Reenviar: Re: Most recent full copy of Directive on patentability of computer implemented inventions (fwd)

[xdrudis at tinet.org]

Hartmut Pilch asked me to forward this message to the list. 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:58:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: Hartmut Pilch <phm at a2e.de>
To: Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran at member.fsf.org>
Cc: discussion at fsfeurope.org
Subject: Re: Most recent full copy of Directive on patentability of
    computer implemented inventions

> We need a consensus on what amendments to endorse.

> There are 14 proposed amendments, the list is available at:
>
http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20030616/juri20030616.htm

The text by Xavier Drudis Ferran which you appended below contains much of
the answers to your concerns already, you just have to read it.

And read http://swpat.ffii.org, which tries to provide a shortcut to
fully understanding the situation. The site also contains a
counter-proposal and a minimal set of amendments.

It is probably not a good idea to restart this work in the name of FSFE.
You are likely to "reinvent it, just poorly", as is said about some people
who do not understand Unix.

> No matter how hard it is, we have to find a set of
> amendments that will make us happy. We then say to our MEPs
> "Unless amendments X, Y, and Z are passed, you must vote No".
> This gives us a chance to get a good law passed, and it gives
> our MEPs a firm reason to vote No if needs be.

That is a correct way to proceded.

> Does anyone know of a good/agreed set of amendments?

see Xavier's comments.

> On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:50:43PM +0200, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
> > El Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:22:07PM +0100, Niall Douglas deia:
> > >
> > > What the MEPs seem to want is in short, succint terms, what
> > > amendments should they call for? In my view, patenting the
> > > implementation not idea could actually be a good idea and in the
> > > worst case scenario, it won't make things really awfully worse.
> > >
> >
> > What the MEPs want is 2 small amendments that please everyone. That
> > is impossible. There are just too many holes in it. Yet it is
> > their responsability to fix it. If it takes many amendments then
> > that's it. I'm sorry, I didn't write the CEC proposal, so don't
blame it.
> > The FFII has some amendment proposals. This is not necessarily the
> > only way to fix it, but it is very easy to fail in fixing it.
> > They have always the option of rejecting the directive, if fixing
> > it is too much work.
> >
> > > I appreciate your comments on patents plus all the FSF have written
> > > about the matter. But it's all useless - you all speak of "software
> > > patents" being bad full stop period. A MEP might know that and even
> > > agree, but the EU is *mandated* to enforce software patents.
> > > Therefore, you are fighting a war which cannot be won.
> > >
> >
> > This is wrong, to say it politely. Who do you think is mandating
> > anything to the EU but itself?.
> >
> > > Instead you should accept that the EU *shall* have software patents,
> > > and this fight is all about making software patents as least damaging
> > > as possible. Therefore you should be proposing alternative forms of
> > > software patent ie; not Arlene McCarthy's proposal.
> > >
> >
> > Software patents are as absurd as saying pi equals 5.6. There is
> > nothing you can do to make them less harmful without making them
> > worthless to applicants. But we discussed a bit about that some time
> > ago, didn't we?.
> >
> > > To differentiate, I use "US-style software patent" for anything which
> > > patents the idea behind a program. These must be avoided at all
> > > costs. I then propose a new and improved form of software patent
> > > patenting the implementation, one a MEP can debate for in their
> > > plenary session.
> > >
> >
> > That's probably either meaningless, or more likely worthless for
> > patent applicants. The only way for software patents to do that
> > is to turn them in a more expensive and less lasting copyright.
> >
> > There's a bit about it lost somewhere in
> > http://patents.caliu.info/aboutMcCarthyConsiderations.html
> >
> > > You all might be interested that the SME group in the EU parliament
> > > is very worried about the proposed directive but their proposed
> > > amendments aren't much use. Irish MEP Avril Doyle is on that
> > > committee and I am liasing with her wrt to tabling amendments. If the
> > > SME committee could come behind these amendments, they have a much
> > > louder voice than any one MEP or party.
> > >
> >
> > Since you don't mind commenting that on a public list, would you
> > mind discussing the precise text of the amendments you would like?.
> > Is the SME committee an EP committee ? I thought it was some other
> > group of MEPs. Anyway, are you aware that one MEP cannot table
> > amendments in plenary?.
> >
> > --
> > Xavi Drudis Ferran
> > xdrudis at tinet.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discussion mailing list
> > Discussion at fsfeurope.org
> > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
> --
> Irish Free Software Forum:
> http://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>





Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis at tinet.org