[Fsfe-ie] Letter to Creevy
Glenn.Strong at cs.tcd.ie
Tue Feb 15 18:15:58 CET 2005
On , February 15, 2005 at 16:18 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Good stuff Ciaran. We'll be meeting tonight - I'll bring along a
printout of this so we can try to amend it again.
> Irish Free Software Organisation would like to briefly explain why the
> "software patents directive" should be brought back a step to be fixed.
> = Every patent is a regulation on software writers. The added bureacracy of
> obtaining permission to use a software idea, and the added legal costs of
> patent searches and litigation would greatly harm the Lisbon strategy's
> aim to increase the competitiveness of the EU.
> * On Feb 2nd, you said "Having no directive means continuing to rely on case
> law, which leads to considerable legal uncertainty which is why we must
> strive to find a balanced solution." IFSO agrees, but the Councils text,
I think you could drop the word "but" in that sentence:
IFSO agrees with this. The Councils text, which relies...
> which relies on undefined terms such as "technical effect" and "industrial
> application", could only yield an outcome that would require case law and
> legal precedents to define the law.
> * The costs of patent searches and the possible cost of litigation, whether
> the litigators claim is valid or not, are too high for all individuals and
> most businesses. In software writing, the introduction of patents would
...most business. The introduction of patents on software ideas would
Also: this point is just an "anti swpat" point as it stands. Need to
add a sentence indicating that this problem would be a direct
consequence of the present wording.
> not just raise the barrier to entry, it would create a barrier where
> previously there was none.
> * The parliament fixed this directive by 75% majorities, JURI want it fixed
> by a 17 or 19 majority. Since these are the only groups made of
17 or 19 - which? If we can't find the figure how about "almost unanimously"?
> democratically elected representatives, it would be a regrettable example
> of the EU's "democratic deficit" if they were to be ignored.
> * The recent news that Bill Gates threatened the Danish Prime Minister with
> the loss of 800 jobs if this directive was not passed is [what? Should
> this point even be here]
I think drop this - it doesn't strengthen the case for a restart.
> = The US Federal Trade Commission's 2003 "Report on Innovation" said that
> "software and internet patents" were obstructing innovation.
More information about the FSFE-IE