I found a bit more information which may throw some light on the opinions behing the source of the claims Ian so rightly highlighted and dismissed as a bluff:

"According to the Dow Jones newswire, the CEOs of a number of large European corporations, including Alcatel, Nokia, Siemens, Philips and Ericsson recently sent a letter to the European Union in which they criticised the revised bill and threatened to move more than �15 billion of R&D research out of Europe. The Council of Ministers vote, which was to take place on 27 November, has been postponed. "

Here are some sound bytes that I found (from http://swpat.ffii.org/players/media/ ) that may relate to opinions put out by the dow jones newswire:

"In a public letter to Dow Jones journalist Matthew Newman, Hartmut Pilch points out that JURI, contrary to what Newman wrote in Yahoo, did not impose any limits on patentability but in fact did everything to assure that ideas of the Amazon One-Click type are indisputably considered patentable inventions in Europe and that such patents can be enforced in ways which even the European Commission had not proposed. "

And

"Brussels correspondant Mathew Newman confuses patent lawyer interests with industry interests, attributes limiting amendments to "environmentalists and socialists", extensively quotes EICTA statements. "

You get redirected to the above site where I took these quotes from when you go to ffii.org (Has anti software patent message on its front page). According to google cache : "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. "

I am new to the list so I am not sure if this organizations name has cropped up before. Does any one know much about this organization? They seem to have a lot of good information on their site. Also I could not find the original dow jones story that was refered to in the register article.

-Harry

On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 11:26:47AM +0000, Ian Clarke wrote:

Harry Tormey wrote:

...

http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/34244.html

...

From story : "The purpose of patents is to encourage innovation, so

that you can create something, patent it, make money from it and use the money for further innovation," said Karen Murray, a barrister and lecturer on IT law at the National College of Ireland. "But the patents are published and are available for people who would like to enhance that innovation."

Any one have any thoughts on the tone of the story ?

It is unfortunate that, which Karen Murray accurately explained the *purpose* of patents, she did not comment on how well they achieve their stated purpose in the realm of software (ie. they fail completely, and actually raise the cost and risk associated with innovation).

I wasn't aware of the $15B R&D threat, clearly a bluff. If they were happy to spend $15B without software patents before, why not now?

Is there a rebuttal to that letter? If so, does anyone know if it has been sent to MEPs?

Ian.

Ian Clarke wrote:

Harry Tormey wrote:

...

http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/34244.html

...

From story : "The purpose of patents is to encourage innovation, so

that you can create something, patent it, make money from it and use the money for further innovation," said Karen Murray, a barrister and lecturer on IT law at the National College of Ireland. "But the patents are published and are available for people who would like to enhance that innovation."

Any one have any thoughts on the tone of the story ?

It is unfortunate that, which Karen Murray accurately explained the *purpose* of patents, she did not comment on how well they achieve their stated purpose in the realm of software (ie. they fail completely, and actually raise the cost and risk associated with innovation).

I wasn't aware of the $15B R&D threat, clearly a bluff. If they were happy to spend $15B without software patents before, why not now?

Is there a rebuttal to that letter? If so, does anyone know if it has been sent to MEPs?

Hartmut has put up a commentary on the letter of the five CEOs at: http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/telcos1107/index.en.html

See also http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/eicta1127/index.en.html and its link questioning the representativeness of EICTA, particularly how little it represents the interests of SMEs.

The most effective single recent counterweight on the economic front is probably the FTC report, http://www.ffii.org.uk/ftc/ftc.html

As to the audience, I think the EICTA press release was directed at journalists covering the Competitiveness Council meeting.

The CEOs' letter (if I remember right) was addressed to EU Commissioners, the ministers attending the Competitiveness Council, and member states' permanent ambassadors.

It's interesting that this was fed to an Irish journalist. This may signal the start of a PR push in Ireland ahead of the Irish EU Presidency.

It's worth maintaining contacts with MEPs, particularly if they can find out anything on the political grapevine; but they are basically out of the direct picture now until after the Euro-elections in June next year.

The key politicians now to try to build contacts with are domestic Irish politicians and civil servants who will be piloting the directive during the Irish presidency, using of course any introductions and recommendations we can get from friendly MEPs.

All best,

James.