This has to be sent tomorrow if it's to have any effect. Preferably in the morning. I should be online again later tonight to update it. I can't get hold of Crowley's office, so it'll have to go direct to McCreevy. I should be sent "as IFSO".
As said last time, he doesn't have to debate his decision, he just has to justify it, so he needs bullet points, not a long list with rebuttals.
========8<------------------------------------
Dear Commissioner McCreevy,
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, 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 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 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]
= The US Federal Trade Commission's 2003 "Report on Innovation" said that "software and internet patents" were obstructing innovation.
========8<------------------------------------
Have to rush off, will be back tonight, in particular I have to revisit Ian's mail and update accordingly.
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.
On 15 Feb 2005, at 16:18, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Dear Commissioner McCreevy,
Irish Free Software Organisation would like to briefly explain why the
^- *The* Irish Free...
"software patents directive" should be brought back a step to be fixed.
In the interests of plain language, perhaps s/brought back a step to be fixed/restarted
= 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, 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.
Last sentence is a bit unclear, case law *is* the law, so how could it *define* the law?
How about ", would impose the most liberal interpretation of what can be patented on the EU, effectively legitimising software patents".
- 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 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
"75% majorities" -> "a 75% majority"
"fixed this directive" -> "voted to correct these problems"
by a 17 or 19 majority. Since >>>these are the only groups made of democratically elected representatives<<<, it would be a regrettable example
the MEPs in the European Parliament and JURI committee are the only directly elected representatives involved in this process
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'm not sure, could make us seem more emotional than rational... if we do use it lets ensure that we stick only to hard facts, rather than rumour...
= The US Federal Trade Commission's 2003 "Report on Innovation" said that "software and internet patents" were obstructing innovation.
This supports the assertion that software patents are bad, but we must be careful not to neglect the other fundamental assertion that the current Council text will lead to software patents.
Hope that helps,
Ian.
-- Founder, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ CEO, Cematics Ltd http://cematics.com/ Personal Blog http://locut.us/~ian/blog/
Couple of missing apostrophes ("the Council's text", "the litigator's claim"). Some paragraphs argue against software patents in general, and some argue for the restart. Should they be ordered so that each group is together? Maybe restart first, then supporting points for the argument against allowing swpat?
(Was there a difference between paragraphs with = bullets and with * bullets?)
Including changes others on the list have made, that would leave us with something like the text below.
As usual, feel free to take any or none of these changes into your final version.
Ben.
(I fixed the JURI-restart voting figures, taking the new numbers from
http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+PRESS+NR-20050203...
which states:
The decision, taken by 19 votes in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention, [...]
)
- - - - 8< - - - -
Dear Commissioner McCreevy,
The Irish Free Software Organisation would like to briefly explain why the "software patents directive" should be restarted:
* 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 with this. The Council's text, though, which relies on undefined terms such as "technical effect" and "industrial application", would impose the most liberal interpretation of what can be patented on the EU, effectively legitimising software patents.
* The parliament voted to correct these problems by a 75% majority; JURI voted 19-to-1 for a restart. Since the MEPs in the European Parliament and JURI committee are the only directly elected representatives involved in this process, it would be a regrettable example of the EU's "democratic deficit" if they were to be ignored.
and why patents on software ideas would be harmful for Europe:
* The US Federal Trade Commission's 2003 "Report on Innovation" said that "software and internet patents" were obstructing innovation.
* 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.
* The costs of patent searches and the possible cost of litigation, whether the litigator's claim is valid or not, are too high for any individual and most businesses. For those writing software, the introduction of patents would not just raise the barrier to entry, it would create a barrier where previously there was none.
Ben North ben@redfrontdoor.org writes:
Including changes others on the list have made, that would leave us with something like the text below.
Thanks to everyone for the timely and good improvements.
I would have liked to add more details of how the Council's text would have permitted patents on software ideas and I would have liked to make it more clear why patents are specifically bad for software, rather than just bad in general, but I just wouldn't've had time to write/confirm/correct it.
And the reason for leaving the "Every patent is a regulation on software writers ... swpats harm Lisbon strategy" at the top is that implementing the Lisbon strategy is McCreevy's duty, and cutting down on regulation/bureaucracy is his stated aim. So that paragraph should show him the importance of reading the other points.
I forgot to add a finishing line "thanks, contact us at X, etc", but Malcolm probably added something to that effect before faxing.
I've incorporated almost all suggestions.
Can someone offer to make this into a faxable document and then fax it?
Preferably right now?
McCreevy's fax is: [can anyone see a fax no for him?] If no fax, I'll email it to him in 30 mins or so.
(any final suggestions should be made equally quickly)
=========8<-------------------------------- Dear Commissioner McCreevy,
Irish Free Software Organisation would like to very briefly justify our request that the "software patents directive" should be restarted.
* 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" IFSO agrees with this. However, the Council's text, which relies on undefined terms such as "technical contribution", and "industrial", and "technical field", could only yield an outcome that would require case law to define the the scope of patentability.
* The amendments adopted by the parliament to fix these problems were backed by a 75% majority. JURI voted 19-to-1 to call for a restart. Since the MEPs in the European Parliament and the JURI committee are the only directly elected representatives involved in this process, it would be a regrettable example of the EU's "democratic deficit" if they were ignored.
* The costs of patent searches and the possible cost of litigation, whether the litigator's claim is valid or not, are too high for any individuals and most businesses. For writing software, the introduction of patents on software ideas would not just raise the barrier to entry, it would create a barrier where previously there was none.
* The US Federal Trade Commission's 2003 "Report on Innovation", which was a general review of the USA's patent system, said that "software and internet patents" were obstructing innovation and causing "patent thickets" for software writers. The report gave no redeeming qualities for such patents. =========8<--------------------------------