[Fsfe-ie] SiliconRepublic: ¡Yes¢ vote on EU patents vital to software industry -- Irish Software Asso ciation
seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org
Thu Jun 23 04:47:06 CEST 2005
Seems to me a rush and push from out of Ireland just may be the
right leading factor that's needed. Seriously consider dropping
all bonds and dedicating efforts to a show of strength.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> David Golden <david at oldr.net> writes:
> > Note that the ISA has a member company list  (save a copy...),
> > several of whom are supposedly pro-linux, and others whose businesses
> > are pretty closely tied to things like apache+php. It might be worth
> > IFSO querying them
> Yes! this is a great idea.
> >From my resultless attempts to get the Small Firms Association and the Irish
> Small & Medium Enterprises association to make an anti-swpat statement, I've
> learned that the pressure/suggestion has to come from the members.
> This is a fairly easy task to try, and *could* turn out to be very
> >  http://www.software.ie/Sectors/ISA/ISADoclib3.nsf/wvMembers?OpenView
> Tell them that the Common Position will introduce software patents and which
> will open European software developers and distributors to patent
> litigation, both from European companies, which own 26% of [the currently
> unenforceable] European software patents, and from foreign companies, which
> hold the other 74%.
> Here's some material that might be useful. I can provide more/different if
> someone tells me of a specific need.
> Page 165 (and maybe 164) of the US FTC report:
> the report is a 315 page review of the US patent system. There's 15 pages
> devoted to software patents. Pages 164 & 165 are the conclusion of that
> section. It gives 11 ways that swpats have harmed software users and
> industry and no ways they have benefitted them.
> Page #2 of the recent BSA report:
> This document starts out by defining "computer-implemented inventions",
> which it follows immediately with "(usually known as 'Software Patents' in
> the US)". This perfectly dispells any (EICTA spread) confusion that CII's
> are something seperate to software patents.
> And it's great to have some stupid US patents (like one-click) plus it's EPO
> equivalent. Show the MEP the US one, ask "is this a good (worthy) patent?",
> they say "oh, but that's a US patent", then you show them the EPO
> equivalent. I don't have urls for where to get these pages right now
> Showing Article 5 paragraph 2 of the Council's text to people that support
> the Common Position could make them think. Here it is:
> A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall
> not be allowed unless the program would, when loaded and executed in a
> programmable computer, programmable computer network or other programmable
> apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same patent
> application in accordance with paragraph 1.
> (since products and processes are pantentable, and the only extra
> requirement is that the program runs on a computer: the "unless" means
> nothing and all programs are patentable. Why the dorky wording? If
> software patents are good, why not say so?)
> Ciarán O'Riordan,
> http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/ http://fsfe.org
> Support FSFE's work against software patents by becomming a Fellow
> fsfe-ie at fsfeurope.org mailing list
> List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie
> Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P!
DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders!
New Yorkers for Fair Use
[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc
I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication.
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
More information about the FSFE-IE