Slashdot Mirror

Go here, pick your contry and one of your representatives to write to and just DO IT (Click "country flag -> name", and there you should have the email adress). If you're an American you can probably send an email outlining (from experience) why software patents is a really bad idea - who knows, they might listen to you too, and yes, I'm pretty sure 99.9% of them speak good english.

If anyone has good links containing information about software patent issues please post them so that we can be well-informed before we start writing.

Here's one - Saving Europe from Software Patents (RMS).
And another - Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together (RMS).

If you live in the EU, drop another quick email to your MEP and national parliamentarians. It doesn't have to be a long rant against patents - just point out the massive opposition, the threat to jobs and the duplicity of voting on software patents at an environment or fisheries meeting without even a vote.

In the UK there will likely be a general election next year. Contact your MP now it costs nothing bar a few minutes of your time. You can get contact details for your MEP here.

First, if you use a F/OSS you can be reasonably sure there are no back doors in your mail server or client if you choose to investigate. Second, if you take a similar approach to encryption algorithms and software and use ecncyption in all e-mail communication then you are much less likely to be of use to Echelon.

Yes, your network / infrastructure could probably still be cracked manually, but thats a hell of a lot different from letting everyone between here and your customer (can be 30 hops at times) read your messages.

Echelon, even the very concept of it, is a living example of why government agencies need to be sceptical about accepting black box technologies which may or may not work as advertised. Going back to 2000/2001, the resolution ,"European Parliament resolution on the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications" (ECHELON interception system) (2001/2098(INI)) brings up F/OSS explicitly:

This is flamebait. The EU has a mix of different institutions for instance a directly elected EU parliament.

The parliament has been gathering more and more powers over the last couple of decades in order to better control the EU commission that is selected by the member governments that are all democratically elected.

So please explain to me again why the EU is supposed to be not democratic?

We've proud of other countries copying our constitution and systems of government, why not our systems of elections too? Especially if they improve it, and give those improvements back to us?

Why? Because there is nothing wrong with pen and paper, that's why? Seriously, please check out the recent results of a much larger election than that for US president, in terms of voters as well as in terms of voting options and please tell me what in your opinion is wrong with pen and paper. This is not a rhetoric question, I would really like to hear an answer. Any answer. Anyone who reads Slashdot knows that I am all for open source and free software but I have yet to find any reason to use any software for counting votes. While giving us your answer please keep in mind that voting is the most fundamental concept in democracy and as such needs to be completely transparent--not only to computer scientists like you and me who can understand and verify the software used for voting, but for general public, profanum vulgus, The People.

You could try this EuroParl or write to your MEP (if they bother to attend). I've found the Greens are the most responsive by far. But writing to your MEP is moot as the EU Commission is appointed and generally snootily ignores the EU Parliament. Witness the software patent recommendations from the EU Parliament. The Irish (as the rotating presidency at the time) just threw it all away! The Commission utterly ignored any representation with which they (or at least the biggest spending lobbyists) did not agree.

The arguments about how DU has supposedly caused Gulf War Syndrome, etc, are not borne out by any legitimate medical studies. In fact, those studies that have been done have concluded that the use of DU ammunition does not pose a health risk.

For example, the European Union found this: (PDF link)

"The fact that there is no evidence of an association between exposures sometimes high and lasting since the beginning of the uranium industry and health damages such as bone cancer, lymphatic or other forms of leukemia shows that these diseases as a consequence of an uranium exposure are either not present or very exceptional."

The World Health Organization had this to say:

"...because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer."

They also report this in their findings on DU exposure: (PDF link)

"The radiological hazard is likely to be very small. No increase of leukemia or other cancers has been established following exposure to uranium or DU."

Studies of DU exposuring during the NATO action in Kosovo found that DU does not remain in the bloodstream long enough to cause any significant health risks.

DU does emit alpha radiation, which decreases in power exponentially with distance. There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence that connects depleted uranium to "Gulf War syndrome" or any other health problems. The World Health Organization and the European Union are far more credible sources than an organization that is clearly biased in favor of the contention that DU poses a health risk in spite of the clear evidence against such a contention.

Actually, the Echelon system does exist and it is not what you seem to think it is. Source: http://www.europarl.eu.int/tempcom/echelon/pdf/pre chelon_en.pdf

From 2001 and onward, open source options are the ones recommended. See no.s 29 through 30 : A5-0264/2001 The name of the document, should you look for it elsewhere, is "European Parliament resolution on the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system) (2001/2098(INI))"

• Study by the Federal Trade Commission from October 2003 (extracts with the software patent related stuff from that report). Conclusions: many indications that software patents hamper innovation because of, among others, patent thickets.
• Empirical study by Bessen&Hunt on the effects of software patents in the US. Conclusion: software patents have resulted in a transfer of R&D money to patent departments and has not resulted in increased R&D. Because of the incremental nature of software development, patents hinder instead of encourage innovation.
• Study ordered by the European Commission in preparation of the European software patents directive. It did not suit their goals however, so they avoid referring to it. Quote: "Unless this fundamental lack of knowledge is addressed in a more structured manner, any proposal to optimise the patent system in respect of software-related inventions is based on nothing more than wild guesses or wishful thinking."

First you accuse me of mischaracterizing the FFII.

That can happen with a comment title like the one above...

If you read carefully (I believe the first parenthesis in my response) I clearly wrote that this was the view of the one cambridge ffii presenter.

Who was that? James Heald? I'd be extremely surprised if he'd say something like that (though not impossible I guess, we all make mistakes).

Next, you attempt to equate a sound bite's use of the word "trivial" with "nonobvious", which sounds to me like a bit spin-doctoring by you.

How else is the patent system supposed to stop trivial patents, other then through careful application of the novelty and non-obvious conditions? Without software patents, there's still the "technical character" test in Europe, but that one has been completely eroded by the EPO so it doesn't mean squat anymore... Virtually everything has become "technology" in their eyes. See the page I referred to in my previous post.

But, even if you were right, the fact is that airplanes crash occasionally too, and yet it's still better than walking.

I argue that patent law is so unfit for advances in abstract reasoning, logic and mathematics that you can't but end up with tons of trivial and/or very broad patents if you allow software patents. The end result is that the resulting monopolies hamper innovation much more than they encourage it.

Some studies to back up my claims:

• Study by the Federal Trade Commission from October 2003 (extracts with the software patent related stuff from that report). Conclusions: many indications that software patents hamper innovation because of, among others, patent thickets.
• Empirical study by Bessen&Hunt on the effects of software patents in the US. Conclusion: software patents have resulted in a transfer of R&D money to patent departments and has not resulted in increased R&D. Because of the incremental nature of software development, patents hinder instead of encourage innovation.
• Study ordered by the European Commission in preparation of the European software patents directive. It did not suit their goals however, so they avoid referring to it. Quote: "Unless this fundamental lack of knowledge is addressed in a more structured manner, any proposal to optimise the patent system in respect of software-related inventions is based on nothing more than wild guesses or wishful thinking."

Many more are linked on the page I gave you earlier.

Your comment about no software patents being the default argument position is dubious at best as the counter argument (which in fact you allude to using the term 'intertia') could be made quite easily - patents have worked quite well for many years.

No software patents is the default position in Europe. The European Patent Convention excludes them, and so did the European Patent Office until it started with its creative interpretation claiming that "a computer program executed by a computer" is not the same as "a computer program as such". When you change the law, and on top of that adapt it to accomodate the behaviour of the people that started breaking it, then you have to provide quite convincing arguments (preferably in the form of macro-economical studies) that this is a good thing.

Yes, i agree the system has been flawed and needs reform, but the fundamental idea is sound. Why should software be any different? To claim that you have absolutely the default position is nonsense; it's

I would further like to encourage German readers to write an email or fax to the federal minister of Justice to complain about her decision and to support journalists in decoding the network of what seems (on first sight) filthy lobbyism and inconsistent behaviour. Written letters and faxes are expected to have more impact due to their tangible nature.

If you don't spend EUR 1 on a stamp now, you might have to spend EUR 10000 on lawyers later, or get fined for using an algorithm that somebody happens to have patented without you knowing.

[E-mail me if you can't find your rep contact details but would like to do something about it.]

Ideas should be free.

We europeans have luck because the European Parlament decided against software patents. Now this is in jeopardy.
The patent officials in the Commission and Council are abusing the legislative process of the EU. Their convoluted and misleading Patent Newspeak, negotiated in intransparent backroom dealings, is an insult to the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of Regions and the innumerable experts and concerned citizens who have engaged in serious investigations on this directive project. It is unacceptable that the Council is throwing away all their hard work without any substantial justification whatsoever.
One to blame is the Irish Presidence, Sponsored by Microsoft.
FFII web site with more info about software patents.
Soon there will be ellections for the European Parlament, take care of what you vote and if you have the ocasion, ask the politians about this issue.

A list of representatives can be found here.

I did. I even got some replies!

The worst aspect of all of this is that the European Parliament voted for significant amendments last fall (effectively banning software patents). Following the vote the proposal was simply retracted and the *original* version is now presented to the European Council, thereby mucking the entire democratic process.

I also wrote to magazines and newspapers, trying to bring their attention to that issue.

I'm also contemplating filing an official complaint with the EU (not because of software patents, but because of the undemocratic way the directive was handled in this inctance). The EU has the *legal* obligation to investigate official complaints.

Although there may be frustration, it's not time to give up, yet.

for sake of completeness of information, could someone please post a link to the official position of the Council of the European Union on this issue?

This would allow people to see in detail which parts of the European Parliament's amendments to the Commission proposal's were rejected and on what grounds.

It's not being reintroduced. As in most legislative bodies, the EU has two assemblies that deal with legislation - the Council of Ministers, whose members represent national governments and which is advised by the Commission, and the Parliament, whose members are directly elected. Directives must be passed back and forth between these two several times before being passed into law. The Parliament did not reject the directive outright last time, but amended it so that it really would rule out software patents. The Council/Commission undid most of this. Now it's the Parliament's second turn. See the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament for a detailed explanation of the stages.

Unfortunately the Parliament is not as powerful as the Commission and Council. After they are finished reversing the Parliament's amendments, the Parliament will have a chance to change it back. However, at this stage amendments must be approved by a majority of all members of the Parliament, not just a majority of those voting. (See rule 80, paragraph 4 of the Rules of Procedure.) So far this year average attendance has been 510/622 (better than I thought) so amendments would require support from at least around 60% of attending members.

Nokia is actively campaigning pro software patents in Europe, and spreading misinformation doing this.

Software patents are bad. They do not protect huge investments in research, they protect trivial ideas. The European Parliament reached a good compromise. The parliament's decision to limit software patentability has the support of more than 300.000 citizens, 2.000.000 SMEs and dozens of economists and scientists.

For consumers, software patents lead to higher prices, less choice. For (Open Source) developers, investors and users alike, software patents would mean legal uncertainty: a patent minefield. With the current flood of trivial patents legalized, software innovation would become a dangerous enterprise in Europe.

More info on software patents at FFII.

The Council of Ministers is pushing for unlimited patentability of software, heavily lobbied by patent lawyers. Here Nokia is very active, campaining pro software patents, and spreading misinformation doing so. Nokia's behavior is irresponsible. Do you want to buy products from a company that is untrustworthy? I would say no.

I call upon everyone around the world not to buy Nokia products.

You may copy this page.

Imagine many copies of this call for action against Nokia on the web. Nokia makes much more money selling phones than it can from software patents. Nokia is vulnerable: it needs to be hip. It is not hip. It needs to choose. Pro phones, against software patents.

For Nerds only: unite!
Nerds are often in an advising role. Advise against Nokia. Be proud. Use legal ways. And win. Don't let the dinosaurs win. Is this the information age, or not? Defend your freedom. After the Boston Tea party, the Brussels Tea party. Stand up. Make this a revenge of the nerds.

Nokia is out.
Spread the word.

Spam bots are not the only thing which can dig through your mail. The same mechanism to target ads can be used for political persecution as well.

Ummm - who do i write to if my MEP is an ex-artist? I don't think she'd take too kindly to filesharing.

List of members

List of members

Well, perhaps maybe it is a cancer and maybe it does threaten most way's of life. But that it is illegal there is no doubt:

MS products can't meet the specifications in eEuropa 2005, so expect this trend of decreasing profits to continue.

To add insult to injury, Novarg/Mydoom would not have been an issue if European Parliament Resolution 2001/2098(INI) had been followed, as for security reasons it forbids closed source mail clients and servers.

Think E.U.

Contact your local MEP (you have one, you know that?) explaining the problems with the US DMCA, and how the EU should avoid them in revising its own legislation . The subject is due to come up in the EU parliament again next month, so you'll be timely and on-topic.

But right now you should contact your MPs, not your MEPs.

Letting patent lawyers decide what should be patented - is like letting generals decide when to go to war.

Exactly!

The only difference is that while the generals in all civilized countries would also agree that it would be a seriously bad idea to let the "experts" decide instead of the democratically elected institutions, there are plenty of patent lawyers that openly argue that the field of patent law should be above the reach of the democratic process, and should be dictated by the patent lawyers themselves.

I wrote a reply to one patent lawyer who was expressing that idea, and repost it here:

Democracy may not be so bad after all

In the ZDNet article Software patent limits 'go to far' , legal expert Alex Batteson argues that although "it may seem undemocratic", the outcome of the recent European Parliament vote on software patents proves that the issue is too complex to be handled by the parliament, and should have been left to the experts.

While I agree with Mr. Batteson that the issue of software patents is far too complex to be handed over to the European Parliament in the manner that it was, I still have to disagree with him when he suggests that the matter should be handled by the patent lawyers instead.

I have just spent an entire day going through the amendments that the European Parliament made to the resolution before adopting it, just to form my own opinion as to whether FFII, the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, really has a leg to stand on when it describes the resolution as a victory for the opponents of software patents. As I am neither a lawyer nor a politician, but merely a programmer and citizen, I wouldn't really have gained much insight by just reading through the resolution as is. Instead, I went through the amendments one by one and checked what the FFII had said on each issue before the vote, and what they said afterwards.

After having gone through this process, I am now prepared to agree with the FFII that the adopted resolution is indeed a victory, and that it is a good thing that it passed, but like I said, it took me a day of reading just to reach this conclusion.

It is quite obvious that it was completely unreasonable to expect the parliament members, who would normally neither be programmers nor patent lawyers, to vote together a consistent legislative proposal in a plenary session lasting less than an hour, squeezed in between a resolution about the situation in Iraq, a proposal on European energy taxation, and a statement on the fisheries agreement with Mauritius. I think that the fact that they nevertheless managed to put together a good resolution does them great credit, and shows that many of them must have realised that this is an issue that deserves to be taken seriously.

But how did it come to this?

Well, this is where I have to disagree with Mr. Batteson's position, and state that I prefer the democratic road, despite all its shortcomings. While it is doubtlessly true that a group of patent lawyers working behind closed doors would have come up with a legislative resolution that was technically much more consistent, it would have been a resolution with radically differen

Letting patent lawyers decide what should be patented - is like letting generals decide when to go to war.

Exactly!

The only difference is that while the generals in all civilized countries would also agree that it would be a seriously bad idea to let the "experts" decide instead of the democratically elected institutions, there are plenty of patent lawyers that openly argue that the field of patent law should be above the reach of the democratic process, and should be dictated by the patent lawyers themselves.

I wrote a reply to one patent lawyer who was expressing that idea, and repost it here:

Democracy may not be so bad after all

In the ZDNet article Software patent limits 'go to far' , legal expert Alex Batteson argues that although "it may seem undemocratic", the outcome of the recent European Parliament vote on software patents proves that the issue is too complex to be handled by the parliament, and should have been left to the experts.

While I agree with Mr. Batteson that the issue of software patents is far too complex to be handed over to the European Parliament in the manner that it was, I still have to disagree with him when he suggests that the matter should be handled by the patent lawyers instead.

I have just spent an entire day going through the amendments that the European Parliament made to the resolution before adopting it, just to form my own opinion as to whether FFII, the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, really has a leg to stand on when it describes the resolution as a victory for the opponents of software patents. As I am neither a lawyer nor a politician, but merely a programmer and citizen, I wouldn't really have gained much insight by just reading through the resolution as is. Instead, I went through the amendments one by one and checked what the FFII had said on each issue before the vote, and what they said afterwards.

After having gone through this process, I am now prepared to agree with the FFII that the adopted resolution is indeed a victory, and that it is a good thing that it passed, but like I said, it took me a day of reading just to reach this conclusion.

It is quite obvious that it was completely unreasonable to expect the parliament members, who would normally neither be programmers nor patent lawyers, to vote together a consistent legislative proposal in a plenary session lasting less than an hour, squeezed in between a resolution about the situation in Iraq, a proposal on European energy taxation, and a statement on the fisheries agreement with Mauritius. I think that the fact that they nevertheless managed to put together a good resolution does them great credit, and shows that many of them must have realised that this is an issue that deserves to be taken seriously.

But how did it come to this?

Well, this is where I have to disagree with Mr. Batteson's position, and state that I prefer the democratic road, despite all its shortcomings. While it is doubtlessly true that a group of patent lawyers working behind closed doors would have come up with a legislative resolution that was technically much more consistent, it would have been a resolution with radically differen

Letting patent lawyers decide what should be patented - is like letting generals decide when to go to war.

Exactly!

The only difference is that while the generals in all civilized countries would also agree that it would be a seriously bad idea to let the "experts" decide instead of the democratically elected institutions, there are plenty of patent lawyers that openly argue that the field of patent law should be above the reach of the democratic process, and should be dictated by the patent lawyers themselves.

I wrote a reply to one patent lawyer who was expressing that idea, and repost it here:

Democracy may not be so bad after all

In the ZDNet article Software patent limits 'go to far' , legal expert Alex Batteson argues that although "it may seem undemocratic", the outcome of the recent European Parliament vote on software patents proves that the issue is too complex to be handled by the parliament, and should have been left to the experts.

While I agree with Mr. Batteson that the issue of software patents is far too complex to be handed over to the European Parliament in the manner that it was, I still have to disagree with him when he suggests that the matter should be handled by the patent lawyers instead.

I have just spent an entire day going through the amendments that the European Parliament made to the resolution before adopting it, just to form my own opinion as to whether FFII, the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, really has a leg to stand on when it describes the resolution as a victory for the opponents of software patents. As I am neither a lawyer nor a politician, but merely a programmer and citizen, I wouldn't really have gained much insight by just reading through the resolution as is. Instead, I went through the amendments one by one and checked what the FFII had said on each issue before the vote, and what they said afterwards.

After having gone through this process, I am now prepared to agree with the FFII that the adopted resolution is indeed a victory, and that it is a good thing that it passed, but like I said, it took me a day of reading just to reach this conclusion.

It is quite obvious that it was completely unreasonable to expect the parliament members, who would normally neither be programmers nor patent lawyers, to vote together a consistent legislative proposal in a plenary session lasting less than an hour, squeezed in between a resolution about the situation in Iraq, a proposal on European energy taxation, and a statement on the fisheries agreement with Mauritius. I think that the fact that they nevertheless managed to put together a good resolution does them great credit, and shows that many of them must have realised that this is an issue that deserves to be taken seriously.

But how did it come to this?

Well, this is where I have to disagree with Mr. Batteson's position, and state that I prefer the democratic road, despite all its shortcomings. While it is doubtlessly true that a group of patent lawyers working behind closed doors would have come up with a legislative resolution that was technically much more consistent, it would have been a resolution with radically differen

Letting patent lawyers decide what should be patented - is like letting generals decide when to go to war.

Exactly!

The only difference is that while the generals in all civilized countries would also agree that it would be a seriously bad idea to let the "experts" decide instead of the democratically elected institutions, there are plenty of patent lawyers that openly argue that the field of patent law should be above the reach of the democratic process, and should be dictated by the patent lawyers themselves.

I wrote a reply to one patent lawyer who was expressing that idea, and repost it here:

Democracy may not be so bad after all

In the ZDNet article Software patent limits 'go to far' , legal expert Alex Batteson argues that although "it may seem undemocratic", the outcome of the recent European Parliament vote on software patents proves that the issue is too complex to be handled by the parliament, and should have been left to the experts.

While I agree with Mr. Batteson that the issue of software patents is far too complex to be handed over to the European Parliament in the manner that it was, I still have to disagree with him when he suggests that the matter should be handled by the patent lawyers instead.

I have just spent an entire day going through the amendments that the European Parliament made to the resolution before adopting it, just to form my own opinion as to whether FFII, the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, really has a leg to stand on when it describes the resolution as a victory for the opponents of software patents. As I am neither a lawyer nor a politician, but merely a programmer and citizen, I wouldn't really have gained much insight by just reading through the resolution as is. Instead, I went through the amendments one by one and checked what the FFII had said on each issue before the vote, and what they said afterwards.

After having gone through this process, I am now prepared to agree with the FFII that the adopted resolution is indeed a victory, and that it is a good thing that it passed, but like I said, it took me a day of reading just to reach this conclusion.

It is quite obvious that it was completely unreasonable to expect the parliament members, who would normally neither be programmers nor patent lawyers, to vote together a consistent legislative proposal in a plenary session lasting less than an hour, squeezed in between a resolution about the situation in Iraq, a proposal on European energy taxation, and a statement on the fisheries agreement with Mauritius. I think that the fact that they nevertheless managed to put together a good resolution does them great credit, and shows that many of them must have realised that this is an issue that deserves to be taken seriously.

But how did it come to this?

Well, this is where I have to disagree with Mr. Batteson's position, and state that I prefer the democratic road, despite all its shortcomings. While it is doubtlessly true that a group of patent lawyers working behind closed doors would have come up with a legislative resolution that was technically much more consistent, it would have been a resolution with radically differen

• Directive proposed by the Commission
• Amendments passed by European Parliament Plenary
• Who voted what on roll call votes (MS Word :( )
• vote results (MS word :( )

FFII position

• Voting list
• Amendments analysis

• Directive proposed by the Commission
• Amendments passed by European Parliament Plenary
• Who voted what on roll call votes (MS Word :( )
• vote results (MS word :( )

FFII position

• Voting list
• Amendments analysis

• Directive proposed by the Commission
• Amendments passed by European Parliament Plenary
• Who voted what on roll call votes (MS Word :( )
• vote results (MS word :( )

FFII position

• Voting list
• Amendments analysis

I guess people have moved on now, but still: Here it is...

The correct breakdown of the (final) vote is 361 votes in favour, 157 against and 28 abstentions as can be found here.

For those who still haven't got the message that this is a good thing, you can read the actual amendments passed by the parliament here. Basically, ffii have won this round. The big question is what will the European Commission do now that the parliament has reversed the intent of the directive?

Official Report by European Parliament

The most important element seems to be that software and algorithms per se can't be patented, and a patent needs a "technical contribution". Even more, basically you can't violate a patent by a normal program that processes data, even if the input/output is done by technical means such as a monitor or keyboard.

I find it highly unlikely that an open source developer (or a software development company in general) can violate such a software patent (it's called "computerised invention" actually, there will be no real "software patents").

The legislative process isn't finished yet, it has to pass some more stuff, but I've got a good feeling that we're on the right track.

Very many thanks to everyone who helped, be it a demonstration, donation, lobbying or whatever.

MfG shurdeek

To the contrary: I think todays decision is cause for joy, and the parlamentarians are to be commended for not having followed the commission and big business.

As discussed in the Heise article cited on the update of the original /.-posting today's decision does scale back the initial proposal strongly. Pure software patents are not allowed. There must be a relation to technology and the use of natural forces. One cannot use patents to inhibit the writing of data-conversion programs.

In fact, it seems that most demands of small/mid-sized businesses and open-source initiatives have been heeded while MSFT and its ilk express "disappointment".

Complete rejection of the initiative might have been more harmful, since it would leave the field to national patent offices, some of which like to patent software. So the new rule would unify and restrict the SWPAT-practice in the EU.

However, this was not the final vote! Now the amended proposal goes back to the European commission (which favored a more US-style law) and then has to be submitted to the parliament again.

Since "grassroots lobbying" seems to have had much to do with today's success we need to stay alert! Let your representatives in the EU parliament know what you think of their vote today!

Here are the results, motion by motions, with who voted what. I hope we are all grown up enough to not start harrassing MEPs

364 voted "yes", 153 voted "no" and 33 voted void.

This is exactly the problem with the directive to begin with. What exactly is the point of "legalizing software patents" if software itself cannot be patented?

Hm, do you realize that the directive is not about legalizing software patents?

It claims to clarify how the law should be interpreted; it is very clear on that it does not make anything legal that wasn't legal before, and nothing illegal that wasn't illegal before. (The EU isn't allowed to do so, in this case, different treaty.) The problem, of course, is that you can "clarify" the law into so many different meanings ;-)

E.g., I do hope that Amendment 11 by the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (to Article 2(b)) goes through:

The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a technical field. The processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes.

Source. (Only "technical contributions" are patentable.)

Thanks for your interest. There is a list of the MEPs here along with their party affiliation as well as country of origin. Most of them have e-mail addresses published on their pages, perhaps it's worth a shot even though you're not an EU citizen.

I haven't yet written my MEPs but I plan to (particularly the one I helped elect to office, by voting for him three years ago).

I plan on customizing my letters depending on the political party I'm addressing -- the leftists (PSE and GUE/NGL) need to hear that patents will give large corporations too much power, while the liberals (ELDR) and conservatives (EPP) may be more receptive to arguments about fair competition and freedom and liberties.

The amendment in english are here (MS Word format)

J

We DO notice what is going on, it's just that we cannot do anything legal to stop it.

I've had this feeling for a long while now, that a revolution is brewing. It's time (again) to take the power back to the people.

It's not just illegal in Italy, it's illegal in the European Union as a whole: on May 20, 2002, the European parliament voted for a common point-of-view on spam and other forms of electronic privacy intrusion.

Then, on August 1 2003, the EU Directive 2002/58/EC came into effect, effectively granting member states until October 1 2003 to adjust their national laws to fit the EU directive.

The Dutch "Wet Bescherming Persoonsgegevens" (law for the protection of person-related data) now has an article 13 that reads:

Artikel 13

Ongewenste communicatie

1. Het gebruik van automatische oproepsystemen zonder menselijke tussenkomst (automatische oproepapparaten), fax of e-mail met het oog op direct marketing kan alleen worden toegestaan met betrekking tot abonnees die daarin vooraf hebben toegestemd.

Roughly translated:

Article 13

Unwanted communication

The use of automatic paging devices without human intervention (automatic paging devices), fax or e-mail, aimed at direct marketing, can only be allowed with respect to subscribers that have given prior permission.

There you go: opt-in. A "do-not-call" list, that recently raised questions in the US, has been in effect for years now in the Netherlands. As far as e-mail is concerned, Dutch internet providers actually defend their customers and sue Dutch spam-perpetrators. If anybody has related stories from other EU member states, please do list them here.

Now, to put my previous remarks in perspective, it might seem that I'm being overly EU-zealous here. However, it is by no means my intention to adopt an attitude like that. But think about it: this legislation works: the only Dutch bulk email that I recieve comes from a site at which I have a free e-mail account; when obtaining that account, I actually did opt-in. And it's only about one message per week. So, without the intention of adopting an EU-superiority attitude, I'm just asking a plain and sincere question:

What, if any, is the big problem with disallowing companies in the US to send unsollicited bulk e-mail to customers?

Can anyone give a decent overview of interests at stake here, and (if any) US regulations on the subject?

...or so they say. In fact, many European politicians do know that allowing software patents and business method patents inevitably leads to countless trivial patents.

You wouldn't believe it, but here is what the Directive's proponents have admitted themselves:
"Arlene McCarthy, chair of the legal affairs committee, said earlier this month she was not prepared to consider any proposals for amendments that do not acknowledge the patentability of software."

In other words, they do want to conjure up a legal framework which scares even IT industry giants such as SAP, and not just small and medium enterprises, open-source advocates, academics and initiatives such as Attac that are of little importance to those prepared to discard or ignore any arguments made from what is just "the commie corner" in their view of the world.
(P.S.: I am posting the google links rather than the direct URLs, for as of this writing, FFII.org itself seems to be unreachable, at this crucial moment in time...)

The plenary vote on the new patents directive will be held within a few days, so please do contact some Members of the European Parliament (rather not just by eMail) right now and tell them that the introduction of software patents is a mistake their voters will never forget, no matter whether it is made knowingly nor out of ignorance.

Moreover, there is no need to rush to precedential judgment now, only weeks before the World Summit on the Information Society, which (according to proposals such as these) may well turn on its head overreaching IP laws.

You can search for their party or country of origin here: http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep5/owa/p_meps2.repar tition?ilg=EN. If their e-mail isn't listed, try checking out their personal site. Not a bad idea to mail the political party's hq in your country neither.

Only a few MEPs give their email address on the Europarl site, but you can get a list of names and address and you can often find their email address with a google search for their name.

Listing of MEPs by country:
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep5/owa/p_meps2.repar tition?ilg=EN&iorig=home

Please try to be as informative as possible. Many MEPs have said that they have been inundated with post and emails about this topic. What they want to hear is how they can fix the proposal, so mail them amendments and ask them to adopt existing amendments that are helpful to us. Portuguese MEP Jose Ribeiro E Castro has tabled the FFII mini-proposal, this is a great one for MEPs to adopt.
Ciaran O'Riordan