Re: [Fsfe-uk] patents through the looking glass

[Ramanan Selvaratnam]

Alex Hudson wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 13:02, Richard Smedley wrote:
>
> > Apparently the MEP responsible for all the patent brouhaha (McCarthy)
> > is doing this solely because patents are a bad thing, and we need
> > protecting from them.
>
>
> Well, it is an interesting idea. 
>
> There's an good note on gnu-friends.org about what is happening now too:
>
> http://gnu-friends.org/story/2003/9/2/85527/82981
>
> I think the low-down is continue to put pressure on the MEPs, esp.
> Labour I would say.

In the letter (cut and pasted at the end) McCarthy definitely paints the 
wrong picture.

IMHO the following  should be explained to the those who received the 
letter.

-- 'computer-implemented inventions' is still dubious and is not defined 
after many clear requests to do so in many forums.

--  the question is software patents (swpat) not just any patents as the 
letter could easily mislead. The topic itself misses the vital mention 
of software. Manytimes over this is repeated.
Software manufacture is uniquely different and patenting 'inventiveness' 
in software is like shooting oneself in the foot (as a measure of 
celebration?)
I guess the musical analogy will have to go with this explanation.

-- anti swpat campaign is anything but dishonest, destructive or 
misinforming. Instead it is very civilised ...look at FFII website for 
clear, constructive information with examples.

-- software development is getting along fine in the ' cut throat global 
marketplace' except for threats  from the likes of software patents 
becoming law. Copyright law is sufficient for software.

-- SME's legal costs? Cross licensing?
The article by RMS & Nick Hill on the guradian is a good pointer with 
good analogies. ...('land grabbing', 'war chest and clout')
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,970294,00.html>


Then the major amendments devoid of doublespeak or ambiguous terminology 
   as mentioned by H. Pilch in the FFII announcement could be 
summarised and presented clearly.

Any thoughts?

How can one find the local area's MEP?

Regards,

Ramanan


---------------------------------------------------------------
From <http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77512&cid=6892864>

[...]

This Press Release was sent out by the "UK Labour Delegation in the 
European Parliament" to all Labour MEPs on monday Sep 1st 18:11 for 
immediate publication.

Subject: MEPs must back EU plans for patents for inventions
For immediate release

1st September 2003

MEPs must back EU plans for patents for inventions

Controversial new legislation on patents for computer-implemented 
inventions will be put to a critical vote in the European Parliament in 
Strasbourg at the end of this month (Parliamentary Session 22-25 September).

Following a barrage of misinformation about the new EU wide patenting 
proposals, Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy - who wrote the Parliament's 
Report on the new proposals and is steering it through the Parliament - 
spoke out against the systematic campaign of misinformation being waged 
against new rules in the run up to the Strasbourg vote saying:

A proposal for an EU wide law on patents for computer-implemented 
inventions is essential both to protect the interests of European 
Industry and prevent the drift towards US-style patenting of business 
methods. In a situation where both the European Patent Office (EPO) and 
the 15 national patent offices are handing out patents for 
computer-implemented inventions, an EU law can assist in clarifying the 
limits to patentability in the field of computer-implemented inventions. 
This would give industry more certainty and help innovators realise 
financial rewards and returns on their investment in novel and inventive 
technologies in the increasingly cut throat global marketplace.

Patent protection is vital if we are to challenge the US dominance in 
the software inventions market. While Japan is to step up its activity 
in supporting industry's efforts to use patents and licensing fees to 
reap the benefits of their inventions in this field, if European 
industry is to have a fighting chance in the field of 
computer-implemented inventions, then they must have the necessary 
protection.

McCarthy hit out at claims made by opponents against the new EU law, who 
last week brought their campaign to Brussels:

This is a dishonest and destructive campaign designed to cause confusion 
about what the Parliament is trying to achieve. They are bombarding 
members with factually incorrect claims and orchestrating ranting calls 
to members' offices. I welcome representation from all sides of industry 
on this complex area of patent law, but it does not entitle people to 
abuse my staff in an aggressive and bullying manner. We need to approach 
this legislation, in particular the more difficult issues, in a calm 
considered way.

She warned that campaigners against patents for computer 
implemented-inventions risk seriously undermining European Industry's 
interests by putting them at an extreme disadvantage in the global 
marketplace and putting at risk jobs in the growing software industry, 
adding, If we were to follow the demands of these lobbyists then we 
would be handing over inventions to US multinationals and getting no 
return on our R&D investments in the field of computer implemented 
inventions.

This will sound the death knell for our brightest and best European 
inventors, whilst the US and Japan will demand licence fees from 
European companies for the use of their patents. Without patent 
protection there will be no financial incentive for our most creative 
industries to develop genuine inventions.

McCarthy added,

An EU law can improve the current practice by both the EPO and national 
patent offices, by ensuring a stricter interpretation of what is 
patentable. It will also open up avenues to the European Court of 
Justice allowing more democratic scrutiny and oversight over the 
granting of patents in this field, and a better system of appeals to 
ensure that patents are handed out for 'genuine' inventions. The 
long-term result will be better patent law in Europe.
The Parliament is also challenging the Commission and Member States to 
do more for SME's, to enable them to both have easy access and 
affordable patents, but also to protect them against patent 
infringements by Industry giants. Some SME's have lost their patent 
rights because they have been unable to defend them in court against the 
might of the multinationals.

We would like to see more being done to assist SME's in getting patents 
and the setting up of a defence fund to help them protect their own 
inventions against the might of multinationals. Patents and the benefits 
they can bring, must not be seen as the exclusive domain of big companies.