Europeans Still Battling Software Patents

rimberg writes "The FFII in the UK is issuing an alert for all supporters to write to their MPs -- this weekend . In September the European Parliament voted for strong restrictions on software patents. But these could be set aside at a meeting of the EU's Competitiveness Council of Ministers on 10 November. The ministers' meeting is to be "prepared" at a meeting of senior patent officials from across Europe even sooner: this Thursday 23 October. Unless they can be convinced otherwise before 10 November, it is believed that UK ministers will push for the Council to adopt a November 2002 draft text, which is even worse than the infamous McCarthy report. The European Parliament's rules for second reading make it very difficult for MEPs to fix a bad text from the Council. The FFII says it desperately need a lot of letters to go out to MPs this weekend to tell the Government how bad the November 2002 draft is. More information at FFII-UK."

Comments

Example

[Ed Avis]

Copying form letters is very bad - they don't get read. But if you're wondering about how to use LaTeX you might want to look at some stuff wot I wrote earlier today. (mp_letter.tex in that directory; the other .tex files are earlier stuff.) I don't want to hold it up as a great exemplar though... write your own words and opinions. (But follow the FFII guidelines!)

The email/fax that I sent

[Morosoph]

Please no-one use this "as is", especially if they live in Cambridge; I only want to encourage others to craft a decent letter.

Dear Anne Campbell,

A few weeks ago, I emailed you concerning software patents, with patent laws being passed in the European Parliament, and soon to be put through to UK law.

Last month, the European Parliament voted for strong restrictions upon software patents, but it is my understanding that UK ministers at the Competitiveness Council of Ministers are likely to push for the Parliament amendments to be overturned. This would be a disaster for software development within Britain.

The UK Patent Office have been lobbying for unlimited patentability, and whilst their consultation found a lot of support from patent professionals were in favour, the views of programmers were extremely hostile. Strong patent laws are not good for the industry, although they might be good for big companies: in the USA, large companies build portfolios of software patents, which creates a minefield for programmers, as every program contains steps which could be considered innovative, meaning that before long, it becomes impossible to write programs of any complexity without stepping upon some of these patents. Although these patents ultimately might not stand up in court, the fear of law and the resources of large companies means that the interests of smaller outfits and individuals are overwhelmed. This is not an efficiency, for the cost is not the natural cost of doing business, but an artificial one of compliance with the regulation.

I should add that in the USA, cross-licensing of patent portfolios is commonplace, creating government-enforced cartels, as those working for such companies don't need to worry about compliance. This is actually proof that patent laws are inefficient, since firms would rather absolve one another of their patent obligations than enforce them. An excellent case against software patents is put forward by Laura Creighton, a software venture capitalist, to be found at http://www.vrijschrift.org/swpat/030508_1/.

I am faxing, as well as emailing this letter because of the urgency of the issue: there is to be a series of meeting of patent officials throughout Europe on Thursday 23 October ahead of the meeting of the Competitiveness Council of Ministers.

This is a serious worry for me, and not a theoretical idealisation. Everyone that I know in the industry has told be how worried they are about what future laws we are likely to end up with. I hope that you can put the case to Stephen Timms MP, the minister for e-commerce at the DTI, and cast your vote at a future date against an excessive patent regime.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Wesson.