No subject

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
effective.

> [1] 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.

http://www.ueapme.org/docs/press_releases/pr_2005/050427_CIIcampaign.pdf
http://www.ueapme.org/docs/press_releases/pr_2005/050621_Computer_Patent.pdf

Page 165 (and maybe 164) of the US FTC report:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf
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:
http://www.bsa.org/eupolicy/loader.cfm?url=3D/commonspot/security/getfile.c=
fm&PageID=3D25161
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
though.


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?)

http://www.softwarechoice.org/download_files/Common_Position_st11979re01_en=
04.pdf


--=20
Ciar=E1n O'Riordan,
http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/                             http://fsfe.=
org
            Support FSFE's work against software patents by becomming a Fel=
low