[Fsfe-ie] Patent letter, new, shorter, V3

[Glenn Strong]

On , January 25, 2005 at 12:46 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> "Malcolm Tyrrell" writes:
> > emphasis should not be on the badness of software patents, but rather on
> > the failure of the current directive to block them.
> ...
> > The argument that "software should not be patentable" is now openly
> > accepted by almost all parties (even if they don't really agree).
> 
> My reasons for putting the emphasis the other way around are that
> 
> (A) I would be surprised if our new batch of reps have done the background
> work to understand why software ideas must be unpatentable, and how serious
> this is, and therefore may not have the gusto to take the necessary action

This is a good reason. I do think that we should focus on the action
they need to take, though. The background material could be included
as a later section - we did this with one of the earlier letters.
 
> (B) I've forgotten how to argue about the directive text. Having been out
> of the loop for a few months, I need to brush up on my articles and "as
> such" clauses.

This is a terrible reason! (I know, I know, you're saying this to
encourage someone to try to write a better section. I'll try to have a
go at lunch time).

[...]
> but time is tight and there'll be other letters.

All true - but we must try to make this communication as good as we
can. It may be our best chance to influence *this* round.

> Right now, it seems, we need to persuade either our rep on the Coucil to
> make this a B-item (who's that?), or persuade our MEP in JURI (Brian
> Crowley) to ask parliamnt to restart the dirctive.

OK - these are different things, though. Surely Crowley, for instance,
is already going to be familiar with many of the reasons swpats must
not be allowed, he's been around. We may need to target these
different groups with different letters.

If the news emerging is correct then it may be Poland has bought us
another couple of days to do this right. 
 
> Crowley is a good MEP, he was one of the MEPs that tabled some of FFII's
> amendments in September 2003.

Yet, weirdly, FFII left him off their CSV-list of members. They claim
that they left off the "hard liners" that it would not be worth
contacting. Have they made a mistake here, or do they also include
people who do not need to be convinced as well as those who are unconvincable?
 
> > I'm not sure calling the TRIPS angle a "bluff" is productive
> 
> Okay, I've relabeled it "one interpretation".

I noticed a few other spots where I would suggest new wording, but
I'll wait to see the latest version; maybe you've already got to them.

-- 
Glenn Strong