Slashdot Mirror

I am now boycotting Nokia - I will never buy another Nokia phone. (In fact, I took a couple of Nokia chargers in to work today - I'll never need them again.)

My reason for this is their stance on Software Patents in the EU - they lobbied hard for them. See, for example, The Register or The FFII. I contacted them (by email, IIRC) to tell them my position, but never heard anything back.

For them to launch an open-source website is simply an attempt to gain some PR, or, put another way, some community "kudos". And, for goodness' sake, starting a web site does not require a huge investment. This is a PR exercise, through-and-through.

What Google did, for example, will probably help a lot more.

The No Software Patents site says that copyright should cover everything that patents cover, and elsewhere that patents are used as guns against small software developers. Um, and copyrights AREN'T used this way?

C'mon. If patents disappeared tomorrow, the lawyers would find a way of crushing you with copyrights, and you'd have a No Software Copyrights! movement in a minute.

The problem is not with the protection of ideas, but with the execution of that protection in the business world.

Maybe 20 years is an inappropriate length for a patent in software; maybe two years would be better. Perhaps patent and copyright duration should be scaled based on the industry, or adjusted based on the commercialization/profit of the IP holder.

Proponents of software patents have been claiming for years the whole system can be fixed by just making a few adjustments, but no one has been able to actually argue in economic terms that this is in fact true. And then there's still these pesky details such as the WTO TRIPs treaty, which requires a minimum duration of 17 years for all patents you grant.

There are other ways of dealing with this besides chucking the whole system.

You are shifting the burden of proof and rather distorting the facts: You may only ever have seen exceptionally weak arguments, but that is not because only exceptionally weak arguments have ever been deployed - quite the converse is true*. The problem so far has instead been that no argument with even a semblance of strength for introducing software patents has ever been produced. And however weak you think any argument against the expansion of patentable subject matter is, it automatically wins unless you have a strong argument in favour of that expansion. But the expansion has occurred anyway of course, and in the face of strong arguments and strong opposition from industry and academia. That many companies, academics and individuals had to make such arguments at all illustrates the appalling state of recent policy making in this area (if you can call it policy making). Any credible economist will tell you that patent scope expansion without prior empirical and sound theoretical justification is verboten. Too bad - the damage is done and in the US it seems the fight's effectively over now, but the rest of what I want to say is appropriately Eurocentric anyway.

*
http://researchoninnovation.org/online.htm
http://www.si.umich.edu/~kahin/mip.html
http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/mirror/impact/index. en.html
http://philsalin.com/patents.html
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jul05/1557
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=stor y_16-8-2005_pg5_12
http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/quotes/index.en.html

"You have to be prepared to deal with issues like why expressing a particular piece of logic in C or Ada doesn't deserve patent protection, while expressing the same logic in Verilog or VHDL, which look identical to a non-programmer should deserve that protection."

That is definitely not an issue. One does not ask whether or not some invention deserves a patent, but whether or not it is patentable subject matter at all and your example is a poor one because if the claims of a patent are directed to the expressions of logic, then they are software patent claims.

"Likewise, why a device that fits the description in a patent claim should not be protected if the implementation happens to be (even in part) carried out with an embedded processor with embedded code, even though it's not at all apparent to the outside world that there's any software involved at all."

The distinction between hardware and software is not useful and is not at all relevant to the question of whether a patent claim is a software patent claim or not. One way to discover how the distinction between software patent and non-software patent is determined (and it is not always easy) is to read the way it is expressed by Judge Peter Prescott QC in his recent CFPH decision, in which he carefully and fully interprets the EPC Article 52 exclusions. Unfortunately, Prescott's interpretation seems to me to leave a lot of room for claiming things such as image enhancement techniques derived from purely mathematical considerations, but at least compression algorithms and data manipulation and data st

You are shifting the burden of proof and rather distorting the facts: You may only ever have seen exceptionally weak arguments, but that is not because only exceptionally weak arguments have ever been deployed - quite the converse is true*. The problem so far has instead been that no argument with even a semblance of strength for introducing software patents has ever been produced. And however weak you think any argument against the expansion of patentable subject matter is, it automatically wins unless you have a strong argument in favour of that expansion. But the expansion has occurred anyway of course, and in the face of strong arguments and strong opposition from industry and academia. That many companies, academics and individuals had to make such arguments at all illustrates the appalling state of recent policy making in this area (if you can call it policy making). Any credible economist will tell you that patent scope expansion without prior empirical and sound theoretical justification is verboten. Too bad - the damage is done and in the US it seems the fight's effectively over now, but the rest of what I want to say is appropriately Eurocentric anyway.

*
http://researchoninnovation.org/online.htm
http://www.si.umich.edu/~kahin/mip.html
http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/mirror/impact/index. en.html
http://philsalin.com/patents.html
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jul05/1557
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=stor y_16-8-2005_pg5_12
http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/quotes/index.en.html

"You have to be prepared to deal with issues like why expressing a particular piece of logic in C or Ada doesn't deserve patent protection, while expressing the same logic in Verilog or VHDL, which look identical to a non-programmer should deserve that protection."

That is definitely not an issue. One does not ask whether or not some invention deserves a patent, but whether or not it is patentable subject matter at all and your example is a poor one because if the claims of a patent are directed to the expressions of logic, then they are software patent claims.

"Likewise, why a device that fits the description in a patent claim should not be protected if the implementation happens to be (even in part) carried out with an embedded processor with embedded code, even though it's not at all apparent to the outside world that there's any software involved at all."

The distinction between hardware and software is not useful and is not at all relevant to the question of whether a patent claim is a software patent claim or not. One way to discover how the distinction between software patent and non-software patent is determined (and it is not always easy) is to read the way it is expressed by Judge Peter Prescott QC in his recent CFPH decision, in which he carefully and fully interprets the EPC Article 52 exclusions. Unfortunately, Prescott's interpretation seems to me to leave a lot of room for claiming things such as image enhancement techniques derived from purely mathematical considerations, but at least compression algorithms and data manipulation and data st

Yes, I know, this is /. & we have a million examples of patents stifling innovation... but no legitimate analysis.

You can start by having a look at these ones, for example:

• Deutsche Bank Research:

  "Stronger IP protection is not always better. Chances are that patents on software, common practice in the US and on the brink of being legalised in Europe, in fact stifle innovation. Europe could still alter course"

• PriceWaterhouseCoopers:

  "The mild regime of IP protection in the past has led to a very innovative and competitive software industry with low entry barriers. A software patent, which serves to protect inventions of a non-technical nature, could kill the high innovation rate."

• Federal Trade Commission:

  "More patents in more industries and with greater breadth are not always the best ways to maximize consumer welfare."

  "Many panelists and participants expressed the view that software and Internet patents are impeding innovation. They stated that such patents are impairing follow-on incentives, increasing entry barriers, creating uncertainty that harms incentives to invest in innovation, and producing patent thickets. Panelists discussed how defensive patenting increases the complexity of patent thickets and forces companies to divert resources from R&D into obtaining patents. Commentators noted that patent thickets make it more difficult to commercialize new products and raise uncertainty and investment risks. Some panelists also noted that hold-up has become a problem that can result in higher prices being passed along to consumers."

The FFII has a list of further studies that you can have a look at here.

Now, perhaps I can turn the questions around. Can anybody provide a link to a single reputable study that concludes that software patents are necessary or good for society?

If so, please do.

But to the best of my knowledge there isn't any such study, so please don't feel embarassed if you can't. :-)

In the meantime, there has been remarkable progress on most of those fronts. The two individuals who deserve most of the credit on the campaigning and lobbying side are Rufus Pollock and Gavin Hill of the FFII UK. Gavin is the "someone" who contacted me last year. In fact, that contact resulted from a slashdot discussion. And in parallel to the political stuff, we've now seen some really good rulings by Judge Prescott of the High Court of England and Wales who has already invalidated a few software patents.

Someone said in this thread that people should make suggestions for how to make political decision-makers more aware. Here's a suggestion:
Vote Against Software Patents / Vote For Your Right To Program

We're doing this online campaign and we've already had a very good start. This is about the most important political award series in the EU, and if our camp once again demonstrates its Internet campaigning power (we're trying hard!), then this will make politicians, press and the public more aware of the software patent issue.

I trust him about as far as a 3 year old child could throw him.

Last Monday, the FFII and NoSoftwarePatents.com jointly won the CNET award for Outstanding Contribution to Software Development in Europe.

This award for the anti software patents movement is both very welcome and very well deserved. When the European Parliament rejected software patents on July 6, it was a great victory. Not only for the open source movement, but for all European businesses that use or produce software. It is nice to see this recognized in this manner.

One To Win

We also have a chance of winning another award in recognition of all activists who have spent countless hours on making the swpat victory happen.

The founder of NoSoftwarePatents.com Florian Müller has been nominated as a candidate for the title "European of the Year" in an open Internet poll organized by The European Voice, a weekly magazine that focuses on EU politics.

If he wins either the big "European of the Year" award, or the category "Campaigner of the Year" where he is also nominated, it would be a nice PR victory for the anti-swpat movement.

Also nominated in the "MEP of the Year" category is Michel Rochard, the former French Prime Minister who championed our cause as rapporteur in the European Parliament, where we won on July 6.

If you want to donate a few mouseclicks to the fight against software patents, you can go to and register your vote. Only one vote per person.

Note that you have to vote in all the categories, or your vote will be disqualified. For the most part it doesn't matter who you choose in the other categories, but there are a few bad apples (from an anti-swpat perspective), so here are some suggestions. But it's Campaigner, MEP, and European of the Year that are the important ones.

1) Commissioner of the Year:
Don't vote for Charlie McGreevy, who is the commissioner who tried to ram software patents down Europe's throat.

2) MEP of the Year:
Vote for Michel Rochard, who won for us in Parliament.

3) Statesman of the Year:
Avoid Blair, Schröder, and Juncker because of how their respective governments behaved over the directive (especially Juncker, Luxembourg). This leaves the candidates from Italy, Poland or Spain to choose from.

4) Diplomat of the Year:
Don't vote for Nicolas Schmitt, who is part of the Luxembourg government that handled the swpat issue so disgracefully and anti-democratically during the Luxembourg EU Presidency.

5) Campaigner of the Year:
Vote for Florian Müller, NoSoftwarePatents.com

6) Business Leader of the Year:
Pick one.

7) Journalist of the Year:
Pick one.

8) Achiever of the Year:
Pick one.

9) Non-EU Citizen of the Year:
Pick one.

10) European of the Year:
Vote for Florian Müller, NoSoftwarePatents.com
Although one could argue that Michel Rochard would be just as worthy from our perspective, I think it sends a stronger and clearer message if one of our activists wins the award, rather than a politician that is involved in many other issues as well. As it would be very damaging to our chances of winning the most prestigious of the awards if the anti-swpat vote is split on two candidates, my recommendation is Florian Müller only.

For more information about the nominees, see the presentations at the award site here. The poll closes on November 11, and the award will be handed out at a gala dinner hosted by former EU Parliament president Pat Cox later that month.

• Don't let us gloat over the damage to Microsoft. The Eolas patent is a threat to large parts of the Internet as we know it.

• Eolas' success will encourage investments in industrialized deep-pocket patent trolls by venture capitalists, corporations, and high net-worth individuals. Look at this Goldman Sachs venture here, for an example: www.ipvalue.com

• The Eolas case will be used as a key argument of the IT industry to support that Patent Reform Bill in US Congress, a piece of legislation that would limit the damage an Eolas can cause to a Microsoft while giving the large players ever more advantages and disadvantaging the defensive power of open-source projects and smaller companies.

Good news:

• Microsoft backed virtually any pro-patent lobbying entity in Europe (ACT, CompTIA, Campaign for Creativity, EICTA, BSA, and numerous local ones). A dozen Eolas-like cases down the road, they may reconsider their stance.

• As a representative of the anti-software patent movement in Europe, I've been nominated by a jury for the Europeans of the Year award, which is sponsored by Microsoft. It's a public Internet poll in which I might even win, either in the EU Campaigner of the Year or the overall European of the Year category, and I've already vowed to give the prize money to the FFII, which fights against software patents. If you feel like supporting this Microsoft money to anti-patent group effort, please vote for me there in both categories (Campaigner and the long overall list at the end). Don't have to be European for that. Thanks. End of campaign message :-)

Ugh. There's a lot to like about C#, but I would never call it beautiful. It's got more keywords than C++, it's chock full of silly features (did you know you can use a keyword as an identifier if you prefix it with @?), and, most egregiously, Microsoft commonly pollutes the language to make up for deficiencies in their toolset.

(Oh, and Spotlight is a lot deeper than just a nice interface on top of the existing search.)

You might also be surprised by what AppleScript is capable of. It has support for very modern features, including inheritance, exceptions, closures, eval... It's not meant to be the shell - that's why OS X ships with bash, tcsh, and zsh. It's more like VB Script, except vastly nicer and easier to write. (Your criticism of its syntax is dead on, but believe it or not, AppleScript really does have a syntax, which as far as I know has only been fully documented once.)

Apple definitely has the in-house people to write an OS. The guy who wrote Mach works at Apple. The author of one of the slickest filesystems ever works there too. Oh yeah, and remember this guy? Seriously, Apple has been out-delivering Microsoft since 2001; you can't pick on them for not knowing how to write an OS.

(And, just to be snarky, Microsoft got their kernel folks from somewhere else too.)

I'm glad my OS was designed by, err, designers, incidentally. Apple has some computer science folk, but a computer scientist designing an OS is like a physicist designing a car.

I'm eagerly awaiting Longhorn, incidentally.

There are two entirely different questions:

a) normative: do we need a patent system for sw

b) positive: do we have to get patents under a patent system which allows them

Answers
a) no. Get organised.
b) yes

If you want to fight software patents get organised. FFII did a wonderful job in Europe.

They also have an US list with only few subscribers yet. Please get subscribed. My experience is that it is all about critical mass.

http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/us-parl

Note: there are patent reform bill discussions in Congress but no one from FFII is involved yet. It is important and we need to get more US supporters to export the EU success.

Maybe it's the open source community that needs to really look at some of the things that MySQL ab has done in the past

Over here in Europe, we had that heated debate over the software patent directive. The European Parliament has to date not been lobbied nearly as aggressively on any legislation as on that one. The FFII and a campaign that I founded (and later gave to the FFII) succeeded in mobilizing citizens as well as small and medium-sized companies in all 25 member states of the European Union. Some MEPs claimed to have received about 75,000 E-mails on this issue. More importantly than that, lots of people went to Brussels (basically the EU capital) and Strasbourg (where the parliament has most of its votes) to meet with politicians.

Is there any active opposition to the BSA in the United States? The EU directive that the European Parliament voted down on 6 July was actually drafted by the BSA as the meta information in the European Commission's Word document showed (it contained the name of the BSA's European public policy director as an author).

By "active opposition" I mean a core group of activists who mobilize people throughout the United States. A free software or digital rights organization would be viewed as a bunch of idealists and not be taken nearly as seriously by a Congressman as a number of voters and employers from his constituency.

The long answer is that it takes a shit load of money (usually millions) and time to overturn even obviously bad patents. Thus they are hobbling Apple for a bit and presumably generating a bit of fear, uncertainty and doubt as to iPod. It's basically like a nuisance lawsuit to tie up resources. Everyone, especially MS, knows that MS can't compete on technical mertis so it's been doing everything possible to ensure that no one else can either.

Take this as a warning as to what will happen if MS is able to force software patents into Europe and no longer has to play nice on either side of the Atlantic.

I reacted with similar comments to the OSDL announcement as Bruce, who BTW held a great speech on open source and software patents at a conference in the European Parliament last November. My comments were published on various IT websites, such as News.com.

I just established a criterion: It will only be helpful if and when they gather patents with which they could, for instance, countersue an organization like Microsoft.

The so-called patent pledges that IBM, Sun and Nokia made were attempts to fool those who don't know exactly how the patent game is played (and who don't read the fine print of those terms). Not a single one of those patents could be turned against a company like Microsoft because the holders of those patents already have, as Bruce noted in his comments, cross-licensing agreements in place that are non-aggression pacts with respect to those patents. Apart from that, those patent pledges have lots of strings attached. In some cases, the respective patents are not even valuable (for instance, IBM pledged some medical technology patents). Even if they are, the pledges are tied to certain open-source programs (Nokia's pledge only relates to the Linux kernel, only a small part of Linux itself, and even Linux is just a small part of open source) and/or licenses (that's the problem with Sun's pledge). Then there are clauses in there that talk about exceptions, such as if a company needs to defend itself, and those vague wordings are loopholes that can render an entire pledge useless when push comes to shove.

If any of those large companies are serious about building a protective shield for open source against its competitors, then they have to provide a trustworthy and truly independent open-source body with patents that can be used for retaliatory strikes (i.e., are not part of any existing cross-licensing deals) and consequently are a basis for forcing potential aggressors into cross-licensing agreements to protect all of open source. Simply put, if you have a few dozen patents that could be used to stop the distribution of Windows, then you have a bargaining position. Everything else is useless.

Note that a patent arsenal like this wouldn't work against patent trolls with no products of their own, and an aggressor could hide behind a remote-controlled troll like some suspected in the SCO case.

If people like Bruce Perens and I criticize those patent pledges, we don't do it to hurt our common cause nor to be in the media, but because the patent game is a tricky one and there's a lot of eyewash and brainwash going on. It's important to educate journalists and the community how to take a more knowledgeable perspective on those initiatives. It would be a major mistake to accept totally pointless PR tricks instead of insisting on real solutions. Our criticism is ammunition for the positive forces inside those organizations to ask for truly meaningful measures.

The only definitive solution of the patnet problem is at the legislative level, and until that happens, the only form of defense that makes any sense is the threat of mutually assured destruction.

Any chance you could post the court order, or indicate what these 8 items are, or where they can be located online? /blockquote> Hamburg court order. It's in German though. I don't speak German myself.

or whatever else you can come up with to help clarify the conflict?

Look here. If you follow links to ffii.org pages and they don't work, replace ffii.org with ffii.de to get them to resolve for now.

There may also be a follow-up article about it on news.zdnet.co.uk today.

In the meantime, please use nosoftwarepatents.com instead, where you will find more information on the issue.

"Opera (the company) has always whined that they weren't being properly counted because of they defaulted to pretending to be IE, so it'll be good to finally remove this whine. (Of course, they can still whine about it, as they'll say it's people using older versions, or people who have changed it manually, so maybe nothing will change.)"

In what way is pointing out the fact that sites often fail to detect Opera because it spoofs as IE by default whining?

What do you mean by "whining" anyway?

Is it whining if your browser is being discriminated against, and you make a point of that? Were the black slaves in the US "whining" when they wanted freedom? Were those who wanted to abolish slavery "whining"? Yeah, I'm purposedly exaggerating slightly, but surely you get my point.

I don't get the hostility towards Opera. The company pays several people to work with web standards in the W3C. The guy who invented CSS works for the company. Even as tiny as Opera is it has still defined what a modern browser is supposed to do. A lot of the "innovations" in Firefox and IE7 were introduced by Opera. Heck, the company even officially opposes software patents, so it's not even trying to prevent free software from just doing whatever Opera can do (or at least trying). Stuff Mozilla representatives are bragging about in Minimo, such as Small Screen Rendering, spatial navigation, and other things Minimo is supposedly going to revolutionize the mobile browser market with, were invented by Opera, and have been available to users of mobile phones with Opera on them for ages.

Why the constant derogatory comments about Opera on Slashdot? I mean, the first paragraph you wrote was informative, but then you just had to add that second paragraph to make sure that you showed everyone how you really think Opera is lame, "so please don't mod me down for saying something remotely positive about Opera"?

That's unfortunately an oversimplification.

Basically the European Patent Convention (EPC) forbids patenting business methods and "software as such". You can't patent a an algorithm. You can patent a computer running the algorithm. (Functionally equivalent). You can't patent a business method, but you can patent a computer network implementing the business method. (So competitors must do business "by hand").

The exact interpretations differ among the member states, which is why we need a harmonizing anti-swpat directive. It's difficult though, what with governments ignoring their parliaments and all. More here

• working unpaid on his/her project as a hobby
• giving his/her inventions away freely for the benefit of society ,
• i.e. without any project income,
• without any corporate project sponsor to pay legal fees,
• without sufficient personal savings or income to pay for even a brief consultation with a "cheap" patent lawyer, and
• without a patent lawyer prepared to work pro bono,

is threatened with a patent lawsuit by a corporation demanding he/she removes the allegedly infringing software from the project's website, leaving the impoverished developer with no real choice but to comply with the demand and close the project?

One recent unresolved case, which is not unique, is that of the German mathematician and open-source software developer Helmut Dersch who had no financial choice but to remove his software from his project website. He had no money to pay for a patent application at the time of his own inventions, which pre-date the patent application of the IPX company , to to pay for a lawyer to challenge the company which threatened him with the prospect of a lawsuit.

Here [ffii.org] is a summary of the case history.

I hope you will take the time to reply at moderate length for the sake of explaining to the open-source developer community why software patents are not a threat to completely unfunded open-source projects.

Thank you for reading this. If you are a patent lawyer, please mention that fact in your reply here.

When a similar comment was last posted here it got a brief reply from one of the patent lawyers who read slashdot.

Please copy and re-post this message in all available forums until some patent lawyers have the courtesy to write a thorough reply.

Why don't they just join forces with the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure? That seems to me the closest European equivalent to the EFF. Even if the goals are not exactly the same, an organization at european level would have a stronger voice than an organization based in a single state, I should think.

acts of fraud by the involved parties, there really isn't much to see here but just those wallowing in their own shit.

software by its very nature, is NOT patentable.

I just can't imagine them giving up so soon. As has been stated even before this vote, they will go after more local governments next. Following that, what is to stop them from trying it again later?

Those 21 amendments were tabled by politicians from all different political families, and would provide a basis which allowed excluding software patents. It's because of the widespread support for these amendments that EICTA and the rest of the US lobbying family got scared and started supporting rejection. We supported both rejection and full amending from the start.

The Commission made it clear that it would reject any directive which would not codify the EPO's practice. So in the end, rejection was the only real solution (either now or in third reading). The important signal is that codification of the EPO's practice most definitely did not have a majority in the European Parliament, and that their practice thus has been rejected.

You can download the full European Parliament press conference after the vote with this torrent (AVI file (DIVX), 48 minutes).

Magnet URI for Azureus (remove the space before the last two chars):

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:Y4PBCQWFLXEPSTSTNVRW536VAKTZKM PL

It's very interesting because it shows that the MEPs really know what this is all about and most of them have a position surprisingly similar to the FFII!
Josep Borrell (EP President) and Michel Rocard (MEP) speak very clearly about what's wrong with software patents, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, Microsoft, etc.

Unfortunately the first 4 minutes are only translated in Italian, but all the important things are in English.

Please after completing the download continue to seed as long as possible.

Yes, Microsoft wasted 30 Mio $ in the EU lobbying debate and hired all guns they could get. Really stupid lobbyists, an insult for intelligent people.

Hope we will now be able to talk to the real patent guys of Microsoft in the future and not the lobbying scum. Please get involved in the US patent reform debate before Microsoft will write the patent reform.

The funniest event happened yesterday with the CompTIA astroturf guys "CampaignforCreativity".

From FFII-News: "The pro-patent campaigners of "Campaign for Creativity" chose to be present on water, the Parliament being surrounded of visible channels since the buildings; they chartered a small yacht which carried a large yellow and blue banner (as usual, copycatting the FFII symbols). The FFII side reacted by bringing a half-dozen kayaks on to the ">water with banners calling for a "vote for Buzek-Rocard-Duff" between two blows of paddle. On the footbridge which hangs over the channel and connects the two wings of the building, MEPs laugh. Somebody exclaims: "this seems to prove that creativity is rather on their side"!"

Yes, Microsoft wasted 30 Mio $ in the EU lobbying debate and hired all guns they could get. Really stupid lobbyists, an insult for intelligent people.

Hope we will now be able to talk to the real patent guys of Microsoft in the future and not the lobbying scum. Please get involved in the US patent reform debate before Microsoft will write the patent reform.

The funniest event happened yesterday with the CompTIA astroturf guys "CampaignforCreativity".

From FFII-News: "The pro-patent campaigners of "Campaign for Creativity" chose to be present on water, the Parliament being surrounded of visible channels since the buildings; they chartered a small yacht which carried a large yellow and blue banner (as usual, copycatting the FFII symbols). The FFII side reacted by bringing a half-dozen kayaks on to the ">water with banners calling for a "vote for Buzek-Rocard-Duff" between two blows of paddle. On the footbridge which hangs over the channel and connects the two wings of the building, MEPs laugh. Somebody exclaims: "this seems to prove that creativity is rather on their side"!"

Free Software Coders don't make money

Yes, there is a US mailing list of FFII. Don't complain in webfora, get involved in the US patent reform discussions. the time is right. Time is crucial in these debates. Organisation building takes time.

Other FFII servers are holding up with the news, and a slightly updated version of the press release

Other FFII servers are holding up with the news, and a slightly updated version of the press release

The FFII server is horribly overloaded at the moment, so here's their press release. (Slightly edited for anti-lameness) You can get info on todays vote at http://wiki.ffii.org/PrReject050706En once it gets back up.

From jmaebe ffii.org Wed Jul 6 15:15:16 2005
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:03:50 +0200
From: Jonas Maebe
To: news ffii.org
Subject: [ffii] European Parliament says no to software patents, yes to innovation

**European Parliament says no to software patents, yes to innovation**

Strasbourg, 6 July 2005 -- The European Parliament today decided by a large majority to reject the software patents directive. This rejection was the logical answer to the Commission's refusal to restart the legislative process in February and the Council's unwillingness to engage in any kind of dialogue with the Parliament. The FFII congratulates the European Parliament on its clear "no" to bad legislative proposals and procedures.

This is a great victory for those who have campaigned to ensure that European innovation and competitiveness is protected from the threat of software and business process patents. It marks the end of this attempt by the European Commission to codify into law the US-style practice of the European Patent Office. We believe that the Parliament's work, in particular the 21 compromise amendments, provides a good basis on which future legislative projects can build.

Rejection provides breathing space for new initiatives based on all the knowledge gained during the last five years. All institutions are now fully aware of the concerns of all stakeholders. However, the fact that the Council Common Position needs 21 amendments in order to be transformed into a coherent piece of legislation indicates that the text is simply not ready to enter the Conciliation between Parliament, Commission and Council. We hope the Commission and Council will at least respond to the concerns raised by Parliament the next time, in order to avoid this sort of backlash in the future.

Jonas Maebe, FFII Board Member, comments on the outcome of today's vote:

"This result clearly shows that thorough analysis, genuinely concerned citizens and factual information have more impact than free ice-cream, boatloads of hired lobbyists and outsourcing threats. I hope this turn of events can give people new faith in the European decision making process. I also hope that it will encourage the Council and Commission to model after the European Parliament in terms of transparency and the ability of stakeholders to participate in the decision-making process irrespective of their size."

The FFII wishes to thank all those people who have taken the time to contact their representatives. We also thank the numerous volunteers who have so generously given their time and energy. This is your victory as well as the Parliament's.

Background Information

Free ice-cream for patentability
http://wiki.ffii.org/CampIcecream050601En

Software patent lobbyists add boats to their arsenal
http://lists.ffii.org/pipermail/news/2005-July/000 297.html

Pictures of the boating
http://gallery.ffii.org/Strasbourg050705

Permanent link to this press release
http://wiki.ffii.org/PrReject050706En

Contact Information

Hartmut Pilch and Holger Blasum
FFII Munich Office
info@ffii.org
++49-89-18979927

Rufus Pollock
FFII UK
rufus.pollock@ffii.org.uk
+44-7795-176976

Jonas Maebe
FFII BE
jmaebe@ffii.org
+32-485-369645

Dieter Van Uytvanck
FFII BE
dietvu@village.uunet.be
+32-499-167010

About FFII -- http://www.ffii.org/

The Foundation fo

The FFII server is horribly overloaded at the moment, so here's their press release. (Slightly edited for anti-lameness) You can get info on todays vote at http://wiki.ffii.org/PrReject050706En once it gets back up.

From jmaebe ffii.org Wed Jul 6 15:15:16 2005
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:03:50 +0200
From: Jonas Maebe
To: news ffii.org
Subject: [ffii] European Parliament says no to software patents, yes to innovation

**European Parliament says no to software patents, yes to innovation**

Strasbourg, 6 July 2005 -- The European Parliament today decided by a large majority to reject the software patents directive. This rejection was the logical answer to the Commission's refusal to restart the legislative process in February and the Council's unwillingness to engage in any kind of dialogue with the Parliament. The FFII congratulates the European Parliament on its clear "no" to bad legislative proposals and procedures.

This is a great victory for those who have campaigned to ensure that European innovation and competitiveness is protected from the threat of software and business process patents. It marks the end of this attempt by the European Commission to codify into law the US-style practice of the European Patent Office. We believe that the Parliament's work, in particular the 21 compromise amendments, provides a good basis on which future legislative projects can build.

Rejection provides breathing space for new initiatives based on all the knowledge gained during the last five years. All institutions are now fully aware of the concerns of all stakeholders. However, the fact that the Council Common Position needs 21 amendments in order to be transformed into a coherent piece of legislation indicates that the text is simply not ready to enter the Conciliation between Parliament, Commission and Council. We hope the Commission and Council will at least respond to the concerns raised by Parliament the next time, in order to avoid this sort of backlash in the future.

Jonas Maebe, FFII Board Member, comments on the outcome of today's vote:

"This result clearly shows that thorough analysis, genuinely concerned citizens and factual information have more impact than free ice-cream, boatloads of hired lobbyists and outsourcing threats. I hope this turn of events can give people new faith in the European decision making process. I also hope that it will encourage the Council and Commission to model after the European Parliament in terms of transparency and the ability of stakeholders to participate in the decision-making process irrespective of their size."

The FFII wishes to thank all those people who have taken the time to contact their representatives. We also thank the numerous volunteers who have so generously given their time and energy. This is your victory as well as the Parliament's.

Background Information

Free ice-cream for patentability
http://wiki.ffii.org/CampIcecream050601En

Software patent lobbyists add boats to their arsenal
http://lists.ffii.org/pipermail/news/2005-July/000 297.html

Pictures of the boating
http://gallery.ffii.org/Strasbourg050705

Permanent link to this press release
http://wiki.ffii.org/PrReject050706En

Contact Information

Hartmut Pilch and Holger Blasum
FFII Munich Office
info@ffii.org
++49-89-18979927

Rufus Pollock
FFII UK
rufus.pollock@ffii.org.uk
+44-7795-176976

Jonas Maebe
FFII BE
jmaebe@ffii.org
+32-485-369645

Dieter Van Uytvanck
FFII BE
dietvu@village.uunet.be
+32-499-167010

About FFII -- http://www.ffii.org/

The Foundation fo

The FFII server is horribly overloaded at the moment, so here's their press release. (Slightly edited for anti-lameness) You can get info on todays vote at http://wiki.ffii.org/PrReject050706En once it gets back up.

From jmaebe ffii.org Wed Jul 6 15:15:16 2005
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:03:50 +0200
From: Jonas Maebe
To: news ffii.org
Subject: [ffii] European Parliament says no to software patents, yes to innovation

**European Parliament says no to software patents, yes to innovation**

Strasbourg, 6 July 2005 -- The European Parliament today decided by a large majority to reject the software patents directive. This rejection was the logical answer to the Commission's refusal to restart the legislative process in February and the Council's unwillingness to engage in any kind of dialogue with the Parliament. The FFII congratulates the European Parliament on its clear "no" to bad legislative proposals and procedures.

This is a great victory for those who have campaigned to ensure that European innovation and competitiveness is protected from the threat of software and business process patents. It marks the end of this attempt by the European Commission to codify into law the US-style practice of the European Patent Office. We believe that the Parliament's work, in particular the 21 compromise amendments, provides a good basis on which future legislative projects can build.

Rejection provides breathing space for new initiatives based on all the knowledge gained during the last five years. All institutions are now fully aware of the concerns of all stakeholders. However, the fact that the Council Common Position needs 21 amendments in order to be transformed into a coherent piece of legislation indicates that the text is simply not ready to enter the Conciliation between Parliament, Commission and Council. We hope the Commission and Council will at least respond to the concerns raised by Parliament the next time, in order to avoid this sort of backlash in the future.

Jonas Maebe, FFII Board Member, comments on the outcome of today's vote:

"This result clearly shows that thorough analysis, genuinely concerned citizens and factual information have more impact than free ice-cream, boatloads of hired lobbyists and outsourcing threats. I hope this turn of events can give people new faith in the European decision making process. I also hope that it will encourage the Council and Commission to model after the European Parliament in terms of transparency and the ability of stakeholders to participate in the decision-making process irrespective of their size."

The FFII wishes to thank all those people who have taken the time to contact their representatives. We also thank the numerous volunteers who have so generously given their time and energy. This is your victory as well as the Parliament's.

Background Information

Free ice-cream for patentability
http://wiki.ffii.org/CampIcecream050601En

Software patent lobbyists add boats to their arsenal
http://lists.ffii.org/pipermail/news/2005-July/000 297.html

Pictures of the boating
http://gallery.ffii.org/Strasbourg050705

Permanent link to this press release
http://wiki.ffii.org/PrReject050706En

Contact Information

Hartmut Pilch and Holger Blasum
FFII Munich Office
info@ffii.org
++49-89-18979927

Rufus Pollock
FFII UK
rufus.pollock@ffii.org.uk
+44-7795-176976

Jonas Maebe
FFII BE
jmaebe@ffii.org
+32-485-369645

Dieter Van Uytvanck
FFII BE
dietvu@village.uunet.be
+32-499-167010

About FFII -- http://www.ffii.org/

The Foundation fo

The FFII server is horribly overloaded at the moment, so here's their press release. (Slightly edited for anti-lameness) You can get info on todays vote at http://wiki.ffii.org/PrReject050706En once it gets back up.

From jmaebe ffii.org Wed Jul 6 15:15:16 2005
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:03:50 +0200
From: Jonas Maebe
To: news ffii.org
Subject: [ffii] European Parliament says no to software patents, yes to innovation

**European Parliament says no to software patents, yes to innovation**

Strasbourg, 6 July 2005 -- The European Parliament today decided by a large majority to reject the software patents directive. This rejection was the logical answer to the Commission's refusal to restart the legislative process in February and the Council's unwillingness to engage in any kind of dialogue with the Parliament. The FFII congratulates the European Parliament on its clear "no" to bad legislative proposals and procedures.

This is a great victory for those who have campaigned to ensure that European innovation and competitiveness is protected from the threat of software and business process patents. It marks the end of this attempt by the European Commission to codify into law the US-style practice of the European Patent Office. We believe that the Parliament's work, in particular the 21 compromise amendments, provides a good basis on which future legislative projects can build.

Rejection provides breathing space for new initiatives based on all the knowledge gained during the last five years. All institutions are now fully aware of the concerns of all stakeholders. However, the fact that the Council Common Position needs 21 amendments in order to be transformed into a coherent piece of legislation indicates that the text is simply not ready to enter the Conciliation between Parliament, Commission and Council. We hope the Commission and Council will at least respond to the concerns raised by Parliament the next time, in order to avoid this sort of backlash in the future.

Jonas Maebe, FFII Board Member, comments on the outcome of today's vote:

"This result clearly shows that thorough analysis, genuinely concerned citizens and factual information have more impact than free ice-cream, boatloads of hired lobbyists and outsourcing threats. I hope this turn of events can give people new faith in the European decision making process. I also hope that it will encourage the Council and Commission to model after the European Parliament in terms of transparency and the ability of stakeholders to participate in the decision-making process irrespective of their size."

The FFII wishes to thank all those people who have taken the time to contact their representatives. We also thank the numerous volunteers who have so generously given their time and energy. This is your victory as well as the Parliament's.

Background Information

Free ice-cream for patentability
http://wiki.ffii.org/CampIcecream050601En

Software patent lobbyists add boats to their arsenal
http://lists.ffii.org/pipermail/news/2005-July/000 297.html

Pictures of the boating
http://gallery.ffii.org/Strasbourg050705

Permanent link to this press release
http://wiki.ffii.org/PrReject050706En

Contact Information

Hartmut Pilch and Holger Blasum
FFII Munich Office
info@ffii.org
++49-89-18979927

Rufus Pollock
FFII UK
rufus.pollock@ffii.org.uk
+44-7795-176976

Jonas Maebe
FFII BE
jmaebe@ffii.org
+32-485-369645

Dieter Van Uytvanck
FFII BE
dietvu@village.uunet.be
+32-499-167010

About FFII -- http://www.ffii.org/

The Foundation fo

The FFII server is horribly overloaded at the moment, so here's their press release. (Slightly edited for anti-lameness) You can get info on todays vote at http://wiki.ffii.org/PrReject050706En once it gets back up.

From jmaebe ffii.org Wed Jul 6 15:15:16 2005
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:03:50 +0200
From: Jonas Maebe
To: news ffii.org
Subject: [ffii] European Parliament says no to software patents, yes to innovation

**European Parliament says no to software patents, yes to innovation**

Strasbourg, 6 July 2005 -- The European Parliament today decided by a large majority to reject the software patents directive. This rejection was the logical answer to the Commission's refusal to restart the legislative process in February and the Council's unwillingness to engage in any kind of dialogue with the Parliament. The FFII congratulates the European Parliament on its clear "no" to bad legislative proposals and procedures.

This is a great victory for those who have campaigned to ensure that European innovation and competitiveness is protected from the threat of software and business process patents. It marks the end of this attempt by the European Commission to codify into law the US-style practice of the European Patent Office. We believe that the Parliament's work, in particular the 21 compromise amendments, provides a good basis on which future legislative projects can build.

Rejection provides breathing space for new initiatives based on all the knowledge gained during the last five years. All institutions are now fully aware of the concerns of all stakeholders. However, the fact that the Council Common Position needs 21 amendments in order to be transformed into a coherent piece of legislation indicates that the text is simply not ready to enter the Conciliation between Parliament, Commission and Council. We hope the Commission and Council will at least respond to the concerns raised by Parliament the next time, in order to avoid this sort of backlash in the future.

Jonas Maebe, FFII Board Member, comments on the outcome of today's vote:

"This result clearly shows that thorough analysis, genuinely concerned citizens and factual information have more impact than free ice-cream, boatloads of hired lobbyists and outsourcing threats. I hope this turn of events can give people new faith in the European decision making process. I also hope that it will encourage the Council and Commission to model after the European Parliament in terms of transparency and the ability of stakeholders to participate in the decision-making process irrespective of their size."

The FFII wishes to thank all those people who have taken the time to contact their representatives. We also thank the numerous volunteers who have so generously given their time and energy. This is your victory as well as the Parliament's.

Background Information

Free ice-cream for patentability
http://wiki.ffii.org/CampIcecream050601En

Software patent lobbyists add boats to their arsenal
http://lists.ffii.org/pipermail/news/2005-July/000 297.html

Pictures of the boating
http://gallery.ffii.org/Strasbourg050705

Permanent link to this press release
http://wiki.ffii.org/PrReject050706En

Contact Information

Hartmut Pilch and Holger Blasum
FFII Munich Office
info@ffii.org
++49-89-18979927

Rufus Pollock
FFII UK
rufus.pollock@ffii.org.uk
+44-7795-176976

Jonas Maebe
FFII BE
jmaebe@ffii.org
+32-485-369645

Dieter Van Uytvanck
FFII BE
dietvu@village.uunet.be
+32-499-167010

About FFII -- http://www.ffii.org/

The Foundation fo

The FFII server is horribly overloaded at the moment, so here's their press release. (Slightly edited for anti-lameness) You can get info on todays vote at http://wiki.ffii.org/PrReject050706En once it gets back up.

From jmaebe ffii.org Wed Jul 6 15:15:16 2005
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:03:50 +0200
From: Jonas Maebe
To: news ffii.org
Subject: [ffii] European Parliament says no to software patents, yes to innovation

**European Parliament says no to software patents, yes to innovation**

Strasbourg, 6 July 2005 -- The European Parliament today decided by a large majority to reject the software patents directive. This rejection was the logical answer to the Commission's refusal to restart the legislative process in February and the Council's unwillingness to engage in any kind of dialogue with the Parliament. The FFII congratulates the European Parliament on its clear "no" to bad legislative proposals and procedures.

This is a great victory for those who have campaigned to ensure that European innovation and competitiveness is protected from the threat of software and business process patents. It marks the end of this attempt by the European Commission to codify into law the US-style practice of the European Patent Office. We believe that the Parliament's work, in particular the 21 compromise amendments, provides a good basis on which future legislative projects can build.

Rejection provides breathing space for new initiatives based on all the knowledge gained during the last five years. All institutions are now fully aware of the concerns of all stakeholders. However, the fact that the Council Common Position needs 21 amendments in order to be transformed into a coherent piece of legislation indicates that the text is simply not ready to enter the Conciliation between Parliament, Commission and Council. We hope the Commission and Council will at least respond to the concerns raised by Parliament the next time, in order to avoid this sort of backlash in the future.

Jonas Maebe, FFII Board Member, comments on the outcome of today's vote:

"This result clearly shows that thorough analysis, genuinely concerned citizens and factual information have more impact than free ice-cream, boatloads of hired lobbyists and outsourcing threats. I hope this turn of events can give people new faith in the European decision making process. I also hope that it will encourage the Council and Commission to model after the European Parliament in terms of transparency and the ability of stakeholders to participate in the decision-making process irrespective of their size."

The FFII wishes to thank all those people who have taken the time to contact their representatives. We also thank the numerous volunteers who have so generously given their time and energy. This is your victory as well as the Parliament's.

Background Information

Free ice-cream for patentability
http://wiki.ffii.org/CampIcecream050601En

Software patent lobbyists add boats to their arsenal
http://lists.ffii.org/pipermail/news/2005-July/000 297.html

Pictures of the boating
http://gallery.ffii.org/Strasbourg050705

Permanent link to this press release
http://wiki.ffii.org/PrReject050706En

Contact Information

Hartmut Pilch and Holger Blasum
FFII Munich Office
info@ffii.org
++49-89-18979927

Rufus Pollock
FFII UK
rufus.pollock@ffii.org.uk
+44-7795-176976

Jonas Maebe
FFII BE
jmaebe@ffii.org
+32-485-369645

Dieter Van Uytvanck
FFII BE
dietvu@village.uunet.be
+32-499-167010

About FFII -- http://www.ffii.org/

The Foundation fo

We finally did it! My best congratulations to you all, and let us celebrate and remember this day. :-)

Thank you!

- http://www.fsfeurope.org/
- http://www.ffii.org/

Pictures of the demonstration on tuesday:

http://gallery.ffii.org/Strasbourg050705

Congratulations to the http://www.ffii.org/ and all the European citizens!

Today we're a bit closer to freedom :)

Congratulations to the FFII for all their hard work and patience campaigning against the directive!!! These people deserve all the support they can get.

For the time being I can rest assured that working as a programmer I do not have to watch my every statement.

"Won't the introduction of the Directive on computer-implemented inventions stifle innovation in the software industry?"

"The proposed Directive does not introduce or extend the patentability of software. In the UK, patents have been granted for computer-implemented inventions for decades. This has not hindered the expansion of the Internet, the development of open source software, nor the continuing growth of the software industry."

"Why is the proposed Directive trying to extend the patentability of computer-implemented inventions?"

"The approach adopted by the UK Government and the European Commission in the proposed Directive is to clarify the current position on patentability of computer-implemented inventions and confirm that only those inventions that involve a technical contribution can be protected by patents."

"Why is the Government ignoring the views of software developers?"

The UK position is based on a wide-ranging consultation carried out in 2000/2001 that supported the clarification of the current law and continued restrictions on the patentability of business methods.

"Won't Europe end up with the system that now exists in the United States?"

The Government believes that we should aim to avoid the width of patentability now allowed in the United States: this is why it pressed the European Commission for a Directive following its consultation.

"Doesn't the European Commission's proposal extend rather than clarify patentability?"

"The proposals originally put forward by the European Commission reflect to a great extent the responses that the DTI received in an extensive consultation on this issue in 2000/2001, and aim to clarify the situation. The Government believes that the proposals will in fact be good for the UK software industry, in clarifying a contentious area of intellectual property law, and for the UK and Europe as a whole by reinforcing a system which will counter the ever-increasing trend towards the wider granting of patents seen in the USA.

"Won't the introduction of the Directive on computer-implemented inventions stifle innovation in the software industry?"

"The proposed Directive does not introduce or extend the patentability of software. In the UK, patents have been granted for computer-implemented inventions for decades. This has not hindered the expansion of the Internet, the development of open source software, nor the continuing growth of the software industry."

"Why is the proposed Directive trying to extend the patentability of computer-implemented inventions?"

"The approach adopted by the UK Government and the European Commission in the proposed Directive is to clarify the current position on patentability of computer-implemented inventions and confirm that only those inventions that involve a technical contribution can be protected by patents."

"Why is the Government ignoring the views of software developers?"

The UK position is based on a wide-ranging consultation carried out in 2000/2001 that supported the clarification of the current law and continued restrictions on the patentability of business methods.

"Won't Europe end up with the system that now exists in the United States?"

The Government believes that we should aim to avoid the width of patentability now allowed in the United States: this is why it pressed the European Commission for a Directive following its consultation.

"Doesn't the European Commission's proposal extend rather than clarify patentability?"

"The proposals originally put forward by the European Commission reflect to a great extent the responses that the DTI received in an extensive consultation on this issue in 2000/2001, and aim to clarify the situation. The Government believes that the proposals will in fact be good for the UK software industry, in clarifying a contentious area of intellectual property law, and for the UK and Europe as a whole by reinforcing a system which will counter the ever-increasing trend towards the wider granting of patents seen in the USA.

Actually, I think the best thing would be for the directive to be passed with the 21 cross-party amendments (read more about the Buzek-Rocard-Duff amendments here: http://wiki.ffii.org/AmPlenPr050701En and here: http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/amends05 /komprom0506.en.pdf)

Failing that we want a rejection of course...

Actually, I think the best thing would be for the directive to be passed with the 21 cross-party amendments (read more about the Buzek-Rocard-Duff amendments here: http://wiki.ffii.org/AmPlenPr050701En and here: http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/amends05 /komprom0506.en.pdf)

Failing that we want a rejection of course...

Here's the contents of an advisory email about this sort of thing from the FFII (lists of MEPs removed to get around /. lameness filter). The "Key Messages" section for each party is particularly interesting.
--------
Dear XYZ,

You have registered as a supporter of FFII and thereby agreed to receiving e-mails which tell you how you can support our work.[1]

The European Parliament will vote next Tuesday or Wednesday. Unless more than half of the members (= 367) vote for serious amendments, the Council's version will become law and US-style software patent enforcement will begin in Europe.

On 5 July there will be a demonstration in Strasbourg, with coaches from Paris, Brussels, Munich, Amsterdam and possibly elsewhere http://noepatents.eu.org/index.php/StbDemo050604

Final things for you to do:

* Check that your MEP will attend the plenary session, an abstention is a vote for the unmodified council version.

We recommend him/her to vote for the 21 cross-party amendments[2], but even a vote for the official liberal or conservative party line is probably better than not showing up or abstaining. If the 21 cross-party amendments do not get passed we recommend that your MEP should vote to reject the directive.

* At this point sending e-mails alone is probably of no great value. Below you find a list of UK MEPs with phone numbers and some hints on specific messages to be delivered.

* Phone calls can be very effective if you are well informed. *Otherwise they can backfire*. Always be polite, never get aggressive. Explain clearly how software patents would affect *you* and *your* business. Only contact MEPs from *your own* region.[4]

* Before calling your MEP by phone, please make sure you have read the 21 cross-party amendments yourself, have a printed copy ready beside your phone and are well aware of the central ones, particularly Amendments 8, 4, 3, 9 and 1.

* It would also be good to have read the FFII discussion paper[3]. You can use Sunday (tonight) and Monday morning for preparation. MEPs arrive in Strasburg Monday afternoon.

* For help, please email the UK coordinators at uk-help@ffii.org with your name, region and relevant details of your business or profession.

* More instructions on how to contact your MEP are at http://wiki.noepatents.eu.org/index.php/MEPinfo

With kind regards, Hartmut Pilch and Alex Macfie, FFII

[1] Your user id is XYZ at http://aktiv.ffii.org/, in case of
difficulties you also may contact buero at ffii.org.
[2] Buzek-Rocard-Duff amendments
http://wiki.ffii.org/AmPlenPr050701En
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/amends05 /komprom0506.en.pdf
[3] http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/juri0504 /ffiiepp050615.en.pdf
[4] Map of UK Euro regions at
http://www.europarl.org.uk/uk_meps/MembersMain.htm

UK MEPs

email @europarl.eu.int
Strasbourg phone, MEP assistant: 0033-3881-77 XXX
Strasbourg phone, MEP him/herself: 0033-3881-75 XXX
Strasbourg fax: 0033-3881-79 XXX

LIBDEMS (ALDE UK)
=================

Messages:

Please follow the 21 cross-party amendments which are championned by Andrew Duff
http://www.andrewduffmep.org.uk/news/163.html

The Duff line conforms to the recommendations of the UK Libdem party policy documents and of the European Liberal Youth (LYMEC)

Here's the contents of an advisory email about this sort of thing from the FFII (lists of MEPs removed to get around /. lameness filter). The "Key Messages" section for each party is particularly interesting.
--------
Dear XYZ,

You have registered as a supporter of FFII and thereby agreed to receiving e-mails which tell you how you can support our work.[1]

The European Parliament will vote next Tuesday or Wednesday. Unless more than half of the members (= 367) vote for serious amendments, the Council's version will become law and US-style software patent enforcement will begin in Europe.

On 5 July there will be a demonstration in Strasbourg, with coaches from Paris, Brussels, Munich, Amsterdam and possibly elsewhere http://noepatents.eu.org/index.php/StbDemo050604

Final things for you to do:

* Check that your MEP will attend the plenary session, an abstention is a vote for the unmodified council version.

We recommend him/her to vote for the 21 cross-party amendments[2], but even a vote for the official liberal or conservative party line is probably better than not showing up or abstaining. If the 21 cross-party amendments do not get passed we recommend that your MEP should vote to reject the directive.

* At this point sending e-mails alone is probably of no great value. Below you find a list of UK MEPs with phone numbers and some hints on specific messages to be delivered.

* Phone calls can be very effective if you are well informed. *Otherwise they can backfire*. Always be polite, never get aggressive. Explain clearly how software patents would affect *you* and *your* business. Only contact MEPs from *your own* region.[4]

* Before calling your MEP by phone, please make sure you have read the 21 cross-party amendments yourself, have a printed copy ready beside your phone and are well aware of the central ones, particularly Amendments 8, 4, 3, 9 and 1.

* It would also be good to have read the FFII discussion paper[3]. You can use Sunday (tonight) and Monday morning for preparation. MEPs arrive in Strasburg Monday afternoon.

* For help, please email the UK coordinators at uk-help@ffii.org with your name, region and relevant details of your business or profession.

* More instructions on how to contact your MEP are at http://wiki.noepatents.eu.org/index.php/MEPinfo

With kind regards, Hartmut Pilch and Alex Macfie, FFII

[1] Your user id is XYZ at http://aktiv.ffii.org/, in case of
difficulties you also may contact buero at ffii.org.
[2] Buzek-Rocard-Duff amendments
http://wiki.ffii.org/AmPlenPr050701En
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/amends05 /komprom0506.en.pdf
[3] http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/juri0504 /ffiiepp050615.en.pdf
[4] Map of UK Euro regions at
http://www.europarl.org.uk/uk_meps/MembersMain.htm

UK MEPs

email @europarl.eu.int
Strasbourg phone, MEP assistant: 0033-3881-77 XXX
Strasbourg phone, MEP him/herself: 0033-3881-75 XXX
Strasbourg fax: 0033-3881-79 XXX

LIBDEMS (ALDE UK)
=================

Messages:

Please follow the 21 cross-party amendments which are championned by Andrew Duff
http://www.andrewduffmep.org.uk/news/163.html

The Duff line conforms to the recommendations of the UK Libdem party policy documents and of the European Liberal Youth (LYMEC)

Here's the contents of an advisory email about this sort of thing from the FFII (lists of MEPs removed to get around /. lameness filter). The "Key Messages" section for each party is particularly interesting.
--------
Dear XYZ,

You have registered as a supporter of FFII and thereby agreed to receiving e-mails which tell you how you can support our work.[1]

The European Parliament will vote next Tuesday or Wednesday. Unless more than half of the members (= 367) vote for serious amendments, the Council's version will become law and US-style software patent enforcement will begin in Europe.

On 5 July there will be a demonstration in Strasbourg, with coaches from Paris, Brussels, Munich, Amsterdam and possibly elsewhere http://noepatents.eu.org/index.php/StbDemo050604

Final things for you to do:

* Check that your MEP will attend the plenary session, an abstention is a vote for the unmodified council version.

We recommend him/her to vote for the 21 cross-party amendments[2], but even a vote for the official liberal or conservative party line is probably better than not showing up or abstaining. If the 21 cross-party amendments do not get passed we recommend that your MEP should vote to reject the directive.

* At this point sending e-mails alone is probably of no great value. Below you find a list of UK MEPs with phone numbers and some hints on specific messages to be delivered.

* Phone calls can be very effective if you are well informed. *Otherwise they can backfire*. Always be polite, never get aggressive. Explain clearly how software patents would affect *you* and *your* business. Only contact MEPs from *your own* region.[4]

* Before calling your MEP by phone, please make sure you have read the 21 cross-party amendments yourself, have a printed copy ready beside your phone and are well aware of the central ones, particularly Amendments 8, 4, 3, 9 and 1.

* It would also be good to have read the FFII discussion paper[3]. You can use Sunday (tonight) and Monday morning for preparation. MEPs arrive in Strasburg Monday afternoon.

* For help, please email the UK coordinators at uk-help@ffii.org with your name, region and relevant details of your business or profession.

* More instructions on how to contact your MEP are at http://wiki.noepatents.eu.org/index.php/MEPinfo

With kind regards, Hartmut Pilch and Alex Macfie, FFII

[1] Your user id is XYZ at http://aktiv.ffii.org/, in case of
difficulties you also may contact buero at ffii.org.
[2] Buzek-Rocard-Duff amendments
http://wiki.ffii.org/AmPlenPr050701En
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/amends05 /komprom0506.en.pdf
[3] http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/juri0504 /ffiiepp050615.en.pdf
[4] Map of UK Euro regions at
http://www.europarl.org.uk/uk_meps/MembersMain.htm

UK MEPs

email @europarl.eu.int
Strasbourg phone, MEP assistant: 0033-3881-77 XXX
Strasbourg phone, MEP him/herself: 0033-3881-75 XXX
Strasbourg fax: 0033-3881-79 XXX

LIBDEMS (ALDE UK)
=================

Messages:

Please follow the 21 cross-party amendments which are championned by Andrew Duff
http://www.andrewduffmep.org.uk/news/163.html

The Duff line conforms to the recommendations of the UK Libdem party policy documents and of the European Liberal Youth (LYMEC)

Here's the contents of an advisory email about this sort of thing from the FFII (lists of MEPs removed to get around /. lameness filter). The "Key Messages" section for each party is particularly interesting.
--------
Dear XYZ,

You have registered as a supporter of FFII and thereby agreed to receiving e-mails which tell you how you can support our work.[1]

The European Parliament will vote next Tuesday or Wednesday. Unless more than half of the members (= 367) vote for serious amendments, the Council's version will become law and US-style software patent enforcement will begin in Europe.

On 5 July there will be a demonstration in Strasbourg, with coaches from Paris, Brussels, Munich, Amsterdam and possibly elsewhere http://noepatents.eu.org/index.php/StbDemo050604

Final things for you to do:

* Check that your MEP will attend the plenary session, an abstention is a vote for the unmodified council version.

We recommend him/her to vote for the 21 cross-party amendments[2], but even a vote for the official liberal or conservative party line is probably better than not showing up or abstaining. If the 21 cross-party amendments do not get passed we recommend that your MEP should vote to reject the directive.

* At this point sending e-mails alone is probably of no great value. Below you find a list of UK MEPs with phone numbers and some hints on specific messages to be delivered.

* Phone calls can be very effective if you are well informed. *Otherwise they can backfire*. Always be polite, never get aggressive. Explain clearly how software patents would affect *you* and *your* business. Only contact MEPs from *your own* region.[4]

* Before calling your MEP by phone, please make sure you have read the 21 cross-party amendments yourself, have a printed copy ready beside your phone and are well aware of the central ones, particularly Amendments 8, 4, 3, 9 and 1.

* It would also be good to have read the FFII discussion paper[3]. You can use Sunday (tonight) and Monday morning for preparation. MEPs arrive in Strasburg Monday afternoon.

* For help, please email the UK coordinators at uk-help@ffii.org with your name, region and relevant details of your business or profession.

* More instructions on how to contact your MEP are at http://wiki.noepatents.eu.org/index.php/MEPinfo

With kind regards, Hartmut Pilch and Alex Macfie, FFII

[1] Your user id is XYZ at http://aktiv.ffii.org/, in case of
difficulties you also may contact buero at ffii.org.
[2] Buzek-Rocard-Duff amendments
http://wiki.ffii.org/AmPlenPr050701En
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/amends05 /komprom0506.en.pdf
[3] http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/juri0504 /ffiiepp050615.en.pdf
[4] Map of UK Euro regions at
http://www.europarl.org.uk/uk_meps/MembersMain.htm

UK MEPs

email @europarl.eu.int
Strasbourg phone, MEP assistant: 0033-3881-77 XXX
Strasbourg phone, MEP him/herself: 0033-3881-75 XXX
Strasbourg fax: 0033-3881-79 XXX

LIBDEMS (ALDE UK)
=================

Messages:

Please follow the 21 cross-party amendments which are championned by Andrew Duff
http://www.andrewduffmep.org.uk/news/163.html

The Duff line conforms to the recommendations of the UK Libdem party policy documents and of the European Liberal Youth (LYMEC)

The Patent Office does not set the conditions for patentability. Those are set by congress and the courts.

Not strictly true, at least here in the EU. The EPO has lobbied hard for widest possible patentability and have an active marketing division producing pamphlets and giving seminars all around the EU.

You ought to read this case history.. The EPO has been granting patents within unqualified (not legally valid) contexts of 'patentability' (ie. software patents) for several years and have actively pushed for widest patentability.

The EPO actively went out of it's way to gain governmental commitment for it's plans to entirely rewrite the European patent system.

Perhaps they play differently than in the U.S, though I would sincerely doubt it. It's big business - the last thing a patent office can afford, is to be purely subject to the whims of the State.