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.
here it is: http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/docs/dear_mep/
Really excellent Ciaran! Exactly the kind of thing that's needed.
Two comments:
Firstly, the "Telecommunications research" section:
One big player in the global telecom companies has expressed concern that without software patents, funding software systems research will not be cost effective since others could benefit from the findings. We are asked to believe that research will cease, and the telecom industry will never find a alternative approach.
In response to this, you offer a recommendation:
Maybe they could set up a research consortium, spread the costs and make the benefits cumulative rather than exclusive. Competition would then be more consumer orientated, based on reliability, first-to-market, price, etc. rather than an artificial shortage of knowledge.
I'm not sure if our recommendations would be taken seriously. It might be preferable to simply note that research is being done and (I assume) is cost effective, even though telecom companies are currently operating without software patents.
Secondly, I noticed a simple grammatical mistake (that I had to look up to be sure):
Software companies collaborate to everyones benefit
"everyones" should be "everyone's".
Good luck,
Malcohol.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Software companies collaborate to everyones benefit
"everyones" should be "everyone's".
I thought it should be everyones' as it's posessive.
- -- Thanks, Aidan Delaney - -- If anyone has both the right and the need to study the code and be assured of its correct functioning, it is users. -- Whitfield Diffie Checksums of bad data tell you only: "yup, that's exactly the same bad data the other guy has" -- Tom Lord
gpg key: http://minds.cs.may.ie/~balor/public_key.asc
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:37:47PM +0100, Malcolm Tyrrell wrote:
here it is: http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/docs/dear_mep/
Really excellent Ciaran! Exactly the kind of thing that's needed.
Thanks.
Two comments:
Firstly, the "Telecommunications research" section:
[...]
In response to this, you offer a recommendation:
[...]
I'm not sure if our recommendations would be taken seriously. It might be preferable to simply note that research is being done and (I assume) is cost effective, even though telecom companies are currently operating without software patents.
I'll look at changing that paragraph, I wasn't sure about it myself. The problem is that the telecoms are some of the main owners of EU software patents. They stand to lose, so they're fighting dirty.
Secondly, I noticed a simple grammatical mistake (that I had to look up to be sure):
Software companies collaborate to everyones benefit
"everyones" should be "everyone's".
Or Aidans "everyones'"... I think "everyone's" is correct, I'll recheck it. (due to plurals)
On another note, Ireland has 2.7% of the vote, UK has 17%. I want to send our pack to as many UK MEPs as we can. I don't want to put much extra strain on Malcolm and Aidan (post & fax folks) so I'll do as much as I can myself, but if anyone wants to do more, this is an area that would benefit from a few hours of spare time.
(have to leave work, will mail again from home in 30 mins)
Ciaran O'Riordan
Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@member.fsf.org 21 lines of wisdom included:
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.
I don't like the first paragraph, but apart from that the content is excellent, although the wording could be tidied up here and there. Although I realise it's probably just a mish-mash of ideas you've had. Even still, the content is excellent, brief basic points and plenty of them.
I especially don't like the sentence "it is widely known that the directive will not be good for our economy but given the ..."
First of all the sentence is too long. Secondly, are you sure this fact is "widely known". I think perhaps, something like the following might be more appropiate.
"It is the opinion of <group of people> that this directive will have a negative affect on the economy... <go on to talk about MEPs>"
My 2c,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I like the majority of this document. Especially your logic on why it is reasonable to vote the whole proposal down. I would advise removing the sentance about SCO as it is quite reasonable to interpret their situation as being an aggreived party (though you, I and Linux know that "they're smoking crack" :)
In general I feel that the last three paragraphs could benifit mre from editing than the rest of the document. That is to say that I think the standard of writing is better in the rest of the document.
Trying to reduce the damage:
Most pro-patent Europeans say we will be stricter about handing out patents, and that this will lessen the problem. (We'll ignore the implied acknowledgment that patents cause problems) They don't explain why we would hand out fewer patents.
/** * This, I think, has to be explained with references to the WIPO. */ A patent is an asset that can be created without raw materials, countries that hand out the most patents will reap the most rewards.
/** * I think we have to re-enforce the point that you make about considering * the software _using_ industry here. In simpler language. */ Also, patent offices get revenue from the applications they approve, not the ones they reject. There is no incentive to consider the affect that restricting use of the technology will have on the european market as a whole.
Telecommunications research:
/** * One could mention that most of the recent telecoms advances VOIP etc.. * are because of interoperability and because of patent-free technology. * And have been paid for by governments i.e us the users/taxpayer (eg: DARPA, CERN etc..) * I know the telecoms market pretty well and I think I know what they want. * I'll try to explain it here - it's probably not an arguement against * patents, but at least you'll know what the telcos want. In telecoms, delivery of a new service a month before compeditors can earn 10's of millions. This is the case if you are talking about a telco the size of Deutsche Telekom, France telecom or BT. Introducing a new service based on a propritery protocol can earn millions for as long as the other telcos can't interoperate with it (and have to pay you money). It's worth it for BT to pay Ericsson a hefty sum for a new SMS over fiber compression protocol. Though I can't offer facts or figures (there are none available) I believe that the telcos want patents purely to extend the periods that they are making current short term gains. This will be a lose situation for the customer. */
Collaboration and quality: /** * This arguement should be phrased better, maybe with reference to the fact that lone developers (me and you) will not be able to collaborate in the largest multi-ethnic project on Earth (the Linux kernel) as the legal overhead of patent lookups is too high. Again this is a problem for software _using_ industry as opposed to the _producing_ industry. Though in Free Software the _using_ and _producing_ industries are the same. */
- -- Thanks, Aidan Delaney - -- If anyone has both the right and the need to study the code and be assured of its correct functioning, it is users. -- Whitfield Diffie Checksums of bad data tell you only: "yup, that's exactly the same bad data the other guy has" -- Tom Lord
gpg key: http://minds.cs.may.ie/~balor/public_key.asc
Thanks Aidan, I just got you mail now but I'm running out the door but I should be able to incorporate your comments tomorrow night. I did remove the SCO reference, and fixed a few gramatical glitches. The updated doc is in the same place but it's not very different.
I would advise removing the sentance about SCO as it is quite reasonable to interpret their situation as being an aggreived party
done.
In general I feel that the last three paragraphs could benifit mre from editing than the rest of the document.
this is true.
- This, I think, has to be explained with references to the WIPO.
*/ A patent is an asset that can be created without raw materials, countries that hand out the most patents will reap the most rewards.
I'm not clear on what you're suggesting here. Explain the lack of material requirements or the rewards? How does WIPO figure? could you elalborate this point?
- I think we have to re-enforce the point that you make about considering
- the software _using_ industry here. In simpler language.
*/ Also, patent offices get revenue from the applications they approve, not the ones they reject. There is no incentive to consider the affect that restricting use of the technology will have on the european market as a whole.
I'll try to rewrite which more user-industry focus it but it's hard to explain concisely.
Telecommunications research:
/**
- One could mention that most of the recent telecoms advances VOIP etc..
- are because of interoperability and because of patent-free technology.
- And have been paid for by governments i.e us the users/taxpayer (eg: DARPA,
CERN etc..)
good point, I'll try fit it in.
Introducing a new service based on a propritery protocol can earn millions for as long as the other telcos can't interoperate with it (and have to pay you money). It's worth it for BT to pay Ericsson a hefty sum for a new SMS over fiber compression protocol. Though I can't offer facts or figures (there are none available) I believe that the telcos want patents purely to extend the periods that they are making current short term gains. This will be a lose situation for the customer.
okay.
Collaboration and quality: /**
- This arguement should be phrased better, maybe with reference to the fact
that lone developers (me and you) will not be able to collaborate in the largest multi-ethnic project on Earth (the Linux kernel) as the legal overhead of patent lookups is too high. Again this is a problem for software _using_ industry as opposed to the _producing_ industry. Though in Free Software the _using_ and _producing_ industries are the same. */
I'm steering clear of free software, our favourite kernel, and lone developers because I don't think MEPs would fully appreciate the situation, so I'm focusing on small businesses.
Patent lookup cost is a good point I missed. I'll make it relevant to the user industry by noting reduced possible quality.
I'll try to get it revised tomorrow night.
thanks.
On 22 Aug 2003 at 19:35, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
- This arguement should be phrased better, maybe with reference to
the fact that lone developers (me and you) will not be able to collaborate in the largest multi-ethnic project on Earth (the Linux kernel) as the legal overhead of patent lookups is too high. Again this is a problem for software _using_ industry as opposed to the _producing_ industry. Though in Free Software the _using_ and _producing_ industries are the same. */
Firstly, the Linux kernel is most certainly not the largest multi- ethnic project on Earth. Where did you hear this from?
I'm steering clear of free software, our favourite kernel, and lone developers because I don't think MEPs would fully appreciate the situation, so I'm focusing on small businesses.
I'd go further than that: many MEP's view free software with very mixed views. This is not helped by most of the gods of the GPL cult being clearly unconnected with the real world at best, and insane at worst.
We programmers tend to look at other programmers in terms of how good a coder they are, often forgiving other substantial failings in their character. This is not how a MEP looks at a programmer.
Patent lookup cost is a good point I missed. I'll make it relevant to the user industry by noting reduced possible quality.
Another interesting point is why were 20,000 software patents registered when they couldn't be enforced under the 1991 directive? I hate to be a conspiracy nut, but business magazines at the time said it was a good investment because EU patent law would be "harmonised" with international norms (ie; the US) within a decade. They were nearly right.
Cheers, Niall
On 22 Aug 2003 at 7:13, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
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.
At the top you should clearly state that irrespective of any amendments, anything not banning US-tyle software patents is a stupid idea and should ideally be banned. Only if absolutely the directive must pass, /then/ the following amendments are needed to reduce the damage they will cause. Make it extremely clear that much damage will occur no matter what amendments.
I suggest this because you want to contain the full force of your opinion in the first paragraph quite simply because people often remember only that bit (psychology research).
"The Company Development problem" is more easily argued in favour of software patents than not. I'd suggest you delete it.
Point out the EPO has done no vetting on software patents already registered with it. There is no reason to expect that to improve. Hence patents of other people's inventions and prior art of up to a decade will continue to happen. Point out that not disclosing the source code breaks the patent contract where monopoly is given in exchange for public knowledge of workings so that new inventions can be spurred (as does 18 month quiet time).
In "The New American Problem", use the word "parasite".
I think Ciaran you have seen a copy of the letter I sent all English and Irish MEP's. That letter was designed to create a very uncomfortable feeling in your gut with just a single casual reading. You could try replicating that.
Cheers, Niall