-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 13 Sep 2003 at 10:07, Malcolm Tyrrell wrote:
I received a letter from Pat Cox MEP who seems pro-directive in the sense that he believes (or has been told) that it will reduce ambiguity in the current law and increase harmonization.
Yes. I have sent many letters to Pat Cox and he won't be swayed. Quite frankly, he seems to be too busy being parliament head or whatever to bother though I'd guess it's more his assistants who are at fault.
Met with Brian Crowley today and he gave me an interesting document from the "IP Awareness Group" who turn out to be the enemy.
Depressing.
Well no - it also shows we're having an effect. The fact of course this pamphlet is written the way it is to make it sound like a group of informal groups protesting like we are is to use division psychology where the MEP's are supposed to think the citizens are split on the matter so therefore should ignore all the nay-sayers and go with the flow (which is to pass the directive).
Politics is a dirty dirty business. I briefly contemplated a career in it, then saw the low-life scum who are common in it and found I just couldn't stick it. More power to those good-souled types who can, because I couldn't.
I know it's getting really boring now but perhaps one more letter to the MEPs would be worthwhile. We really need to respond to the issues McCarthy raises.
I should add that the last letter FSF-IE sent was very effective. - From ringing up MEP's they've said "Oh, I remember seeing your name on a letter". I'm slightly annoyed that they seem to have completed missed the letter *I* sent them, but then I suppose it was probably too radical for them to understand as is usual.
Either way, another letter would be worth doing. Don't repeat the last one - argue it from other angles.
Some points to make this time:
- Everyone (including McCarthy) claims they don't want "pure" software to become patentable.
If she really wanted what she says she wants, she'd be happy with the FFII amendments.
- The weaknesses and ambuities in the directive will lead to the
patenting of "pure" software
- the FFII have plenty of examples
- what about the examples that have been provided by the pro- lobby
as things that will not be patentable? Is there really any part of the directive that excludes them?
The pro-patent lobby either understand English different than we do, or they're liers. I find it interesting that some patent specialising legal firms are already advertising services for patenting software because they expect this directive to pass nearly unmodified.
- European software "innovators" will not be at a disadvantage if software is unpatentable:
software in Europe either
- American and Japanese companies will not be able to patent
- European companies can still patent software in America & Japan (indeed, they will have to for defensive reasons).
- All software developed in Europe will benefit from fewer legal issues and that software will mostly be developed by European developers.
Unfortunately, the EU more than anyone does not understand the concept of less laws being a good idea. I would try if possible for needed amendments.
- European software "innovators" will be at a disadvantage if software becomes patentable:
- patenting software works against competition and can prevent interoperability.
DOES prevent interoperability. Like the EU Copyright Directive which removed the right to reverse engineer anything with a "protection mechanism". Or placed a three year prison stretch for telling anyone how to circumvent a protection mechanism ie; you find shoddy security, you go to prison. Shoddy security stays.
I should add that this pamphlet in particular singles out amendments to article 6 (amendment 20) as being "dangerous" because they seek to prevent patent enforcement on areas of interoperability. Failure to apply this amendment means Microsoft patent all areas Linux is likely to go in cloning Windows and sue anyone it likes when Linux does go there as it will.
it favours existing monopoly holders and existing large companies.
as few European companies currently hold these monopolies, it will
be to their disadvantage
Any opinions? I just threw this list together.
Also mention that 90% of Europe's wealth is generated by SME's according to the EU itself. Hurt the SME's, hurt Europe.
Cheers, Niall - -- PGP secure address: securened@nedprod.com, PGP key id: 0xC518A6CF