Slashdot Mirror

It's an absolute disgrace, that the UK media aren't covering this very important issue. The European council have disregarded the decision of the elected Parliament, and have tried to force this through.

Software patents are wrong, and incredibly dangerous territory for SME business. Larger companies may well be able to devend and enforce patents, but smaller players are likely to be unable to do so, and could be forced to lay off staff, raise prices, or even close down.

Software is simply a list of instructions. It is not a physical product. It should not therefore be patentable. Copyright protection is available to those who need it.

relevant links

• http://swpat.ffii.org/
• http://www.nosoftwarepatents.org/
• http://www.noepatents.org/

XW

The Apache License 2 is just a workaround for a real problem. Software patents are bad for development and bad for the economy. The US Federal State Commission called for change in a recent report, the benefits of software patents are falsified by emirical ressearch.

However, as software patents serve for the benefit of patent attorneys the institutions are intrested in an extension of the system, by widening the scope of patentability regardless of an economic foundation. Politicians like this quantitative patent approach, the result are many trivial patents of low quality and disfunction of the patent system atlarge. Many low quality patents endanger our information society. So it is nice to see that organisation like Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure build a counter-force to patent lawyer interest groups in Europe. So far the lobby work against software patents and the Eurolinux petition were very succesful. In my opinion we need a world wide movement in order to avoid Eolas vs. MS oder Amazonvs.Barnes&Noble ecc. will happen again. The GNU Public License is incompatible with Patent law and most projects and SME cannot afford to get patents. They, the innovators, don't want or need software patents.

The real question is how to fix the patent system. IBM (ie. PA Fritz Teufel) pressures for EU software patents. up to now they were successfully defeated. However, in order to gain ground we have to expand the European Campaign to the USA. And there it is up to you, create an initiative that puts pressure on the patent system with assistance of your FTC.

We can support you, bring the software patent war home!

http://www.noepatents.org
http://wiki.ael.be
http://swpat.ffii.org
http://softwarepatents.co.uk

I would also like to remind you of UN World summit Of the Information Society. It may be the right place to raise the issue.

It is very common that patent protagonists lied to the general public and their collegues. Patent lawyers are like crackers. Cracker circumvent security, patent lawyers circumvent restrictions of patent law. A patent lawyer that cannot file a patent on software patents with the current "JURI amended"-directive proposal would not be worth his money.

Here you find the amendments that will be voted on and FFII's recommendation. FFII and the Eurolinux Alliance are very strong in Brussels and they grow stronger every day. Many parliamentarians listen to us and then the directive protagonists sell the directive as an fulfillment of our concerns, switching rhethorics, but not substance. About 200 people now focus on this issue as activists on our mailing lists. You can subscribe to patent@aful.org or take part in theOnline demonstration or become a member/supporter of FFII or sign the Eurolinux Petition. You can support FFII by donations or even better by contributions. The European Parliament underestimated us. The patent lawyer slaves in Europarl came under strong pressure. We will be a mayor stakeholder in any future debate. The Green Party/EFA Groups impressed by our work even called for Open Source in the EU institutions

The Green/EFA group in the European Parliament has called on the EU, and in particular on the European Parliament, to support free/open-source software by introducing it into their IT systems. In a letter to the Secretary General of the Parliament, Julian Priestley, dated 9 September, the two Green/EFA Co-Presidents Monica Frassoni and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, argue that - as well as supporting Europe's software industry - switching to free and open source software would benefit the Parliament in terms of data continuity, technological independence and budgetary considerations. It would additionally take note of the Parliament's Echelon resolution, which recommended using non-proprietary software to increase technological security.

The Green/EFA group in the European Parliament has called on the EU, and in particular on the European Parliament, to support free/open-source software by introducing it into their IT systems. In a letter to the Secretary General of the Parliament, Julian Priestley, dated 9 September, the two Green/EFA Co-Presidents Monica Frassoni and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, argue that - as well as supporting Europe's software industry - switching to free and open source software would benefit the Parliament in terms of data continuity, technological independence and budgetary considerations. It would additionally take note of the Parliament's Echelon resolution, which recommended using non-proprietary software to increase technological security.

1. Oppose the expansion of software patents to your country, if such patents are not available there now.
2. Insist that standards bodies in which you participate make an an "innovation compatible" (IC) license a requirement for any patents needed to implement a standard.
3. Develop and support software that works with non-patented file formats and network protocols, instead of patent-encumbered ones.

There is a strong Anti-Patent movement in Europe. The German based organsation FFII is a very important player in the defence against lawyer interest groups. The EU wanted to introduce software patents back in 1999, the battle is still not over. Eurolinux alliance started an petition against Software patents with more than 140 000 signatures. Of course everybody shall try to talk to EU parliamentarians, esp. Arlene McCarthy(UK labour), Würmling (EVP) ecc. They have Email. European parliament: http://www.europarl.eu.int/ You should also protest against patent policy of EPO at EU Ombudsman

Se more at swpat.ffii, also sign the Petition against swpats. An you should talk to your local representative.

I'm very picky about what I petition, so....

Being European with a serious interest in Hague not being implemented in its proposed form (I run a controversial English website out of Denmark, which would be sued in no time under US law), I went to noepatents to read more about the European effort against the Hague treaty.

I read their brief note on the treaty, and was quickly lead to their petition linked right next to the Hague description. I wanted to sign it, but the petition does not mention Hague by name and in fact, it's not against Hague directly! It's about epatents.... which I find quite misleading. If it's really the case that my signature will not be used in the case against the Hague treaty, then can someone maybe tell me where I can petition against it?

Or am I missing the point?

Potential terminology mixups are cleared up here (emphasis mine):
"The treaty is called the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, and is being negotiated under the little known Hague Conference on Private International Law."

-Kraft

I'm very picky about what I petition, so....

Being European with a serious interest in Hague not being implemented in its proposed form (I run a controversial English website out of Denmark, which would be sued in no time under US law), I went to noepatents to read more about the European effort against the Hague treaty.

I read their brief note on the treaty, and was quickly lead to their petition linked right next to the Hague description. I wanted to sign it, but the petition does not mention Hague by name and in fact, it's not against Hague directly! It's about epatents.... which I find quite misleading. If it's really the case that my signature will not be used in the case against the Hague treaty, then can someone maybe tell me where I can petition against it?

Or am I missing the point?

Potential terminology mixups are cleared up here (emphasis mine):
"The treaty is called the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, and is being negotiated under the little known Hague Conference on Private International Law."

-Kraft