On , February 15, 2005 at 16:18 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Good stuff Ciaran. We'll be meeting tonight - I'll bring along a printout of this so we can try to amend it again.
Irish Free Software Organisation would like to briefly explain why the "software patents directive" should be brought back a step to be fixed.
= Every patent is a regulation on software writers. The added bureacracy of obtaining permission to use a software idea, and the added legal costs of patent searches and litigation would greatly harm the Lisbon strategy's aim to increase the competitiveness of the EU.
- On Feb 2nd, you said "Having no directive means continuing to rely on case law, which leads to considerable legal uncertainty which is why we must strive to find a balanced solution." IFSO agrees, but the Councils text,
I think you could drop the word "but" in that sentence: IFSO agrees with this. The Councils text, which relies...
which relies on undefined terms such as "technical effect" and "industrial application", could only yield an outcome that would require case law and legal precedents to define the law.
- The costs of patent searches and the possible cost of litigation, whether the litigators claim is valid or not, are too high for all individuals and most businesses. In software writing, the introduction of patents would
How about ...most business. The introduction of patents on software ideas would not just...
Also: this point is just an "anti swpat" point as it stands. Need to add a sentence indicating that this problem would be a direct consequence of the present wording.
not just raise the barrier to entry, it would create a barrier where previously there was none.
- The parliament fixed this directive by 75% majorities, JURI want it fixed by a 17 or 19 majority. Since these are the only groups made of
17 or 19 - which? If we can't find the figure how about "almost unanimously"?
democratically elected representatives, it would be a regrettable example of the EU's "democratic deficit" if they were to be ignored.
- The recent news that Bill Gates threatened the Danish Prime Minister with the loss of 800 jobs if this directive was not passed is [what? Should this point even be here]
I think drop this - it doesn't strengthen the case for a restart.
= The US Federal Trade Commission's 2003 "Report on Innovation" said that "software and internet patents" were obstructing innovation.