FSFE-IE December 2003

fsfe-ie@lists.fsfe.org

24 participants
50 discussions

Possible opinion formers: academics
by James Heald 04 Dec '03

04 Dec '03

More random trawling with Google, looking for people who may credibly shape the debate, and/or possibly know how the process is going... For academics, there may be at least four or five groups we should be thinking about. * Lawyers. Any change in the law will presumably involve consultation with lawyers -- What is the law now? What is the legal effect of such-and-such changes? Would they clarify things or create a legal nightmare? * Economists / Business Studies. What drives innovation? Would software patents help or hinder? * Business incubators, technology transfer specialists, and successful academic entrepreneurs. Experience from the sharp end. * Free software users. Throughout CS, mathematics, physical sciences and engineering there must be a lot of researchers who use free software because it works, and because it makes the budget go further, and who wouldn't want it crippled by patents. They may also be drawn by the kindred spirit of the free software model and the open scientific process. A silent majority which could be very powerful if we can get it mobilised ? * Researchers specifically working on free software, and as part of the free software community. ===================================================== 1. Lawyers. So who are the country's experts on IT and IP law, that the policy makers may want to formally or informally bounce things off? Obviously there may be independent barristers with particular renown, the major city firms of solicitors, specialist patent agents, in-house lawyers of key corporates, and experts at the patent office. But academics may also be important, as an independent disinterested source of advice. Most useful would be anything they can tell us about what's going on, and any particular sensitivities or areas where the government is looking for more information that they may have heard of about the process. Prof Robert Clark at UCD surely fits the bill, as their leading IP lecturer, member of the Patent Office user council, and a particular expert in data protection, internet, copyright and database law. Two more, who have written the book on the subject, are Denis Kelleher and Karen Murray (http;//www.ictlaw.com/; Information Technology Law in Ireland (Dublin: Butterworths), 1997; IT Law in the European Union (London: Sweet & Maxwell), 1999). Karen Murray is the lecturer at the National College of Ireland that ENN spoke to. Denis Kelleher wrote a policy review for Forfas in 2002 called "Legislating for Competitive Advantage in e-Business and ICT". http://www.forfas.ie/newsasp/show.asp?page_id=251 http://www.forfas.ie/publications/ebus_ict_leg02/021029_ebusiness_ict_leg_7… I'm attaching pages 19-22 on patents. Interestingly, although Kelleher quotes economic benefits from swpats from the year 2000 CEC study "The Economic Impact of Patentability of Computer Programs", he then seems almost agnostic as to what in fact should and should not be patentable. (See http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/indprop-ipi00/index.en.html for a rebuttal of the CEC study in Hartmut's usual no-prisoners style). These three seem to be the leading academic lawyers in the field, at least in Dublin (I haven't really checked Cork or elsewhere). At TCD the computer science department offers a course in IT law given by Proinnsias Ó Cillín, formerly of the land registry in Dublin. Kelleher and Murray is the #1 text for the course, and their website is his #1 link under Information Technology Law. http://www.cs.tcd.ie/Proinnsias.OCillin/ http://www.cs.tcd.ie/Proinnsias.OCillin/lawcourse/weblawsites.htm http://www.cs.tcd.ie/Proinnsias.OCillin/lawcourse/int-ppty/patent.htm In the law department itself, the main full-time IP lecturers seem to be Paul Ralph Coughlan and Eoin O'Dell; there is also an LLM course on European Intellectual Property Law, taught by an external barrister Imelda Higgins. Paul Ralph Coughlan, B.C.L., LL.M. (N.U.I.), Barrister-at-Law. Paul Coughlan is a graduate of the National University of Ireland, from which he holds the degrees of Bachelor of Civil Law and Master of Laws. He is Registrar of the Law School, Trinity College Dublin. He has lectured in Land Law and Intellectual Property at Trinity College Dublin since 1990. Previously he lectured in Law at University College Dublin and the University of Keele. A practising barrister, he has written extensively on land law, equity and intellectual property and is the Irish correspondent for the European Intellectual Property Review. His research interests cover land law, intellectual property law, equity. Eoin O'Dell B.C.L.(N.U.I.), B.C.L.(Oxon.), Barrister-at-Law. Eoin O'Dell lectures Contract, Restitution and Freedom of Expression, researches primarily in the fields of private and commercial law, and is the Editor of the Dublin University Law Journal. Ms. Imelda Higgins B.C.L. (NUI), LL.M. (NUI), Diploma in European Law (Bruges), Barrister-at-Law lectures in European Intellectual Property Law on the LL.M. Programme. http://www.tcd.ie/Law/Contacts.htm It's possible Alexander Schuster might take an interest from the European law/consumer interest angle; but I assume that's mostly more about product liability. Alexander William Edward Schuster, B.A., LL.B., M.Litt., Barrister-at-Law. Alex Schuster is a Senior Lecturer-in-Law at Trinity College Dublin. A former Director of the Irish Centre for European Law and a practising barrister, he has written widely on EU Consumer Protection Law. Publications edited by him include Product Liability (1989), the New Product Liability Regime (1992) and Key Aspects of Irish Competition Law and Practice (1993). He is currently editing Company Law in Ireland and the EC. He is a member of the European Consumer Law Group, a group of lawyers which vets EU legislative proposals in the field of consumer protection and the Irish correspondent for the Consumer Law Journal. Over at UCD, Robert Clark is clearly the man; but I found the following lecturers giving IP courses this year over his sabbatical: Intellectual Property Law (2 BCL, 3BBLS) Ms Leesha O'Driscoll, BCL(NUIC), LLM(NUID), BL Intellectual Property Law (LLM, Commercial Law) Ms Maire Ni Shuilleabhain , BCL, LLM (NUI), BCL (Oxon), BL Information Technology Law (LLM ,Commercial Law) Mr Eamonn Hall, BA, BCL, PhD, Solicitor, Legal Advisor Eircom Plc, Visiting Fellow Mr. Thomas Jeremiah McIntyre, BCL, LLM(Lond), BL, Member of New York Bar European Intellectual Property Law (LLM, European Law) Ms. I. Higgins ============================================= 2. Economists / Business Studies Possibly the people with the widest, most balanced view of both the pluses and the minuses of software patents for innovation and development across the whole economy; and able to give the most authoritative assessment of the likely impact in practice of different variants of the software patent legislation. We need to absorb as much of what they can tell us as possible, so we can also speak about the economic aspects with authority. * Prof. William Kingston School of Business Studies, TCD http://www.tcd.ie/Business_Studies/StaffResearch/kingston.html http://www.tcd.ie/Business_Studies/StaffResearch/kingston_pub.html Kingston is very knowledgeable and quite critical about how well the patents system generates innovation, at least as presently constituted. He would certainly be familiar with all of the material in the FTC report (http://www.ffii.org.uk/ftc/ftc.html). Thus for example in his paper "Meeting Nelson's concerns about Intellectual Property" (14 May 2001), he writes: > The recognised comparative failure of European firms to commercialise inventive and RTD efforts is partly explained by this. No firm can exploit more than a single trajectory of incremental change properly. Proprietary rights can prevent firms which could exploit other trajectories from doing so, thus also depriving the originator of competitive pressure to move along the learning curve as fast as possible. Eventually, products from foreign firms which incorporate more incremental improvements, gain an advantage in the market. (http://www.druid.dk/conferences/nw/paper1/kingston.pdf) It would be very interesting to have his analysis of the different likely effects of the swpat directive, both the council version and the parliament version, and anything there might be in between. However, I think he is not necessarily against software patents. He is a fan of small firms: > These are productive of inventions to a degree that is quite > disproportionate to their resources. and a strong believer in the value of patents to them: > Smaller firms are prolific users of intellectual property because they lack other types of market power to protect the information they produce. Instead the paper argues that the deficiencies of the patent system could be largely cured by imposing a compulsory licensing option for all patents at a multiple of their R&D costs. He argues this would be especially beneficial in software: > 8.5 Giving appropriate protection to software development > If the proposal were to be put into effect, the beneficial effects of intensified competition would be felt immediately by the public in relation to computer programs. As a new way of generating information, these needed a new kind of protection. Forcing software instead into copyright has resulted in programs receiving absurdly inappropriate terms of protection which can be up to 120 years. Among other outcomes, this has made conflict between Competition authorities and Microsoft inevitable in the U.S. and elsewhere. He has also written an influential EU study, "Enforcing Small Firms' Patent Rights" (2001) http://www.cordis.lu/innovation-policy/studies/im_study3.htm Key findings include that > The current patent system works poorly for SMEs. Especially in the US, large firms use the resources which they have available for litigation to intimidate SMEs. For SMEs, patenting is currently not cost-effective as a means of protecting intellectual property. However again, he seems to believe that the system could be fixed, this time by instituting a "Patent Defence Union", a sort of government backed offensive and defensive insurance scheme for SMEs. Most frequently seen with him on the bandwagon for this is Arlene McCarthy's favourite software patentee, John Mitchell of AllVoice. Kingston's analysis of the effect of various possible scopes for software patentability would be very interesting to hear; but he is by no means necessarily a cheerleader for our side. Somebody else who might be interesting is: * Dr. Colm O'Gorman Department of Business Administration, Quinn School of Business, UCD. http://www.ucd.ie/busadmin/colmogorman.htm http://www.ucd.ie/busadmin/researchinterests.htm#1 Dr O'Gorman appears to have done extensive fieldwork research on the software industry in Ireland, so may be especially well informed to say how much real use software patents really are in the sector, or whether they are as little use as Laura Creighton says at http://www.vrijschrift.org/swpat/030508_1/ According to the department research page, Dr O'Gorman has particularly investigated: New Venture Process: Colm O’Gorman has investigated the process of new venture creation among software firms. High Growth Ventures: Colm O’Gorman continues to study the dynamics of growth in high-tech ventures. SMEs: Colm O’Gorman continues to examine key managerial issues in SMEs including success strategies, their use of mission statements and the factors influencing internationalisation. He is also likely to be able to give very useful pointers to what other work has been done in this field, and by whom. ============================================= 3. Business incubators, technology transfer specialists, and successful academic entrepreneurs. Quite an interesting overview of the process at http://www.ucd.ie/nova/newsandevents/journey/overview.htm The advice can get depressing: protect everything, talk to no-one, never let anyone have your source code... Real entrepreneurs may actually have the most unrealistic view of the usefulness of patents. Almost a prerequisite of keeping their business going is they have to believe in every aspect of it 120%, including the value of their IP protection. And if they still have a business, that probably means their IP protection hasn't (yet) been tested... But it would be interesting to know even from these people how useful they think patents really are in the software arena, or whether copyright, closed-source and trade secrets are actually a lot more important -- that, and really focussing on the product itself, customer satisfaction, and quick market response. One name I saw in that lecture programme was * Prof Barry Smyth – UCD Department of Computer Science & CTO Changing Worlds (company producing mobile data platforms and solutions for mobile operators) It would be interesting to know whether he would feel threatened by the Parliament version of the directive, or liberated. UCD also has * Margaret Kennedy, Commercialisation Specialist (ICT), UCD Nova. who it might be interesting to cross-check with what Prof Smyth has to say. ============================================= 4. Free software users. 5. Researchers specifically working on free software No specific links. Do people think it would be possible to build on existing awareness, and try to get departmental policy staements of concern ? Probably that's enough for one night... All best, James. Legislating for Competitive Advantage in e-Business and ICT (Denis Kelleher) http://www.forfas.ie/newsasp/show.asp?page_id=251 http://www.forfas.ie/publications/ebus_ict_leg02/021029_ebusiness_ict_leg_7… pp.19-22 of the pdf. 2.3 Patents Intellectual Property (IP) is an essential element in modern information societies, and there is a wide variety of laws that apply to this area. One such law relates to patents, a patent being a transferable property right, which gives the holder the exclusive right to exclude others from manufacture, use, or sale of the invention for a time-limited period. In patent law, inventors can apply to have their inventions protected; if they are successful they then receive a monopoly on how that invention is exploited. Another form of IP is the law of copyright, which protects the reproduction and distribution of works such as computer programs, music, films, songs, recordings of songs and books. Ireland is a significant producer of all forms of IP, ranging from musical recordings to software, and including new emerging sectors such as biotechnology. In order to promote R&D and the creation, development and management of intellectual property in Ireland, it is critical that the enterprise sector is capable of using patents to protect new products,processes and ideas. However, as a signatory to the European Patents Convention, 1973, Ireland has very little room to legislate in this area, and there are a number of crucial issues which are as yet unresolved. EU member states have to date failed to agree on the future role of national patent offices and their relationship with the European Patent Office (EPO)[30] in Munich, on the future language regime and on the establishment of a community patent jurisdiction. Other factors that have to be taken into account when comparing the situation in the EU with that elsewhere include the cost of patenting an item and the types of patent that can be applied for. For example, the cost of patenting an idea is four to five times higher in Europe (EPO estimate of Eur. 49,000 per patent) than in the US. The cost of translating patents (25-40 per cent of total cost) into the various EU Member State languages makes the procedure expensive and, at present, there is no agreement as to how to tackle this issue. Enterprise Ireland, through its Intellectual Property Assistance Scheme, can provide funding for patent applications, as well as advice on the protection, development and commercialisation of inventions. However, from the perspective of Irish firms which engage in research, the expensive nature of the present patent system leaves them at a competitive disadvantage compared to their US and Japanese competitors. Europe also differs from the US in the types of software patents that can be issued. In Europe, an invention has to be of a technical character, while in the US the mere fact that an invention uses a computer or software makes it patentable. According to a study conducted for the European Commission [31], this difference in standards has resulted in European software developers making less use of the patenting process compared with American firms. The report also noted `the patentability of computer program-related inventions has helped the growth of computer program-related industries in the (United) States, in particular the growth of SMEs and independent software developers into sizeable, indeed major, companies'. European software developers have raised concerns that the lower use of patents could weaken their ability to raise finance and to bring their products to market through licensing the use of their inventions. It would be untrue to state that the EPO will not issue patents for computer-implemented inventions; in fact the EPO has issued 20,000 such patents. However, there is confusion in Europe as to how this law is to be applied and there appear to be differences in the interpretation of patent law within Europe. The EU Commission has identified the possibility of divergences developing between the courts of different member states in their interpretation of the law of patents as being a cause for particular concern, and it notes that such divergences have already occurred between the courts of the UK and Germany, and within the EPO itself. The EU Commission is considering these issues, and has issued a Proposal for a Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions. This draft directive published on 20 February 2002 supports the existing stricter EPO practice of only allowing inventions in which computer programs form an integral part to be patented if the invention concerned provides a technical contribution. While Article 52(2)(c) of the European Patent Convention prohibits the patenting of business methods [32], the US has taken a more liberal view. In State Street v. Signature Financial Group33, Signature sought and was awarded a patent for a system that allowed an administrator to monitor and record the financial information flow and make all calculations necessary for maintaining a `partner fund financial services configuration'. This willingness of the US Patent Office to patent business methods with no apparent technical characteristic may seriously weaken the competitive position of Irish and other European firms across a wide range of sectors. Determining the relative strength of patent laws from a technology and enterprise development perspective is a complex matter. Some Internet companies have used patents to obtain monopoly rights in certain inventions, the rationale being that by securing the exclusive rights to their discoveries and innovation, enterprise among inventors can be promoted. However using patents to provide legal monopolies can also slow down dissemination of new technologies and best practice and can reduce competition. Furthermore, given the rate of technological change, it may be that continuous innovation rather than legal protection offers the best opportunities to sustain and develop competitive advantage. However, the ideal environment is one which balances the rights of innovators and imitators in all jurisdictions. Resolution of these issues is of particular importance to Ireland, given that a large and increasing proportion of Ireland R&D expenditure is concentrated in ICT, as can be seen in figure 2. [Figure 2 omitted] While many of these issues must be resolved at a European level, which limits Ireland's ability to legislate unilaterally, there are a number of key actions which can be taken: * Ireland needs to be proactive in the formulation of an EU-wide patent policy which is assessing the business merits of allowing software and `business methods' to be patented and seeks to reduce the costs of issuing patents. The EU is currently considering a Proposal for a Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions. Action: Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment * The Proposal for a Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions will further harmonise national patent laws, which should reduce ambiguities in the implementation of the current legislation that arise due to the complex and diverse nature of cases. In the future, it will be critical that the courts have a strong understanding of the role of patents, the capacity of software to be innovative, and the potential benefits and costs of seeking patents. Ireland should examine how it can provide as much protection as possible to the creators of intellectual property rights in these subject matters, in the context of its existing international commitments. Action: Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment * As divergences have emerged in how different EU states interpret the European Patents Convention, the creation of a Community Intellectual Property Court has been proposed as a remedy. Such a court has also been called for in order to reduce the costs of IP litigation, as high costs are discouraging the use of the system, other than by large organisations. If such a court should be established, and depending on the structure that this proposed court would adopt [34], then the Government should seek to have the Court of First Instance of the proposed Community Intellectual Property Court based in Ireland. Despite its limited domestic market, there may be significant opportunity for Ireland to develop a critical mass of e-business law expertise. Action: Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment * Irish researchers and entrepreneurs should be made aware of how they can protect their ideas. Different strategies may be suitable for different jurisdictions, given the differences between European and US patent law. One example is defensive publishing, where details of the idea or suggestion are published. This means that even if a rival patents a similar idea, the fact that it has been previously published can be used to set aside the patent or deny any attempt to seek damages. Action: Enterprise Ireland, the Enterprise sector If Irish researchers and entrepreneurs have definite prospects/plans for commercialising their intellectual property in the US and the resources to actively pursue such plans, they should be informed of their options in relation to patenting a computer-implemented invention or business concept in the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Patenting ideas at the USPTO would only provide protection in the US, and would not extend to Europe. However, as many indigenous firms, particularly in the software industry, primarily focus on the US market, patenting with USPTO should be considered. Action: Enterprise Ireland, business associations ----------------------------------------------------------------- 30 The European Patent Office is the executive arm of the European Patent Organisation, an intergovernmental body set up under the European Patent Convention (EPC), whose members are the EPC contracting states. 31 The Economic Impact of Patentability of Computer Programs, European Commission, July 2001. 32 Examples of business process patenting include Amazon.com's `1-Click' Patent, and the designs of e-marketplaces and electronic auctions. 33 149 F.3d 1368; 1998 US App LEXIS 16869; 47 USPQ 2D (BNA) 1596. 34 It remains unclear whether this proposed court would operate on a circuit court or national basis in each jurisdiction, or in just a limited number of locations for the entire EU.

5 9

The patented videostore
by James Heald 04 Dec '03

04 Dec '03

I don't know if everybody's already seen this, but it's quite a fun illustration of the software patents you might have to face, if you were running an e-commerce video shop for instance: Danish: http://www.it-pol.dk/sager/swpat/videoshop Swedish: http://w1.970.telia.com/~u97015790/publik/html/videostore.html Dutch: http://www.softwarepatenten.be/voorbeeld/webwinkel.html Anyone feel like putting together an English-language version of the graphic ? (Perhaps including an Irish domain name with an accent in it ?) ========================================================== Original Danish version by it-pol.dk Swedish version by Magnus Stålnacke / jemamo at telia.com Erik Josefson / ehj at cleosan.com Dutch version by Dieter van Uytvanck / dietvu at village.uunet.be English translation of the text: Niels Vestergaard Jensen / nvj at fys.ku.dk <html> <img src="screenshot-med-patenter.png"> <h2>Patents in an internet video shop</h2> If you want to start your own videoshop on the internet there are a few patents you should be aware of. Patents normally cost a certain percentage of turnover (often between 2% and 5% - most expensive if turnover is small). Some companies give discounts on purchase of licenses to several different patents. The patents mentioned below are not owned by the same company, so you can't expect to get volume discount. <ol> <li>https:// - SSL connections use RSA encryption: US4405829 <li>https:// - SSL connections use encrypted sockets: US5657390 <li>åbent-døgnet-rundt.dk - National characters in domain names: EP1159820 <li>[Drama] [Kids] [Action] [Thriller] - Tabs: EP689133 <li>ladybird.gif - GIF-files use LZW-compression: EP129439 <li>The film Ladybird is about... - Pop-up vindow: EP0537100  <li>1-click - Buy in one click: US5960411 <li>Watch - Displaying video through the web: EP0933892 <li>in browser - Display in a browser window: US5838906 <li>Download film - Displaying video through the web (same as above): EP0933892 <li>mpeg4-format - Widely used video format for video download: More than 40 patents (herunder DK638218) <li>Basket - The concept of basket: EP0784279 <li>Soundtrack.mp3 and Film - E-commerce in services: DK/EP738446 <li>Soundtrack.mp3 - MP3 is a widely used sound format: DK287578 <li>Pay with credit card - Credit card payment through the Internet: EP820620 <li>Send as gift - Calculation of correct gift adress from insufficient information: EP927945  <li>Books on ladybirds - Affiliate link: US6029141 <li>Get a loan - Automatized loans: EP715740 <li>VISA - Digital signature in graphics til show that shop is approved for recieving VISA payments: EP0798657 <li>Pay through your internet provider - Payment through telecommunication network: EP084836 </ol> None of the patents are valid in India: By moving the video shop to India you can avoid paying for the patents.

2 1

2004 dates for the EU Competitiveness Council
by James Heald 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

Here are the relevant meetings scheduled for the Irish presidency, January to June next year: March 11th, 2004 Competitiveness Council formal meeting (Brussels). March 25-26, 2004 European Council (ie Heads of Government) April 2004 Informal meeting of Competitiveness Ministers (Co. Clare, Ireland). May 17-18, 2004 Competitiveness Council formal meeting (Brussels). The relevant ministry in charge will be the ministry for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, headed by the Tánaiste (deputy prime minister), Ms. Mary Harney. (Source: parliamentary answer, http://www.greenparty.ie/pressroom/Dail%20work/031023%20EU%20Presidency.htm which corresponds to a Word doc on the ministry website, http://www.entemp.ie/ecd/irelandspresidency.doc ) The May meeting is the last date for Ireland to be able to claim the credit for any agreement, so the goal of the presidency will be to push for achievments on as many dossiers as possible by then. If possible, they will try to get the agreement 'banked' in March, to clear the agenda; the March meeting will also consider what broad strategy and other documents in the area of Competitiveness can be prepared that the heads of government can discuss (or perhaps that should be trumpet) at the end of March. Given that the Working Group has apparently already had two "very productive" meetings (UKPO), they may feel that March 11th is entirely possible to adopt a finalised Council common text for the directive. The working party will also still be working on the Community Patent legislation, which the Italian presidency "spectaclarly failed" to bring to agreement (Axel Horns) -- "the Presidency noted that although there was broad agreement on the compromise text, complete agreement could not be reached at that stage as the question of the period for filing compulsory translations of the claims of the Community patent remained unresolved". If agreements cannot be put in place on March 11, the "informal meeting" in April will see a final attempt to bash heads together at a political level, to produce agreement in time for May 17th. All best, James.

5 8

Irish academic contacts
by Fergal Daly 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

It turns out that my friend is teaching Prof Robert Clarke's IP course while the man himself is on sabbatical. His first guess was that most of the faculty would be against software patents. Apparently Prof Clarke is in the office regualarly so my friend will be having a chat with him soon. Fingers crossed, F

1 0

Re: [Fsfe-ie] Patent work restart (was: A fresh and acce
by Niall Douglas 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 1 Dec 2003 at 5:41, Niall Douglas wrote: > http://www.moneybookers.co.uk/ does euro payments in Irish cheques > for a 5% overhead I believe, no extra charges apart from 1.80 to > send you a cheque which you could retrieve once a year if wished. > > Never used them so can't say much about their reliability. Others do > use them. A further thought to that is that AIB do an ebanking service which is similar to WorldPay from the Bank of Scotland. AIB's service takes Laser though, useful for Ireland. BTW let me be ABSOLUTELY clear about PayPal, they are the spawn of the devil himself, do not care one iota about non-US customers (forget about cheques in euros) and have *stolen* money from me in the past. I hate that company as much as the spam barons and even more than Verisign/Network Solutions - I hate being stolen from. Besides, most of your donations will likely come from within Ireland, maybe a few from the UK and occasionally the US where they all have credit cards anyway. Me, well they blacklisted my credit years ago and I'm in no rush to change the situation! :) Cheers, Niall -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: idw's PGP-Frontend 4.9.6.1 / 9-2003 + PGP 8.0.2 iQA/AwUBP8yP48EcvDLFGKbPEQKTEgCfUiURNFMnR8vXWUutEYr7g7QboLoAoO56 ZFrHuGhHwSWP4rs0yURmYI7b =7OH4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Swpat: possible players
by James Heald 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

I've been looking through websites, trying to identify more potential players. One thing which is very important to think about is that any contacts with the powers-that-be will be have far more impact if they can be firmly established as a joint Free Software/SME initiative, rather than just "free-love, open-standard, freeware fanatics" as one UK lawyer tried to marginalise Open Sourcers. So it is a priority to find a credible, representative voice of SME IT companies to run our campaign in harness with side-by-side. Below are a few links found on the web, just the first tip of the iceberg, trying to build up a list of possible players. We need to work out who's likely to be friendly, and who may be less so: * Prof Robert Clark, UCD. * UCD's "Nova" incubator for technology companies * Departments of Computer Science * Enterprise Ireland favourite IT companies. * British and Irish Licensing Executives Society ============================================================= * Prof Robert Clark, UCD. -- head lecturer in Intellectual Property in University College Dublin -- member of the Internet Advisory Board and the Patent Office Users Council in Ireland. more details at the end of the email * UCD's "Nova" incubator for technology companies http://www.ucd.ie/news/oct03/novaucd.htm Probably this doesn't have any very close links to Prof Clark, but the people running it might have some influence on the importance (or not) of software patents as IT start-ups. At any rate, it might be interesting to try to get them to think a little more deeply about the business issue, to stop them jumping automatically to an "all IP is good IP" standpoint. * Departments of Computer Science I was recently talking somebody who's a local councillor here in the UK, who's a university lecturer in a nearby Department of Computer Science. She hadn't previously been aware of the swpat issue, but was very clear that, far from swpats being an important potential source of licensing income for the department, she would be much more concerned about any negative effects of swpats on free software -- because given the tightness of the department's budget, the more good free software they can use, the better. It would be useful to sound out such attitudes in Irish faculties of computer science, as well as the general "intelectual freedom" line. Senior university people tend to be very good at networking, and have very good connections at Government level. * Enterprise Ireland favourite IT companies. An interesting list from a recent Enterprise Ireland trade mission to Finland. http://www.entemp.ie/press03/051103.htm * British and Irish Licensing Executives Society http://www.bi.les-europe.org/ Presumably these people would like as wide a range of IP rights to be licensable as possible. No sniggering about the URL please :grin: The chair of their Irish section is: Yvonne McNamara, c/o McCann Fitzgerald, 2 Harbourmaster Place, Dublin 1 Tel: +353 1 829 0000 email: yvonne.mcnamara(a)mccann-fitzgerald.ie They also have Special Interest Groups which include: EC/Laws Nigel Jones, Linklaters & Alliance, 1 Silk Street, London EC2Y 8HQ email: njones(a)linklaters.com IT and E-Commerce industries Elliot Papageorgiou, C/o Rouse & Co International, The Isis Building, Thames Quay, 193 Marsh Wall, London E14 9SG Fax: 020 7345 4555 Email: epapageorgiou(a)iprights.com An old article from their newsletter (April 2001): "The Patentability of Software-related Business Methods - The Irish Perspective" http://www.bi.les-europe.org/news/78.htm#7 Two solicitors from Arthur Cox in Dublin don't really take a view on whether patentability is a good thing or not, but do encourage business to file and research as many patents as possible (ie put as much work as possible the firm's way ?!) ==================================================================== More detailed info about Prof. Robert Clark: "Robert Clark is Associate Professor of Law at the University College, Dublin, and a member of the Irish Bar. He is a specialist in Contract Law, Intellectual Property Law and Information Technology Law. Robert is a member of the Legal Advisory Board and the Market Copyright Experts group for the EU and a member of the Internet Advisory Board and the Patent Office Users Council in Ireland. His many publications include Data Protection Law in Ireland, which is currently being completely revised". (blurb from a conference on Data Protection Compliance held at the Conrad Hotel in Dublin, Nov. 11th 2003, organised by http://www.privacylaws.co.uk/) Elsewhere he is described as "an acknowledged expert in IT and intellectual property law and is a consultant with Arthur Cox Solicitors". "Professor Robert Clark, who works as a consultant to the firm and is the head lecturer in Intellectual Property in University College Dublin, augments the expertise of our lawyers. Professor Clark is a leading authority on Irish intellectual property law and is the author of various publications including Intellectual Property Law in Ireland (Butterworths, 1997) and Irish Copyright and Design Law (Butterworths, 2001)". http://www.arthurcox.com/practice/view_practice.asp?Id=5&subid=55 http://www.arthurcox.com/partners/profile.asp?Id=85 He appears to be particularly expert on copyright and data protection: http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/biogs/BClark.htm As a practicing barrister, he might be expected to take the "pro as many patents as possible line", but it seems he is at least sound on data retention: "Departmental officials who claim that phone companies have been keeping traffic data for 6 years are seriously misleading the Public. Traffic data has been kept for this time and used by the companies for legitimate purposes such as answering customer queries on old accounts and cancelled subscriber matters, their own direct marketing and interconnector payments, but most data was taken off the system after some months or anonymised. But until the April 2002 Order by then Minister O'Rourke - a secret, legally enforceable obligation on the Telcos - third party access was governed by data protection law and privacy rules. To say otherwise is to flag this vague proposal as being pro- privacy, which it is not. The simple fact is that the O'Rourke Order has no checks and balances in it so to the extent that any new Bill will contain improvements in the present situation I will personally welcome them. However, the signs are not good. The new law will give effect to the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention and this requires compliance if data recovery is technically feasible- and damn the expense to the service provider. There are a few platitudes to human rights laws being observed but the Convention is much less precise on these matters. Will the new Act have appeal mechanisms for both business and citizens? Will there be transparent and meaningful procedures involving judicial scrutiny of applications before orders are granted or the need to show probable cause? We have already seen this week that even where the technology works people will foul up; just ask poor 72 year old Mr.Bond who was entertained for 17 days in a south African police cell when the FBI sought to extradite the wrong man. Professor Robert Clark, Faculty of Law, UCD" (Letter to the Irish Times, March 2003, quoted at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103966/2003/03/03.html)

2 5

Re: [Fsfe-ie] Swpat: possible players
by Seth Johnson 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

Actually, organizing is chiefly preaching to the converted: it's a matter of finding those who are looking for what you're saying. Seth -----Original Message----- From: Ian Clarke <ian(a)locut.us> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 23:57:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [Fsfe-ie] Swpat: possible players > James Heald wrote: > > > I've been looking through websites, trying to identify more > potential > > players. > > > > One thing which is very important to think about is that any > contacts > > with the powers-that-be will be have far more impact if they can be > > firmly established as a joint Free Software/SME initiative, rather > than > > just "free-love, open-standard, freeware fanatics" as one UK > lawyer > > tried to marginalise Open Sourcers. > > Absolutely, one of the greatest dangers of highlighting the threat > software patents are to free software is that it obscures the fact > that > they are just as great a threat to more conventional revenue > generating, > voter employing commercial software companies. > > Framing the argument in ethical terms is only valuable when preaching > to > the converted, although I suspect I am preaching to the converted in > pointing that out :-) > > Ian. > _______________________________________________ > Fsfe-ie mailing list > Fsfe-ie(a)fsfeurope.org > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie

1 0

Re: [Fsfe-ie] Swpat: possible players
by Seth Johnson 02 Dec '03

02 Dec '03

It might be interesting to go into whatever the analogue is in Europe for "Technology Transfer Officers" groups, and put across the line and see if anybody bites. TTOs are the people established in the States by Bayh-Dole, the Act that allowed publicly funded research institutions to privatize software research by patenting it. It's the thing that bought out the educational institutions, who would otherwise have been our natural allies. Expect complete negativity, but one good gem among them could do wonders. I recently poked my head up on a TTO list and the response I got was "you may be right with respect to your concerns about software, but pharmaceutical stuff is a different matter." I'm actually wondering whether there might now be a good component of TTOs who actually might speak up on our side. Seth -----Original Message----- From: James Heald <j.heald(a)ucl.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:46:01 +0000 Subject: [Fsfe-ie] Swpat: possible players > I've been looking through websites, trying to identify more potential > players. > > One thing which is very important to think about is that any contacts > with the powers-that-be will be have far more impact if they can be > firmly established as a joint Free Software/SME initiative, rather > than > just "free-love, open-standard, freeware fanatics" as one UK lawyer > tried to marginalise Open Sourcers. > > So it is a priority to find a credible, representative voice of SME > IT > companies to run our campaign in harness with side-by-side. > > > Below are a few links found on the web, just the first tip of the > iceberg, trying to build up a list of possible players. We need to > work > out who's likely to be friendly, and who may be less so: > > * Prof Robert Clark, UCD. > * UCD's "Nova" incubator for technology companies > * Departments of Computer Science > * Enterprise Ireland favourite IT companies. > * British and Irish Licensing Executives Society > > ============================================================= > > * Prof Robert Clark, UCD. > > -- head lecturer in Intellectual Property in University College > Dublin > -- member of the Internet Advisory Board and the Patent Office Users > Council in Ireland. > > more details at the end of the email > > > * UCD's "Nova" incubator for technology companies > http://www.ucd.ie/news/oct03/novaucd.htm > > Probably this doesn't have any very close links to Prof Clark, but > the > people running it might have some influence on the importance (or > not) > of software patents as IT start-ups. > > At any rate, it might be interesting to try to get them to think a > little more deeply about the business issue, to stop them jumping > automatically to an "all IP is good IP" standpoint. > > > * Departments of Computer Science > > I was recently talking somebody who's a local councillor here in the > UK, > who's a university lecturer in a nearby Department of Computer > Science. > > She hadn't previously been aware of the swpat issue, but was very > clear > that, far from swpats being an important potential source of > licensing > income for the department, she would be much more concerned about any > negative effects of swpats on free software -- because given the > tightness of the department's budget, the more good free software > they > can use, the better. > > It would be useful to sound out such attitudes in Irish faculties of > computer science, as well as the general "intelectual freedom" line. > Senior university people tend to be very good at networking, and have > very good connections at Government level. > > > * Enterprise Ireland favourite IT companies. > > An interesting list from a recent Enterprise Ireland trade mission to > Finland. > > http://www.entemp.ie/press03/051103.htm > > > > * British and Irish Licensing Executives Society > > http://www.bi.les-europe.org/ > > Presumably these people would like as wide a range of IP rights to be > licensable as possible. No sniggering about the URL please :grin: > > > The chair of their Irish section is: > > Yvonne McNamara, > c/o McCann Fitzgerald, > 2 Harbourmaster Place, > Dublin 1 > Tel: +353 1 829 0000 > email: yvonne.mcnamara(a)mccann-fitzgerald.ie > > They also have Special Interest Groups which include: > > EC/Laws > Nigel Jones, > Linklaters & Alliance, > 1 Silk Street, > London EC2Y 8HQ > email: njones(a)linklaters.com > > IT and E-Commerce industries > Elliot Papageorgiou, C/o Rouse & Co International, > The Isis Building, Thames Quay, > 193 Marsh Wall, > London E14 9SG > Fax: 020 7345 4555 > Email: epapageorgiou(a)iprights.com > > > > An old article from their newsletter (April 2001): > "The Patentability of Software-related Business Methods - The Irish > Perspective" > http://www.bi.les-europe.org/news/78.htm#7 > > Two solicitors from Arthur Cox in Dublin don't really take a view on > whether patentability is a good thing or not, but do encourage > business > to file and research as many patents as possible (ie put as much work > as > possible the firm's way ?!) > > > ==================================================================== > > More detailed info about Prof. Robert Clark: > > > "Robert Clark is Associate Professor of Law at the University > College, > Dublin, and a member of the Irish Bar. He is a specialist in Contract > Law, Intellectual Property Law and Information Technology Law. Robert > is > a member of the Legal Advisory Board and the Market Copyright Experts > group for the EU and a member of the Internet Advisory Board and the > Patent Office Users Council in Ireland. His many publications include > Data Protection Law in Ireland, which is currently being completely > revised". > > (blurb from a conference on Data Protection Compliance held at the > Conrad Hotel in Dublin, Nov. 11th 2003, organised by > http://www.privacylaws.co.uk/) > > Elsewhere he is described as "an acknowledged expert in IT and > intellectual property law and is a consultant with Arthur Cox > Solicitors". > > "Professor Robert Clark, who works as a consultant to the firm and is > the head lecturer in Intellectual Property in University College > Dublin, > augments the expertise of our lawyers. Professor Clark is a leading > authority on Irish intellectual property law and is the author of > various publications including Intellectual Property Law in Ireland > (Butterworths, 1997) and Irish Copyright and Design Law > (Butterworths, > 2001)". > http://www.arthurcox.com/practice/view_practice.asp?Id=5&subid=55 > http://www.arthurcox.com/partners/profile.asp?Id=85 > > He appears to be particularly expert on copyright and data > protection: > http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/biogs/BClark.htm > > > As a practicing barrister, he might be expected to take the "pro as > many > patents as possible line", but it seems he is at least sound on data > retention: > > "Departmental officials who claim that phone companies have been > keeping traffic data for 6 years are seriously misleading the Public. > Traffic data has been kept for this time and used by the companies > for > legitimate purposes such as answering customer queries on old > accounts > and cancelled subscriber matters, their own direct marketing and > interconnector payments, but most data was taken off the system after > some months or anonymised. But until the April 2002 Order by then > Minister O'Rourke - a secret, legally enforceable obligation on the > Telcos - third party access was governed by data protection law and > privacy rules. To say otherwise is to flag this vague proposal as > being > pro- privacy, which it is not. The simple fact is that the O'Rourke > Order has no checks and balances in it so to the extent that any new > Bill will contain improvements in the present situation I will > personally welcome them. > > However, the signs are not good. The new law will give effect to > the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention and this requires > compliance > if data recovery is technically feasible- and damn the expense to the > service provider. There are a few platitudes to human rights laws > being > observed but the Convention is much less precise on these matters. > Will > the new Act have appeal mechanisms for both business and citizens? > Will > there be transparent and meaningful procedures involving judicial > scrutiny of applications before orders are granted or the need to > show > probable cause? We have already seen this week that even where the > technology works people will foul up; just ask poor 72 year old > Mr.Bond > who was entertained for 17 days in a south African police cell when > the > FBI sought to extradite the wrong man. > > Professor Robert Clark, Faculty of Law, UCD" > > (Letter to the Irish Times, March 2003, quoted at > http://radio.weblogs.com/0103966/2003/03/03.html) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fsfe-ie mailing list > Fsfe-ie(a)fsfeurope.org > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie

1 0

A fresh and accessable source for information on swpats in EU
by Ian Clarke 01 Dec '03

01 Dec '03

Sorry if I am treading on any toes here, but does anyone else feel that websites currently providing information on swpats in the EU are not as accessable as they could be? For example, http://swpat.ffii.org/ smacks of someone being a tad over-enthusiastic when it comes to what can be achieved with <div> tags and the "background-color" CSS attribute. The result is a website that is rather off-putting IMHO. I would be willing to provide hosting on one of my (well connected and well adminstered) servers for a cleaner site, possibly based on some kind of user-editable CMS (<plug>such as http://quickcms.sf.net/</plug>). It could include facilities such as a bug-tracker-style database for keeping track of efforts to persuade politicians and such-like. Since I have root on the server I can install whatever is needed (within reason). Since I have a billion projects going on, someone else will need to undertake the grunt-work, but I could take care of everything up to having a domain pointed at an instance of QuickCMS, others could take it from there (adminstered via a user login on a debian box). Any takers? Ian.

6 7

Notes from last Thursday
by Glenn Strong 01 Dec '03

01 Dec '03

Hi everyone, not minutes of an "official" meeting, whatever that might mean right now. Just my sketchy notes of what Myself, Ciaran, Malcolm and Mel discussed when we met in Benshaws for a few pints last week: * We should press on with IFSO using a committee off 4 for now. It doesn't seem like we're getting more volunteers in the short term. * We mentioned that it would be useful to talk to a lawyer or solicitor who had some understanding of/interest in Free Software. Ciaran thought he might know of somebody. * What is represented at http://www.wsis-pct.org ? It looks interesting (link via Ciaran, again). * We should move forward with the IFSO web site ASAP. * Related - does anybody have any talent/know anybody with any talent who could do a logo? Malcolm suggested a GNU playing a harp (which I must say I like, personally). * The next official meeting will be on December 11th, and if we have not signed the paperwork for IFSO by then we will do it at that meeting. * The key active issues at the moment are Euro-swpatents and the Irish EUCD implementation. We should also be considering some work on Free Software advocacy (as well as defence) - for instance, trying to promote the use of Free Software in charities. There was a sense that IFSO should be working on that as well as the political advocacy. Anybody want to add or correct anything? -- Glenn Strong

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

FSFE-IE December 2003