FSFE-IE May 2004

fsfe-ie@lists.fsfe.org

28 participants
114 discussions

Re: [Fsfe-ie] patent letter
by teresahackett＠eircom.net 07 May '04

07 May '04

Some Irish bods: 1. Tony McGrath, Jacob Rajan (Principal Examiner of Patents) at Entemp. 2. Anne-Marie O'Connor, First Secretary, Industrial Policy, Competition (State Aids) at COREPER and Irish rep on IP working group, email annmarie.oconnor(a)iveagh.gov.ie Teresa > > Probably a bit late now but I was thinking of firing this little rant off to > Mary Hornet and various others (maybe adapt it as a letter for the paper). > > Any comments? > > Is 21 years correct as the (maximum) lifespan of a patent. > > Where can I get a list of people who should get my letter? > > F > > --- > > Dear Whoever, > > I am a software developer who has in the past worked as an independent > developer, designing and implementing software systems for clients. I am > currently employed by an Irish software company but I hope in the future to > be able work again as an independent developer if it suits me or possibly to > start my own software company. > > During the course of this work, I have developed many interesting solutions > to challenging problems in a variety of areas. Some of these solutions I > would consider to be quite clever and original (at least in that they were > created without knowledge or reference to the work of others who may have > addressed the same problem). In this respect I am no different to most > software developers, I spend a large part of my time "inventing". > > Could you please explain how I and others as independent software developers > or small start up companies can possibly function in an environment with > software patents. How will it be possible for me to do a days work (not to > mention be innovative) if I must check every single line of code to ensure > there are no prior patent claims on the techniques I have used? You may > think that I will not have to check everything, because there will be a high > standard of originality, novelty and invention required for a patent to be > granted but this completely ignores the fact that what seems obvious and > well known now may have been deemed worthy of a patent many years ago. With > a lifespan of 21 years there would be an impossibly large amount of patents > to check. The reason such a vast number of software patents don't exist > already, in the USA for instance, is that most innovators have spent their > time innovating rather than filing patent applications. > > Even if Europe applies and maintains far higher standards than the USA then > such a regime will still cripple all but the largest companies - those who > have created war chests of patents which they can leverage in cross > licensing deals and which they are already using to try keep smaller > innovators out of the market. > > As an aside, I consider it quite unlikely that high standards will be > applied given that European patent offices have already granted thousands of > software patents. There are no real incentives for them to limit the > granting of patents to the truly novel and inventive and in fact it's the > reverse, the offices and their examiners actually profit from granting as > many applications as possible. > > The only option open to independent contractors, small and medium sized > companies is to shut up shop or just close their eyes, completely ignore > software patents and hope nobody sues. The only beneficiaries of software > patents will be the big companies and the patent industry. > > So, in closing, I would ask again that you please explain (just an outline) > how an independent contractor or a smaller company can function in an > environment where every piece of their work potentially infringes a multiple > patents. > > I look forward to hearing from you, > > Fergal Daly. > _______________________________________________ > fsfe-ie(a)fsfeurope.org mailing list > List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie > Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie > ---------- Teresa Hackett 114 Cedar House Mespil Estate, Sussex Road Dublin 4, Ireland Email: teresahackett(a)eircom.net Mobile +353 87 6253768 ----------

1 0

[Free-sklyarov-uk] EU Ambassadors vote to back Software Patents
by Adam Moran 07 May '04

07 May '04

-- FFII News Release -- 7 May 2004 -- +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ -- For immediate release -- COREPER approves EU Presidency software patents text EU Ambassadors vote to back Software Patents -- Final confirmation by Ministers within 2 weeks 2004/05/07 for immediate release The EU Council of Ministers seems determined to prove that the EU is a democracy only on paper. This Wednesday, the Irish Presidency has managed to secure a qualified majority for a counter-proposal on the software patents directive, with only a few countries - including Belgium and Germany - showing resistance. The new text proposes to discard all the amendments from the European Parliament which would limit patentability. Instead the lax language of the original Commission proposal is to be reinstated in its entirety, with direct patentability of program text fragments added as icing on the cake. The proposal is now scheduled to be confirmed without discussion at a meeting of ministers on 17-18 May, unless one of the Member States changes its vote. In a remarkable sign of unity at a time of imminent elections, members of the European Parliament from all groups across the political spectrum are condemning this blatant disrespect for democracy in Europe. Details ------- The powerful COREPER committee of EU member states' Permanent Representatives in Brussels has provisionally agreed on a new draft for the controversial Software Patent directive, overruling concerns from the German, Belgian, and Danish delegations, and the Slovakian non-voting observers. (The new accession countries only become full voting members in November). The new draft rejects all of the European Parliament's limiting amendments, and is described by FFII as "the most uncompromisingly pro-patent text yet". The Coreper text also goes further than the original European Commission text of 2002. In 2002 the Commission had agreed, in difficult negotiations between DG Internal Market (Bolkestein) and DG Information Society (Liikanen) not to allow program claims. Now it seems that DG Information Society has rolled over to the united pressure of Bolkestein and the Council's patent administrators. A leaked document from Bolkestein's DG Internal Market suggests that DG Information Society no longer objects to program claims. This concession by Liikanen is needed in order to rush the Council working group proposal through the ministers' session as an "A item", i.e. a consensus point which does not need any discussion by the ministers. Technically, the decision by COREPER on Wednesday is only a "forecast" of the final decision, to be confirmed at the Competitiveness Council of Ministers on 17-18 May. Until that date, Member states can still change their minds (and their votes). If confirmed by ministers, the text will form the basis for the Directive's second reading in Parliament, after the EU elections. EU rules make it far more difficult for the Parliament to make changes at second reading. Support for the text at a political level in some states is still said to be quite soft; and decisions brokered in Coreper do fall apart (last year's discussions on the Community Patent, for example). FFII is therefore urging supporters to make their voices heard *now*, especially software SMEs who make up the majority of the IT industry (eg over 80% of IT jobs in Germany). In particular supporters should try to mobilise organisations of which they are members, urgently try to meet or contact local MPs and MEPs, and also Commissioner Liikanen's office at DG Information Society. Proposals slammed by MEPs from all sides ---------------------------------------- * "Parliament Overruled by Patent Office Administrators" -- Anne Van Lancker (Socialist MEP, Belgium). * "Council Ignores Elected Representatives" -- Piia-Noora Kauppi (Conservative MEP, Finland). * "Council and Commission Failed to do their Homework" -- Pernille Frahm (Nordic Green/Left MEP, Denmark). * "Patent Administrators Not Interested in 'Harmonisation and Clarification' " -- Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Green MEP, France). * "Council Moves Highlight Lack of Democracy in the EU" -- Bent Hindrup Andersen (Euroskeptic MEP, Denmark). * "Irish Presidency Protecting US Companies from EU Competition" -- Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (Liberal MEP, Netherlands). Anne van Lacker (SPE - Belgium): "Parliament Overruled by Patent Office Administrators" "The Council not only ignores the European Parliament in this matter, but adds to the insult by going even further than the Commission: in addition to making the usage of patented algorithms and business methods in computer programs an infringement, they also propose to forbid their publication, by allowing direct claims to information entities (also known as "program claims"). "Given that the current Council proposal was written behind closed doors by patent office administrators, this unworldly outcome should not surprise anyone, unfortunately. Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE group, Finland): "Council Ignores Elected Representatives" "If the Council is trying to look for a compromise with the European Parliament on the proposal for patenting of computer-implemented innovations (software patents), it should base its work on the final decision taken by the plenary session of the Parliament, not on that of the Commission or of the Legal Affairs Committee. Judging from the papers produced so far by the Council's working party, it seems that the Council is not taking the will of Europe's elected legislators into account". Pernille Frahm (Vice-chair, NGL group, Denmark): "Council and Commission Failed to do their Homework" "The patent administrators in the Commission and Council are abusing the legislative process of the EU. "Their convoluted and misleading Patent Newspeak, negotiated in intransparent backroom dealings, is an insult to the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of Regions and the innumerable experts and stakeholders who have engaged in serious investigations on this directive project with us. Not only did the Commission and Council fail to do their own homework, they are now also attempting to throw away all the hard work that the elected legislators did for them, without even trying to respond to the concerns which have been raised". Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Chair, Greens/EFA group, France): "Patent Administrators Not Interested in 'Harmonisation and Clarification' " "The Council working party has so far completely failed to address the problems which the European Parliament's Cultural and Industrial Affairs committees tried to solve. They behave in the same way as the Legal Affairs Committee behaved last year, and we can expect that they will fail in the same way. "It is clear that the national patent officials in the Council do not want "harmonisation" or "clarification". They merely want to secure the interests of the patent establishment. If they don't get what they want, they simply bury the directive project and try to find other ways to get around the existing law, whose clarity is so painful to them". Bent Hindrup Andersen (Danish June Movement/ EDD group, Denmark): "Council Moves Highlight Lack of Democracy in the EU" "The approach of the Commission and Council in this directive is shocking. They are making full use of all the possibilities of evading democracy that the current Community Law provides. First they ignored 94% of the participants of their own consultation, without given any justification apart from the claim that the remaining 6% represented the "economic majority". Now they are completely disregarding the vote of the European Parliament, and by the way also of the Economic and Social Council and of the Council of Regions. They are doing this because they are used to success by doing this. The EU is constructed this way. It makes unaccountable bureaucrats the masters of legislation. The problem is compounded by the complete lack of democratic checks and balances in the European patent system. EU and Patents combine into a particularly toxic mixture. Europe's citizens urgently need to take up this issue and learn the lessons before it is too late. They should in particular not allow this kind of structure to be perpetuated by a European Constitution this year". Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR group, Netherlands) "Irish Presidency Protecting US Companies from EU Competition" "I'm under the impression that the Irish Presidency has buckled under the interests of American Companies. Those big American Companies will profit from software patents, but it is a very bad deal for innovation in European SMEs. Additionally, the Council is showing contempt for parliamentary democracy. We must make sure that after the elections there will again be a majority in the European Parliament that is willing to show its teeth". Underlying documents -------------------- * The Council proposal documents 8253/04 and 8253/04 ADD from April 6 are not accessible "due to the sensitive nature of the negotiations and the absence of an overriding public interest" according to the Council's General Secretariat. http://register.consilium.eu.int/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&ssf=DAT… * However FFII has obtained a copy of the latest proposed text, including the "footnotes" with member states' comments: http://vitke:mipri@swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/cons0401/SRC/st09051.… * Analysis of the text by Philippe Aigrain: http://www.sopinspace.com/~aigrain/en/analysis-compromise.html * Minutes of internal negotiations to decide the Commission's line: http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/cec0405/ * Political analysis and instructions to the Austrian delegation (in German): http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere/europarl0309/bmvit0405/index.de.html =============================================================================== Media contacts mail: media at ffii org phone: Hartmut Pilch +49-89-18979927 (German/English/French) Jonas Maebe +32-485-36-96-45 (Dutch/English) Erik Josefsson +46-707-696567 (Swedish/English) Thierry Coutelier +352 406776 (French/German/English) Benjamin Henrion +32-498-292771 (French/English) Dieter Van Uytvanck +32-499-16-70-10 (Dutch/English) Tomasz Marciniak +48-61-8779-208 (Polish) Stepan Kasal +42-0-257323410 (Czech) James Heald +44 778910 7539 (English) More Contacts to be supplied upon request About the FFII -- www.ffii.org ------------------------------ The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) is a non-profit association registered in Munich, which is dedicated to the spread of data processing literacy. FFII supports the development of public information goods based on copyright, free competition, open standards. More than 300 members, 700 companies and 50,000 supporters have entrusted the FFII to act as their voice in public policy questions in the area of exclusion rights (intellectual property) in data processing. Permanent URL of this Press Release ----------------------------------- A longer version of this release can be found at: http://swpat.ffii.org/news/04/cons0408/index.en.html _______________________________________________ Free-sklyarov-uk mailing list Free-sklyarov-uk(a)xenoclast.org http://mailman.xenoclast.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov-uk

1 0

Re: [Fsfe-ie] press releases
by Éibhear 07 May '04

07 May '04

Yes, indeed. I saw all the press releases being drafted on the ICTE mailing list and it was always well done and serves as a good model. The one thing I amn't clear on (and this may be a bit OT) was how someone on the list decided that a press release was appropriate. Have you any insight on that, Fergal? Were they mostly ad-hoc or mostly an off-list decision? Thanks, Éibhear -- Éibhear Ó hAnluain IFSO Ireland. --------- Original Message -------- From: Fergal Daly <fergal(a)esatclear.ie> To: teresahackett(a)eircom.net <teresahackett(a)eircom.net> Cc: fsfe-ie(a)fsfeurope.org Subject: Re: [Fsfe-ie] press releases Date: 07/05/04 11:05 > > One lesson from the e-voting campaign is that press releases should be > mostly if not entirely quotes from individuals. This makes it easier for a > paper to publish your quote. This seems to be how the political parties and > other groups do it and when we did it we seemed to get more printed quotes > (that may also have been related to the build up of coverage at the time). > > A consistent point of contact (or two) is also good. > > Finally, in terms of drafting, the evoting releases were very successfully > drafted completely in the open rather than by a selected few. It was a small > number of people who did most of the writing/rewriting but having it open > meant drafts got useful comments from a very large group. These were then > integrated into the draft by whoever "owned" that release. > > I don't know if that's the most suitable technique for this group but it may > be more effective than leaving all the work to a small number of people with > various time constraints, > > F > > On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:07:07PM +0100, teresahackett(a)eircom.net wrote: > > Agreed. But letters and press releases are different, and I think we need both, but the authorisation process is similar. We just need to settle a procedure. For press releases, how about: > > 1. Make a pro-forma document with standard IFSO header, intro paragraph, blank for text, contact info - to be used for all press releases. > > 2. When a topic comes up, slot in the text and send to committee, the website lists: Ciaran O'Riordan, Chairman;Glenn Strong, Secretary, webmaster;Aidan Delaney, Treasurer;Malcolm Tyrrell > > 3. Approval from Ciaran (as chair) and one other? > > 4. When approved, final version to list > > 5. Publish on press release section on website. > > It doesn't take that long to do a press release, it's no more than 2-3 paragaphs of text. I'm happy to do the pro-forma bit after my exams, if this helps. > _______________________________________________ > fsfe-ie(a)fsfeurope.org mailing list > List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie > Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie > > > > >

3 2

Re: [Fsfe-ie] press releases
by teresahackett＠eircom.net 07 May '04

07 May '04

Agreed. But letters and press releases are different, and I think we need both, but the authorisation process is similar. We just need to settle a procedure. For press releases, how about: 1. Make a pro-forma document with standard IFSO header, intro paragraph, blank for text, contact info - to be used for all press releases. 2. When a topic comes up, slot in the text and send to committee, the website lists: Ciaran O'Riordan, Chairman;Glenn Strong, Secretary, webmaster;Aidan Delaney, Treasurer;Malcolm Tyrrell 3. Approval from Ciaran (as chair) and one other? 4. When approved, final version to list 5. Publish on press release section on website. It doesn't take that long to do a press release, it's no more than 2-3 paragaphs of text. I'm happy to do the pro-forma bit after my exams, if this helps. Teresa > For the last 2-3 meetings, one thing on the agenda was to sort out some way > of sending out letters "as IFSO". Press releases in essence, but we still > called them letters. For some reason this topic never gets sorted out. > > As a real quick fix, I suggest that anything with the go-ahead from two > committee members should be permitted to be sent "as IFSO". (yay/nay?) > > There's a balance to be struck between speed and correctness/review. > > but equally important is that people should still send stuff as themself - > like Ians letter to Morning Ireland. IFSO should be able to add weight to > an issue, but the existence of IFSO shouldn't stop others from doing stuff. > > > --=20 > Ciar=E1n O'Riordan > http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/ > Irish Free Software Organisation: http://ifso.ie > _______________________________________________ > fsfe-ie(a)fsfeurope.org mailing list > List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie > Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie > ---------- Teresa Hackett 114 Cedar House Mespil Estate, Sussex Road Dublin 4, Ireland Email: teresahackett(a)eircom.net Mobile +353 87 6253768 ----------

2 1

Re: [Fsfe-ie] press releases
by Éibhear 07 May '04

07 May '04

I also think that we should nominate a PRO. If one of us is contacted by a radio or TV programme (or even a newspaper) we should be able to let them know who the official point of contact is. Perhaps something for the next meeting on the 18th? Éibhear -- Éibhear Ó hAnluain IFSO Ireland. --------- Original Message -------- From: teresahackett(a)eircom.net To: fsfe-ie(a)fsfeurope.org <fsfe-ie(a)fsfeurope.org> Subject: Re: [Fsfe-ie] press releases Date: 06/05/04 22:07 > > Agreed. But letters and press releases are different, and I think we need both, but the authorisation process is similar. We just need to settle a procedure. For press releases, how about: > > 1. Make a pro-forma document with standard IFSO header, intro paragraph, blank for text, contact info - to be used for all press releases. > 2. When a topic comes up, slot in the text and send to committee, the website lists: Ciaran O'Riordan, Chairman;Glenn Strong, Secretary, webmaster;Aidan Delaney, Treasurer;Malcolm Tyrrell > 3. Approval from Ciaran (as chair) and one other? > 4. When approved, final version to list > 5. Publish on press release section on website. > > It doesn't take that long to do a press release, it's no more than 2-3 paragaphs of text. I'm happy to do the pro-forma bit after my exams, if this helps. > > Teresa > > > > For the last 2-3 meetings, one thing on the agenda was to sort out some way > > of sending out letters "as IFSO". Press releases in essence, but we still > > called them letters. For some reason this topic never gets sorted out. > > > > As a real quick fix, I suggest that anything with the go-ahead from two > > committee members should be permitted to be sent "as IFSO". (yay/nay?) > > > > There's a balance to be struck between speed and correctness/review. > > > > but equally important is that people should still send stuff as themself - > > like Ians letter to Morning Ireland. IFSO should be able to add weight to > > an issue, but the existence of IFSO shouldn't stop others from doing stuff. > > > > > > --=20 > > Ciar=E1n O'Riordan > > http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/ > > Irish Free Software Organisation: http://ifso.ie > > _______________________________________________ > > fsfe-ie(a)fsfeurope.org mailing list > > List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie > > Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie > > > > ---------- > Teresa Hackett > 114 Cedar House > Mespil Estate, Sussex Road > Dublin 4, Ireland > Email: teresahackett(a)eircom.net > Mobile +353 87 6253768 > ---------- > _______________________________________________ > fsfe-ie(a)fsfeurope.org mailing list > List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie > Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie > > > > >

1 0

press releases
by Fergal Daly 06 May '04

06 May '04

I think it's time IFSO started doing press releases. From the evoting campaign I can say that they're sometime tedious and hard work and sometimes seem to have little effect but they do matter. Without them, I don't think any IFSO spokeperson will ever be invited onto Morning Ireland to debate or rebut people like Brian Wotsisname. Letters to people in power are not the only thing we should be doing. In order to have a voice in the public debate, IFSO needs to be on the radar of journalists and that needs press releases, F

2 1

Re: [Fsfe-ie] Morning Ireland piece on Software Patents
by Malcolm Tyrrell 06 May '04

06 May '04

> is there a simpler answer? I doubt there's anything sinister going on. I reckon they are just misjudging the benefits and not seeing the dangers. I've doubt they've spent as much time considering the consequences as our camp has. We should definitely draw peoples attention to that damning F-something-something report in America (can't remember what it's called). Malcohol.

3 2

patent letter to be sent thursday night
by Ciaran O'Riordan 06 May '04

06 May '04

Right, this isn't ready, but it should be sent by thursday and I'm not going to have time to work on it on Wednesday, so can some people suggest changes and bits to add or take away? (it needs FTC quotes: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf) I just merged our first letter with the draft of the third letter which I posted here in January and then deleted the duplicate bits and added some scratchy notes. So it's a bit of a brain dump really. This letter (when it is a letter) will probably be 3 pages long, that's ok I think. (it might be 4 pages now but some stuff can be optimised.) we're not arguing for the EPO to be more selective about the patents it hands out, so we're not highlighting that some patents shouldn't exist. We're arguing for software to be excluded from the patent system entirely, so we have to show how they're a bad fit, and how they're abused. ---------------------------------------------------=========== Dear Person, I am writing on behalf of Irish Free Software Organisation (IFSO) regarding EU Directive COD/2002/0047 "on the patentability of computer implemented innovations". On September 24th 2003, we were pleased that the plenary voted for a set of amendments which clearly exclude pure software innovations from the patent system. We were particularly glad that this majority included all of the 11 Irish MEPs that voted. I ask that Irelands representation on the Commission uphold the decision of the Irish MEPs and the plenary. Below, I will outline why this position is imperative to protect competition and innovation in software and for the economy of Ireland. Why is this issue so serious? ============================= Stop thinking about the handful of software owners and concentrate on the software users - patents make software incompatible and expensive, and make for monopolies and lock-in. A patent is an asset created without raw materials. In a patent system, countries that hand out the most patents reap the largest rewards, also, patent offices get revenue from the applications they approve, not the ones they reject. Increasing patentability is a slippery slope and there is no incentive to consider the affect that restricting use of the technology will have on Europe's citizens and industries. (i.e. better criteria/review would not work) Incompatible timeframes ======================= When a patent is approved, it's claims are not made public for 18 months. This gives companies a period of privacy. In the software industry this is long enough for a complete development and marketing cycle. A company could have a new piece of software in widespread use before it's even possible to check if it infringes existing patents. Unbounded legal uncertainty would arise. The twenty year term of patents is also out of sync with the software market. Patents exist to give inventors a head start in developing their idea. In the software industry twenty years is far too long. Ease of complexity ================== Developing most patentable inventions requires an investment in materials, tools, production facilities, testing equipment, safety certification etc. However, software can be developed by anyone with programming experience and a PC, no material limits currently exist. In just a few decades we have been able to develop software packages comprising hundreds of thousands of components. Software is a relatively new industry, thousands of new and old ideas are incorporated into each new product. Companies with enough resources could accumulate near limitless numbers of patents. Software development has no constraints - patents would add constraints (whereas in other fields it just increases constraints, which is simply a matter of degree - for software it changes the development process completely). Collaboration and quality ========================= Software companies currently collaborate to everyone's benefit. For example, MySQL AB develop a database package. Other companies can integrate this database into their own packages (for a fee). This type of collaboration reduces the development time of new products that require a database, and allows many companies to make use of widely tested software. If software becomes patentable, companies will have to ask "does this code infringe any patents, will it get us sued?". These questions would be impossible to answer. Collaboration would become a risky practice. Software development resources ============================== Software development companies would have to regularly perform patent lookups while developing software, development resources would be diverted to legal issues. Development would have to be done cautiously, thus slowing innovation. Even the threat of a patent infringment charge would damage a small companies trading prices, whether the charge was true or not. The American solution: ====================== In America, large software developing companies find it impossible to develop new software without infringing a few patents. Companies with large patent porfolios solve this by cross-licensing, thus forming patent sharing agreements. These companies can continue developing software but small and medium sized companies are locked out. (NOTE: this makes cartels. must get that fitting word in there.) Stagnation benefits market leaders, it allows them to maintain their revenues without the burden of competition. The company development problem: ================================ Laura Creighton, a european venture capitalist, gave testimony at a software patents hearing in the European Parliament in May 2003. She said that investing in small companies would be risky if software patents existed because a cash injection would simply draw the attention of "intellectual property firms". Without such cash injections, companies will find it harder to make the transition from small to medium sized enterprise. By impeding the growth of successful small companies, competition and employment will be hurt, and many innovative products won't reach the market. Of course, the big companies will love having no competition - that's why they're pushing for this change in the EPO. competition =========== For new software to compete with the market leader, it must be compatible. That is, it must be able to read and write data in the same format as the market leader, and it must present a recognisable interface. When software packages are not compatible, users of one software package become locked-in as the hassle of migration increases. The need for compatibility is currently a major problem in the software industry as market leaders change data formats regularly, thus making it hard for the competition to maintain compatibility. If the market leader could patent a technique required to read or write it's data, competition could become all but impractical. At present, anti-competitive practices can sometimes by tacked by the EU or by national governments, but software patents would introduce a legal tool for holding back competition, free from government regulation. Software already has legal protection in the form of copyright. Copyright law is a good fit because it costs nothing to use, requires no processing time, and it doesn't restrict others from independent development. Software is developed by individuals (GNU by freelance programmer, Linux by a student). Copyright is useable by individuals, the patent system is not. Any expense is too much, and any requirement to research existing patents is too much. NOTE : remember that we are arguing for NO software patents, none at all - not just fewer or better review, or whatever. Once there are any software patents, MS will find a way to work it into their next "standard" and FS will be shut out, as per the plan. Innovation ========== Software is very easy to develop because there are no material or legal restrictions on it's development at the moment. This ease of development has made it possible for new businesses and even individuals to write highly complex software packages incorporating thousands of ideas. Some will be new innovative ideas, but most will be known ideas, or ideas required for compatibility. If known ideas were to become ownable, individuals and new business would find it hard to write new software without infringing patents. The traditional incremental development of software would become a legal minefield, and many software innovations would never reach the market. Large businesses could also face endless law suits due to the massive number of ideas incorporated in their packages, and development would be slowed down as the software developers of these companies would have to split their time between development and researching patents so as not to leave the company open to such law suits. In some fields of development, it is hoped that the barriers created by patents will lead to new innovative solutions to problems (lateral innovation), but when trying to read or write data in an arbitrary format, there are many situations where only one technique can be used. Thus, lateral innovation will not be encouraged, because it would be of no use. The Irish economy ================= The revenue generated from patents will be distributed roughly according to how many patents each country owns. Ireland is unlikely to own more than 1% of European software patents, so 99% of patent royalties from Irish companies will be leaving Ireland, mostly going to the US. This "patent tax" may prove too high for many small, medium, or new businesses, and would certainly be too high for individuals. Irish software developers will have to either license the patents or avoid them. If they license, they will be maintaining a stream of royalties leaving the country. If they avoid the patents, (something that is very difficult, or sometimes impossible) we will not be producing competitive software. The security of our government, industry, and citizens is increasingly dependent on software. For this reason, Ireland must retain control of it's software systems, and it must be permitted to develop it's own. Learning from others ==================== When the US ruled that software patents would be legal, they didn't have the benefit of being able to study how other economies handled software patents. Recently, more than a decade after software became patentable, the US Federal Trade Commission have released a damning report on what effect they have seen with software patentability. [insert comment about FTC report] The US is seeing a new problem in the last three years in the form of IP Law firms, specialising in "monetising software patent assets". The firms buy unused software patents, and sue whoever they can. The typical targets are small businesses which can't afford to defend themselves in court. They can make a lot of money from sueing software development companies, and they face no risk because they don't development any software of their own. This parasitic form of business is legal in the US, but it is having terrible effects on software development. In contrast, the one software innovation that has produced the greatest social benefit in the last decade, is the World Wide Web. This is a completely unpatented innovation, which has fostered the highest levels of competition and innovation in the history of computing. FIXME : submarine patents: Patents that are filed but not enforced for a decade, then the owner starts fleecing people (Like Microsoft are doing with the FAT filesystem patents). Another *great* example is the recent jpeg patent. 31 users of a web standard are being sued for using that standard - and it's thought that some companies are were singled out because they spoke out against software patents - so selective enforcement is being used to attempt to silence people. Free Software, also known as "Libre Software", or "Open Source" =============================================================== Free Software is software that comes with royalty-free permission to run, study, modify, copy, and redistribute the software. In a market encumbered by software patents, development of Free Software would be severely restricted. Due to it's innability to force per-user fees, or to restrict what a user does with the software, it would be almost impossible for Free Software projects to get licenses for patented technologies. Instead of charging users for rights which cost nothing to give, Free Software businesses get revenue from customisation, distribution, setup, and support of the software. The European Commissions' Information Society Initiative recently released a report on "Free / Open Source Software F/OSS", which says: ``On the provider side, F/OSS creates new opportunities for software and service providers, which may be a unique opportunity for the European software industry - somehow this may be a proverbial "second and last chance".'' -- Ciarán O'Riordan http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/ Irish Free Software Organisation: http://ifso.ie

3 6

Software patent text approved in principle by COREPER
by James Heald 06 May '04

06 May '04

It's just coming out, the Irish presidency has managed (at the third attempt) to get a provisional agreement from a "qualified majority" of EU Member States' ambassadors to support its revised text of the Software Patents directive. The new draft rejects all planks of the European Parliament's amendments, and is described by FFII as "the most uncompromisingly pro-patent text yet". All is not yet lost. According to the rules of the Council, Wednesday's vote is just a "forecast" of the actual decision. Support for it at a political level in some states is said to be quite soft; and decisions brokered in Coreper do fall apart. Member states can still change their minds (and their votes), until the decision is made final at the meeting of the Competitiveness Council of Ministers on 17-18 May. But it will need intense pressure to change minds over the next eleven days, if this text is to be averted. National positions ================== According to leaked documents FFII has obtained, UK, IE, NL, AT, FI, SE, PT, LU, IT and EL were the countries pushing most strongly for the text; opposition to it was led by DE and BE with some support from DK, and mixed signals from FR and ES. Commission positions ==================== In the Commission, the push was led by Commissioner Bolkestein (Internal Market) with some support from Commissioner Monti (Competition); between them managed to subdue the objections of Liikanen (Information Society) Details ======= Latest Presidency draft text, including member states' comments: http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/cons0401/SRC/st09051.en.pdf (user vitke/ passwd mipri) Analysis of the text by Philippe Aigrain: http://www.sopinspace.com/~aigrain/en/analysis-compromise.html Leaked political analysis from the Commission http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/cec0405/ Political analysis and instructions to the Austrian delegation: http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere/europarl0309/bmvit0405/index.de.html Voting weights ============== Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom: 10 votes each; Spain: 8 votes; Belgium, Greece, Netherlands, Portugal: 5 votes each; Austria, Sweden: 4 votes each; Denmark, Ireland, Finland: 3 votes each; Luxembourg: 2 votes. (The new accession countries don't get to vote until November). A Qualified Majority needs 62 votes out of 87; so it needs 26 to block the Presidency text.

1 0

Reply from Morning Ireland
by Ian Clarke 06 May '04

06 May '04

John Murray got back to me about the biased Morning Ireland piece on swpats, he asked whether my view was represented at the session today, or whether we have sought our own hearing. I said that we weren't because we weren't aware that the swpat directive would be discussed. He also asked for my contact details and I may be able to do an interview or debate with him about it "in the not too distant future". Ian.

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 May 2004