably hold our action until we hear the details of the Mr.Crowley situation, I'll forward all info as soon as I get it. ciaran.

2 2

McCarthy report withdrawn!
by Ciaran O'Riordan 02 Sep '03

02 Sep '03

Everyone, The software patents directive has been withdrawn! I'ts been sent back to the committee stage to be fixed because there was too much contraversy or too many amendments requested. It will go to plenary again after JURI do some more work on it. Possibly september 22nd, probably early October. This kicks ass. Here's my source (I confirmed it with a phone call) ----- Forwarded message from Sarah Sheil <ssheil(a)europarl.eu.int> ----- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:42:24 +0200 From: Sarah Sheil <ssheil(a)europarl.eu.int> To: ciaran(a)member.fsf.org Subject: McCarthy report we have received indications that the McCarthy report has been withdrawn from next week's European Parliament agenda. No further details at the moment but the most likely explanation is that it requires further examination at committee level. best wishes Sarah Sheil European Parliament Office in Ireland 43 Molesworth Street IRL - Dublin 2 ----- End forwarded message -----

4 5

The quiet war over open-source
by adam＠diamat.org.uk 27 Aug '03

27 Aug '03

hi, i picked this up from another list and thought it would interest people here -- adam By Jonathan Krim / The Washington Post WASHINGTON -- Every day now, it seems, we do battle with technology. If it isn't spam, it's worms. If it isn't the worms, it's viruses, or hacking, or identity theft. Sometimes, it's the gadgets and software we buy that are still too hard to use. But as technology in general, and the Internet in particular, drives deeper into the fabric of daily life, battles also rage behind the scenes. They are struggles for control over how the Internet should work, over who sets the rules for its pipes and gateways and who owns the material that moves through them. These are the wars fought with armies of corporate lobbyists, technologists and citizen activists but largely ignored by the general public. And none is larger, or carries higher financial stakes, than the issue with the eye-glazing name of intellectual property. Consumers are getting a taste of this right now, as the major record companies sue hundreds of people for stealing their works by using file-sharing programs. On another front, "open-source" software, which relies on collaboration and sharing of computer code rather than traditional for-profit development and distribution of programs, is capturing the attention of cash-strapped governments and businesses as a less-expensive alternative to commercial products. Open-source software has been embraced by some companies that are building businesses around it. But it is the bane of others, including the industry's most powerful player, Microsoft Corp. The world's largest software maker is lobbying furiously in state, national and international capitals against laws that would promote the consideration or use of open-source software. So alarmed agents of Microsoft sprang into high gear in June after a surprising quote appeared in Nature magazine from an official of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The official said the Switzerland-based group of about 180 nations, which promotes intellectual-property rights and standards around the globe, was intrigued by the growth of the open-source movement and welcomed the idea of a meeting devoted to open-source's place in the intellectual-property landscape. The proposal for the meeting had come in a letter from nearly 60 technologists, economists and academics from around the world, and was organized by James Love, who runs the Ralph Nader-affiliated Consumer Project on Technology. Love and others argue that in some areas, such as pharmaceuticals or software that powers critical infrastructure or educational tools, developing nations in particular would benefit from less restrictive or alternative copyright, patent or trademark systems. In short order, lobbyists from Microsoft-funded trade groups were pushing officials at the State Department and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to squelch the meeting. One lobbyist, Emery Simon with the Business Software Alliance, said his group objected to the suggestion in the proposal that overly broad or restrictive intellectual-property rights might in some cases stunt technological innovation and economic growth. Simon insists that his group does not oppose open-source software, or discussion of the issue, but fights to defend the notion that a strong system of proprietary rights offers the best avenue for the development of groundbreaking software by giving its inventors economic incentive to do so. And he said that the BSA's governing board, composed of several companies in addition to Microsoft, unanimously opposed the letter and the meeting. The U.S. government, which wields considerable clout in WIPO, might not have needed prodding from Microsoft to demand that the idea of an open-source meeting be quashed. Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights. "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO," she said. She added that the WIPO official who embraced the meeting had done so without proper consultation with the member states, and that WIPO's budget already is strained and cannot accommodate another meeting next year. Boland said that if groups such as Love's want an international forum for discussion of open-source, they need to find another organization to host it. The WIPO official, Francis Gurry, did not return numerous calls for comment, but the organization has said it no longer has plans for an open-source gathering. The meeting dust-up is further inflaming an argument that has the fervor of religious debate. Open-source proponents note that its software is here to stay, gaining adoption within the federal government and elsewhere. And they argue that many open-source models rely on property rights through licenses, but apply them in less traditional ways. More broadly, though, they envision a world in which the Internet is the connective tissue that creates a public commons, a place where art and technology should be shared as well as bought and sold. Why, they ask, should that not be debated with vigor? But open-source is not just a political challenge. It strikes a starkly different, and sometimes opposite, pose from that of traditional capitalist systems. And that prospect quickly draws the lobbyists, even if the public isn't tuned in. -- Sunil Abraham, sunil(a)mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org MAHITI Infotech Pvt. Ltd.'Reducing the cost and complexity of ICTs' 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA Ph/Fax: +91 80 4150580. Mobile: 98455 12611 "If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw From the Sara. commons - law list : Message: 3 Date: 31 Aug 2003 01:16:20 +0530 From: Sunil Abraham <sunil(a)mahiti.org> Subject: [Commons-Law] WIPO + Open Source + Microsoft Lobbyists To: Commons Law <commons-law(a)sarai.net> Message-ID: <1061632232.3672.4.camel(a)mahitilaptop.mahitinet> Content-Type: text/plain (via the ox-oekonux list list-en(a)oekonux.org)

1 0

MEP letter, updated, final comments?
by Ciaran O'Riordan 26 Aug '03

26 Aug '03

thanks for all the feedback, I think I've integrated most of it in this version. http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/docs/dear_mep/ I've reworded most paragraphs in some way (while keeping to the 2 page constaint). If there are no big complaints, I'm going to tell the ILUG and FSFE-UK lists about this. I'll ask anyone that agrees with this document to mail me their name+occupation+oneinfo (oneinfo being county/company/hobby/nothing/"concern citizen"). Is the letter okay? Is the plan okay? sorry 'bout the rush but the vote is fast approaching. Niall douglass made a good point about sending letters to the parliment instead of irish addresses. I think we should do this (see his previous mail). If we're overflowing with resources, we could email or fax the MEPs to tell them that the letter is at the parl etc. (I'd recommend availing of the free flights Hartmut Pilch is offering (see Nialls other mail). These conferences are great experience.)

3 6

Anti-e-patent economists
by Malcolm Tyrrell 25 Aug '03

25 Aug '03

This is interesting: http://www.researchineurope.org/ I discovered it in this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/32457.html Malcohol.

1 0

MEP letter, final version, *Voting-List included*(!)
by Ciaran O'Riordan 25 Aug '03

25 Aug '03

Hi all, When working on the final draft, I had a moment of clarity, the once vague and hidden content of swpat.ffii.org became understandable. I figured out the list of required amendments! As always, the letter is at: http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/docs/dear_mep/ I've mailed ILUG and FSFE-UK to ask people to mail me their identification details (name, occupation, plus one of:county, company, "concerned citizen", etc). Same request to fsfe-ie folk. (preferably offlist to reduce boring traffic and keep personal info out of public archives) The amendments info is mostly gathered from section 5 of: http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/itre0212/index.en.html As well as Hartmut Pilches' words from two weeks ago: ``One simple rule is: if Rocard, Greens and EDD don't all recommend "yes", better vote "no". If one or more of the Rocard group's amendments are rejected, vote "no".'' Is the final draft acceptable? Ciaran O'Riordan

1 0

(Fwd) lobbying team needs more irish people
by Niall Douglas 24 Aug '03

24 Aug '03

I would go except I have a wedding in the UK next week :( Still, anyone up for it? Cheers, Niall ------- Forwarded message follows ------- To: europarl-ie(a)ffii.org Subject: lobbying team needs more irish people From: PILCH Hartmut <phm(a)a2e.de> Date sent: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:15:52 +0200 (CEST) Hello, The fundraising campaign went quite well. We now have the funds to pay a multinational lobbying team (flight, logding, expenses) for the coming week. We are still missing people from most nationalities. Specially needed, in order of urgency: FR, ES, IT, UK, DE, IE, SE, DK, FI, NL We seem fairly well equipped only for GR, AT, BE. If you could come or find someone on short notice, that would be great. We pay plane flights and hotels where needed, plus daily rations to cover further expenses. Please contact me or Holger Blasum <blasum(a)ffii.org> for coordination with the lobby team. -- Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance tel. +49-89-18979927 Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation http://swpat.ffii.org/ 160,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents http://noepatents.org/ ------- End of forwarded message -------

1 0

Patents letter plan&timeline
by Ciaran O'Riordan 24 Aug '03

24 Aug '03

Thanks for all the feedback, I'm revising the letter right now, I'll have the updated version online later tonight (post 3am). It's eight days until the directive goes to the plenary, I'm posting my proposed plan. If you have any comments please mail me/list asap. If there are no objections, I hope the timeline/procedure to be: Sat 23rd: version 0.3 of MEP letter goes online, fsfe-ie notified and asked for final comments. A mostly blank page 3 will be added and list members will be asked to give their name+occupation +company Sun 24th: ILUG and FSFE-UK((a)gnu.org) will be notified and asked for any final comments (it will too late for any serious changes). Members of these lists will be asked to forward their name+occ+comp if they endorse our letter. Mon 25th: Final version of letter posted to FSFE-IE. No further changes expected. Printing and envelope writing may begin late on Monday. The list of MEPs will have to be divided somehow. All Irish MEPs will be mailed and as many UK MEPs will also be mailed (depending on how much manpower we have). Tue 26th: Hopefully, most letters will be mailed this day. There are only three working days between this day and the beginning of the plenary session. We should aim to have all mailing done before last post on this day. After : We may continue to make and mail letters, hopefully we will have completed the work by now. On name+occ+comp: I/we will take as many names as possible. Job title and name of employer must be included. If you're nervous about adding your company name, a county name would be a good alternate. The letter will be going to UK MEPS too though, so I don't want to present a purely-Ireland letter. "concerned citizen" may also be a good alternate for company/county. What do people think? occ+comp makes the names into people. I think we will have a long list of endorsers so I think it's reasonable to stick to just the names that include occ+comp(or country or "concerned..") Any comments? Can anyone else out there commit time and resources to make envelopes and post letters? or fax MEPs? Does anyone have a list of MEPs addresses? (I know this info is on multiple pages on the EU website but does anyone have a simple list? (IE MEPs preferably, UK MEPs a bonus) ciaran.

2 1

1page summary to MEPs (new 2 page format)
by Ciaran O'Riordan 22 Aug '03

22 Aug '03

Right, I've been adding to and condensing this for long enough so here it is: http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/docs/dear_mep/ It was 4 pages at one stage, I have it down to 2 pages, I don't think it could be done in 1 page. All critisism, suggestions, comments welcome. I'm reasonably happy with it, I haven't grammar checked it, the list of good amendments needs to be added, there's no irish companies mentioned (any suggestions). I'm sure there are plenty of improvements that could be made, let me know what you think. Ciaran.

5 8

FW: [IP] USPTO, Microsoft seek to kill WIPO meeting on open collaborative models to develop public goods
by adam beecher 21 Aug '03

21 Aug '03

-----Original Message----- From: owner-ip(a)v2.listbox.com [mailto:owner-ip@v2.listbox.com]On Behalf Of Dave Farber Sent: 20 August 2003 22:55 To: ip(a)v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] USPTO, Microsoft seek to kill WIPO meeting on open collaborative models to develop public goods >Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:33:29 -0400 >From: James Love <james.love(a)cptech.org> >Subject: USPTO, Microsoft seek to kill WIPO meeting on open collaborative > models to develop public goods >To: Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> > >August 19, 2003. Technology Daily PM Edition > >-- >Intellectual Property >Global Group's Shift On 'Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir >by William New > >A request for a meeting on open development issues has plunged the >Geneva-based World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) into a >Washington political battle, causing it to shift its position on the issue. > >At issue is whether WIPO should hold a meeting next year on "open and >collaborative projects" such as "open source" software, which allows users >to view and modify underlying code. > >The meeting was proposed in a July 7 letter sent to WIPO Director General >Kamil Idris by 68 distinguished scientists, academics, technologists, >open-source advocates, consumer advocates, librarians, industry >representatives and economists worldwide. >(http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/kamil-idris-7july2003.pdf) > >Although the letter cited a broad range of open collaborative projects >such as the World Wide Web and the Human Genome Project, the fight has >focused on open-source software and on one signer of the letter -- James >Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology, who has actively >pushed for the meeting. > >WIPO's initial response to the idea was so favorable that proponents began >planning for a meeting. After receiving the letter, Francis Gurry, WIPO's >assistant director and legal counsel, e-mailed a statement to a Nature >magazine reporter calling such open development models "a very important >and interesting development." > >"The director general of WIPO looks forward with enthusiasm to taking up >the invitation to organize a conference to explore the scope and >application of these models as vehicles for encouraging innovation," he wrote. > >But a few weeks later, WIPO backed off the idea. Gurry said he and other >WIPO officials received "many calls" from consumer groups, trade >associations, professional associations and representatives from governments. > >"What happened in the intervening weeks is that a request for an open >discussion on a range of 'projects' became transformed into an >increasingly domestically, as opposed to internationally, oriented, >polarized political and trade debate about one only of those 'projects', >namely open-source software," Gurry told National Journal's Technology >Daily on Tuesday. "In those circumstances, the possibility of conducting a >policy discussion on intellectual property of the sort that might be >appropriate for an international organization devoted to intellectual >property became increasingly remote." > >U.S. government officials have argued that WIPO is an inappropriate place >for such a meeting. > >One developing country representative to WIPO on Monday expressed >disappointment at hearing that the meeting is in doubt, and Love and >representatives from the Computer and Communications Industry Association >(CCIA) were furious to learn of the shift. Love last week called the >decision a "temporary setback," and vowed, "We're going to make this >happen." But for meeting opponents, he said, it would be "as if you made >an atheist pope for the day." > >CCIA President Ed Black said on Tuesday: "Does this indicate that WIPO is >abdicating authority and responsibility for these issues, including open >source for the future? If so, we will all live by that, but then so must >they. They should step up the plate or step aside. ... It is inexplicable >that they would shut the door on what are clearly important issues." > > >Intellectual Property >U.S. Official Opposes 'Open Source' Talks At WIPO >by William New > >An international intellectual property body is not the place for >discussions about "open source" software, which allows users to view and >modify the underlying code, because it falls outside of the organization's >mission, a senior U.S. official argued on Monday. >Reviewing the original mission of the World Intellectual Property >Organization (WIPO), said Lois Boland, the U.S. Patent and Trademark >Office (PTO) acting director of international relations, it is "clearly >limited to the protection of intellectual property. To have a meeting >whose primary objective is to waive or remove those protections seems to >go against the mission." > >Boland was referring to a July request by a group of scientists, >academics, open-source advocates and others for a meeting at WIPO on "open >and collaborative projects," including open-source software. The WIPO >secretariat initially replied favorably to the idea. >In a telephone interview, Boland gave several reasons why the Geneva-based >WIPO should not hold the meeting, including a tight budget and late >scheduling. She also said WIPO's agenda should be driven by member >nations, and the idea came from outside the organization. >Officials from the 179 WIPO nations will convene in late September to >decide their agenda for the next two years; the agenda has been in the >works for months and does not include open-development issues. "It would >have been somewhat unusual for such a meeting to materialize out of >nothing," Boland said. > >In the past six months, WIPO has had to cancel several meetings on topics >directly relevant to the organization due to budgetary issues, she said, >adding that with those problems, the organization should not "go out on a >limb and express receptivity" to an open-development meeting. >U.S. government officials have had "informal" communications with WIPO, >Boland said. A WIPO official said that since receiving a wide range of >communications, WIPO has stepped back from the idea of a meeting but has >not fully rejected the possibility of addressing the topic. > >The U.S. government has an interagency process for developing formal >positions at WIPO. A meeting that included officials from PTO and the >Copyright Office was held last Thursday at the State Department. The >Commerce Department and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative are part >of the interagency process, too. > >Boland said the United States "would certainly have some rather >bureaucratic objections" to WIPO considering a policy on open-source >software. "There are technical and legalistic arguments to that." >Open-source software is not protected under copyright law but only >contract law, which is not the domain of WIPO, she said. That point has >been heavily disputed by copyright experts. > >Boland suggested that the U.S. government supports open-source growth as a >development tool and she proposed it for consideration by a U.N. body >focused on development. > >She also reprimanded WIPO officials for publicly giving the impression >that the body might consider open-source issues. "We think people working >within the organization need to be better stewards of interactions" with >nonprofit groups and other non-member organizations, she said. > > > > ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists(a)spamfilter.cc To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

FSFE-IE August 2003