Here are the relevant meetings scheduled for the Irish presidency, January to June next year:
March 11th, 2004 Competitiveness Council formal meeting (Brussels). March 25-26, 2004 European Council (ie Heads of Government) April 2004 Informal meeting of Competitiveness Ministers (Co. Clare, Ireland). May 17-18, 2004 Competitiveness Council formal meeting (Brussels).
The relevant ministry in charge will be the ministry for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, headed by the Tánaiste (deputy prime minister), Ms. Mary Harney.
(Source: parliamentary answer, http://www.greenparty.ie/pressroom/Dail%20work/031023%20EU%20Presidency.htm
which corresponds to a Word doc on the ministry website, http://www.entemp.ie/ecd/irelandspresidency.doc )
The May meeting is the last date for Ireland to be able to claim the credit for any agreement, so the goal of the presidency will be to push for achievments on as many dossiers as possible by then.
If possible, they will try to get the agreement 'banked' in March, to clear the agenda; the March meeting will also consider what broad strategy and other documents in the area of Competitiveness can be prepared that the heads of government can discuss (or perhaps that should be trumpet) at the end of March.
Given that the Working Group has apparently already had two "very productive" meetings (UKPO), they may feel that March 11th is entirely possible to adopt a finalised Council common text for the directive.
The working party will also still be working on the Community Patent legislation, which the Italian presidency "spectaclarly failed" to bring to agreement (Axel Horns) -- "the Presidency noted that although there was broad agreement on the compromise text, complete agreement could not be reached at that stage as the question of the period for filing compulsory translations of the claims of the Community patent remained unresolved".
If agreements cannot be put in place on March 11, the "informal meeting" in April will see a final attempt to bash heads together at a political level, to produce agreement in time for May 17th.
All best,
James.
James Heald wrote:
Here are the relevant meetings scheduled for the Irish presidency,
More on the key players in Ireland:
The Irish Patents Office has a website at http://www.patentsoffice.ie/ According to them,
Since 1993, the Intellectual Property Unit of Department of Enterprise, Trade & Employment has had responsibility for certain legislative and policy matters relating to intellectual property. The Patents Office provides input in the drafting of certain legislation and in the formulation/implementation of policy in relation to the development of the system of intellectual property protection.
(http://www.patentsoffice.ie/About-us.html)
The Intellectual Property Unit home page is: http://www.entemp.ie/tcmr/ipu.htm
The Intellectual Property Unit is responsible for the development of intellectual property policy, the preparation of legislation and the provision of an intellectual property regime which reflects the international law environment and best practice.
The Unit also acts as a liaison section between the Department and the Patents Office and liaises with the Office on policy and legislative matters.
...
Queries on policy matters should be directed to the Intellectual Property Unit.
A list of their currently open policy dossiers can be found atL http://www.entemp.ie/tcmr/ipuwork.htm
It looks as though Orla Jones may be the civil servant with line-responsibility for the software patents dossier -- the filename for the copy of the November 2002 draft on the site is "orlaone.pdf" :-)
The chain of command appears to be:
1. Tony McGrath (Principal Officer) 2. Jacob Rajan (Principal Examiner) 3. Helen Curley (Assistant Principal) 4. Orla Jones (Administrative Officer) 5. Una McKeown (Executive Officer) (http://www.entemp.ie/tcmr/ipurole.htm)
Email addresses and direct telephone numbers can be found at: http://www.entemp.ie/tcmr/ipucon.htm But let's be *very careful* about how we make first contact.
For the moment, I suggest that *any* communication with the IPU go through IFSO (Irish Free Software Organisation), and be co-ordinated by them. I suggest that, at least for the moment, we do *not* publicise the IPU contact information on any public website of our own.
Probably we should first quickly sound out friendly politicians, MEPs and academics to find out how the office works. The best way to make first contact, to establish us with most importance and representative credibility, might be to try to achieve an introduction either from a politician or somebody the unit already knows, talks to, and respects.
There is a Patent Office Users' Council, which looks to be the main standing consultative body.
Patents Office Users' Council
Officials of the Intellectual Property Unit chair meetings and provide secretariat backup to the Patents Office Users' Council, which was set up in April, 1997 to facilitate the better delivery of the industrial property services of the Patents Office. The Council is made up of representatives of the Association of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, the Licensing Executives Society, Enterprise Ireland, Academia and the Patents Office.
It would be valuable to know if any ad-hoc special advisory committee has been set up to give feedback on discussions on the swpat directive, and/or who the IP Unit turns to when it wants external advice on the topic.
In any case need to quickly identify who are the major Irish academics and opinion forming 'experts' on patent law / patent economics / innovation economics, and start sounding them out informally as soon as possible -- either through IFSO (especially via somebody with a serious SME background), or if appropriate via friendly academics elsewhere in the EU and the USA.
The academic quoted in the ENN piece clearly fits into this category, and it's a good sign that her immediate association with the term "software patent" is "Amazon 1-click ordering". Dublin-based, she may be able to shed some very useful light on the most important informal networks of policy-discussion in this area, if we can gently establish contact in a friendly way, without scaring her into a defensive "take cover, under attack by lobbyists" mode.
The biggest companies probably have their own very good sources of information as to how the negotiations are progressing. Most governments probably keep their "national interests" in close consultation with how the negotiations are progressing. I think what we need to communicate to the Irish presidency the most is how much more bumpy than necessary the Parliament process was made because certian players did their very best to keep us out of the tent.
If we can establish a good informal working contact with the Irish government IP unit, this should make both for better legislation, and a much smoother, easier, more productive legislative process.
In a sense, we're getting onto the train rather late -- according to what we hear from the UKPO, the EU Council's "Working Party on Intellectual Property (Patents)" has already had two "very productive" meetings. We need to find out a.s.a.p. where the negotiations are now at, and what issues are open and in play. Let's just hope they haven't already closed the book on too many of the most important questions.
All best,
James.
PS. As an interesting footnote, the Irish PTO glosses the Art 52 EPC exceptions as follows:
An invention is not patentable if it is merely (a) a discovery, a scientific theory or a mathematical method; (b) an aesthetic creation; (c) a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business, or a computer program; or (d) the presentation of information.
Although such subject-matter or activities are not patentable their use or application may be patentable. For example, a scheme or method for playing a game is not patentable, but it is possible to obtain patent protection for a novel apparatus for playing a game. Also, the exclusion from patentability of computer programs does not extend to plant, processes of manufacture or control processes controlled by a computer program.
(http://www.patentsoffice.ie/what-is-patentable.html)
although the actual law uses the usual 'as such' language (section 9 of the Patents Act 1992):
(3) The provisions of subsection (2) shall exclude patentability of subject-matter or activities referred to in that subsection only to the extent to which a patent application or patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.
Thanks James for this very important research.
It is clear that finding productive contacts with the Irish presidency is of primordial importance at this moment.
But let's be *very careful* about how we make first contact.
This admonition is a bit in contradiction with posting this information to a large list.
For the moment, I suggest that *any* communication with the IPU go through IFSO (Irish Free Software Organisation), and be co-ordinated by them. I suggest that, at least for the moment, we do *not* publicise the IPU contact information on any public website of our own.
Disadvantages of this approach
- treats the issue as one of free vs proprietary.
- I do not know IFSO, and we have had last-minute discussions with some people at IFSO who wanted to reinvent the wheel of our (successful) counter-proposals and redesign the patent system on their own. The key basis for our success in the EP -- informed consensus of a sufficiently large group -- seems to be missing with regard to IFSO.
In general, I don't like such public discussions of "appointing" this or that organisation or person to some task.
Nevertheless, for the time being I for my part am not publicising the IPU contact info.
Probably we should first quickly sound out friendly politicians, MEPs and academics to find out how the office works. The best way to make first contact, to establish us with most importance and representative credibility, might be to try to achieve an introduction either from a politician or somebody the unit already knows, talks to, and respects.
ACK
There are some people in Ireland who have been helpful in september, and we can find an effective way of establishing contacts.
If we can establish a good informal working contact with the Irish government IP unit, this should make both for better legislation, and a much smoother, easier, more productive legislative process.
I can't think of any possibility of a smooth, easy and productive legislative process in the current setup of the Council IP Working Party.
If we can bring any rationality into their process, that will at best mean that their process becomes more difficult. Their "productivity" has entirely relied on a pro-patent consensus of the players on the WP, which the Irish players will inevitably share.
In a sense, we're getting onto the train rather late -- according to what we hear from the UKPO, the EU Council's "Working Party on Intellectual Property (Patents)" has already had two "very productive" meetings. We need to find out a.s.a.p. where the negotiations are now at, and what issues are open and in play. Let's just hope they haven't already closed the book on too many of the most important questions.
I don't think there is much of a chance of playing within those "negotiations". The chance is rather in making it unlikely that the "IP Working Party" can dominate the process. And there our only strength lies in the popular support which we enjoy. We have no chance of winning in an unpublicised diplomatic game in this round. Convincing the Irish members of the IPWP seems to me like trying to convince a butcher's association that we must promote vegetarian diets.
Hartmut Pilch phm@a2e.de writes:
James Heald wrote:
For the moment, I suggest that *any* communication with the IPU go through IFSO (Irish Free Software Organisation), and be co-ordinated by them. I suggest that, at least for the moment, we do *not* publicise the IPU contact information on any public website of our own.
Disadvantages of this approach
- treats the issue as one of free vs proprietary.
Free Software has not been mentioned in any collaborative work done by fsfe-ie members.
- I do not know IFSO, and we have had last-minute discussions with some people at IFSO who wanted to reinvent the wheel of our (successful) counter-proposals and redesign the patent system on their own. The key basis for our success in the EP -- informed consensus of a sufficiently large group -- seems to be missing with regard to IFSO.
IFSO does not exist yet. It will be formed in late December or early January. You must be talking about individuals that are either from Ireland or happen to be on the FSFeuropes' ireland mailing list.
The list has worked together on two letters that we have sent to MEPs. For the first letter, I asked you how the MEPs should vote, and I added your response to the letter. In the second letter I formed a voting list based on the amendment rankings page on swpat.ffii.
When I'm stuck, I sometimes ask James Heald or Alex Macfie for advice if I can't find it on swpat.ffii.
IFSO will be concerned with software patents only. Not redesigning the patent system. I hope to work *with* FFII. I don't see anyone suggesting we reinvent it.
Nevertheless, for the time being I for my part am not publicising the IPU contact info.
Of course, we have no option but to reinvent the work of FFII whenever FFII will not share it's findings.
I understand there can sometimes be good tactical reasons for witholding data. If you'd like to send anything off-list, feel free, and if you indicate that certain data is not to be distributed, I'll respect this. It's not the way I like to work, but that's a secondary issue.
There are some people in Ireland who have been helpful in september, and we can find an effective way of establishing contacts.
I'll be collating the MEP responses at the end of this week. I'll mail a summary to someone at FFII.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
[several clarifications snipped]
Nevertheless, for the time being I for my part am not publicising the IPU contact info.
Of course, we have no option but to reinvent the work of FFII whenever FFII will not share it's findings.
Um, I'm not sure that's quite fair.
The national campaigns are central to what FFII is trying to do, and all the information I can think of circulates pretty freely. If information ever doesn't get to the campaign co-ordinators on the front line, that's a communications foul-up, not policy.
In the case of the IPU contact info, that was the info I sent straight to the fsfe-ie list. I was asking Hartmut not to put it onto the central site, because getting the trust and confidence of IPU that we are useful, constructive, helpful sort of people is potentially one of the most important relationships we have to build.
Inevitably mass-lobbying produces some megaphone attempts from some people with the sensitivity of a rhino wearing hobnail boots. Much better if we can try to develop a quiet informal conversation inside the tent, than start shouting outside it. That's why it is so important that we have a clear leading "relationship manager", to make sure that contact is attempted with the maximum of sensitivity, if possible by people who are local, informed and credible.
That's why I wanted to leave a clear run to IFSO to have full awareness and co-ordination of all approaches, and (IMHO) thought it best not to particularly encourage freelancers.
I understand there can sometimes be good tactical reasons for witholding data. If you'd like to send anything off-list, feel free, and if you indicate that certain data is not to be distributed, I'll respect this. It's not the way I like to work, but that's a secondary issue.
The information is straight off the net, so it's not as if we're burying anything.
I just think if we can go in as people who are quiet and subtle and know what they are talking about, this is much the best way to establish any relationship with confidence on both sides.
We need to move quickly; we also need to make sure we get it right.
Hartmut Pilch wrote:
Disadvantages of this approach
- treats the issue as one of free vs proprietary.
I have not seen anyone credibly suggest that this is an issue of free vs proprietary. The "party line" is that it is small European innovators (both free and proprietary) versus large US monopolies, or alternatively, innovators versus intellectual property lawyers.
If anyone starts suggesting things like exemptions for free software it will be massively destructive to our cause as it would constitute a betrayal of our natural allies, the SMEs. I hope nobody is so foolish as to advocate anything like this.
Ian.
Ian Clarke wrote:
Hartmut Pilch wrote:
Disadvantages of this approach
- treats the issue as one of free vs proprietary.
I have not seen anyone credibly suggest that this is an issue of free vs proprietary. The "party line" is that it is small European innovators (both free and proprietary) versus large US monopolies, or alternatively, innovators versus intellectual property lawyers.
If anyone starts suggesting things like exemptions for free software it will be massively destructive to our cause as it would constitute a betrayal of our natural allies, the SMEs. I hope nobody is so foolish as to advocate anything like this.
It may be interesting background to know that this issue came to a head on the day before the Europarl vote.
Despite a certain amount of adverse discussion on the lists, the Nordic Green Left group had tabled a (somewhat uncertainly worded) amendment to exempt software which was open-sourced from the strictures of patent law.
Perhaps surprisingly, this was taken up by Arlene McCarthy, presumably with the backing of her advisors at the Commission's Industrial Property section (CEC Indprop). She tried hard to push through a deal whereby the main lines of the JURI would be accepted, in return for an exemption for open source.
The main Green group found themselves in a very sticky position: they would almost feel bound to go along with such a deal, if it came to the vote, becuse doing anything else would have been very hard to publicly explain in headline terms.
If this deal had gone through, it would have left us in a very bad position for second reading. The support from the SMEs, which had tremendous weight with MEPs would have been peeled away. The main planks of the JURI report would have been voted through, and under the rules of the parliament MEPs would have been forced to uphold that decision at second reading. And sixpence wins you a pound, that the Commission would have "suddenly discovered" that the open-source exemption was "far more wide reaching than it originally thought", and would have been gunned down at second reading, leaving just the McCarthy report unamended.
So NGL quietly agreed to withdraw their amendment, taking the possibility of the deal out of the arena.
Instead, we got an incredibly powerful statement from the parliament on the central issue of whether software patents are good for innovation -- for open source, for SMEs, for the whole economy; and this appears to have significantly re-opened the fundamental question in the Council of Ministers.
All best,
James.
James Heald wrote:
Despite a certain amount of adverse discussion on the lists, the Nordic Green Left group had tabled a (somewhat uncertainly worded) amendment to exempt software which was open-sourced from the strictures of patent law.
I must say that such an exemption would strike me as totally unfair competition, and again, I speak for my company, which would presumably benefit from this unfairness.
The choice of licenses for distribution of software should be up to the authors, and should be part of the general competitive environment. Let free competition determine what in the long run is the best approach for production and licensing of software.
Government inteference in the free market in this respect would be totally inappropriate.
Yes, software patents are a menace, but they are a menace for proprietary and open source/free software alike. After all it was microsoft that got clobbered for IE plugins, and Palm that got clobbered for Grafitti, both good examples of patents interfering with innovation. In practice software patents have been hitting proprietary software vendors more aggressively, but that's not due to some fundamental difference between proprietary and free software, but rather to other factors, one of which is that free software tends to be very careful about patents. There is a reason why linux does not have good font smoothing algorithms, and gcc did not use register coloring for many years.
Of course as we all know, being careful is not good enough, and sooner or later, we will see a big software patent case revolving around Free or Open Source software.
Robert Dewar
Ian Clarke wrote:
If anyone starts suggesting things like exemptions for free software it will be massively destructive to our cause as it would constitute a betrayal of our natural allies, the SMEs. I hope nobody is so foolish as to advocate anything like this.
I very strongly agree. And my position here, as CEO of a SME that relies entirely on a Free Software approach is an interesting one, since clearly I am not arguing any special interest here :-)
Unfortunately, there have been people "so foolish as to advocate anything like this", and indeed at one point specific amendments suggesting such exemptions were proposed.
Robert Dewar CEO and President Ada Core Technologies (www.gnat.com, see also www.act-europe.fr)