Met with Brian Crowley today and he gave me an interesting document from the "IP Awareness Group" who turn out to be the enemy.
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/ukrep0309/index.en.html
The majority of British government MEP's and the British government are so obviously in the pocket of big business it's disgusting :(
Cheers, Niall
Hi.
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.
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.
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.
Some points to make this time: * Everyone (including McCarthy) claims they don't want "pure" software to become patentable. * 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? * European software "innovators" will not be at a disadvantage if software is unpatentable: - American and Japanese companies will not be able to patent software in Europe either - 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. * European software "innovators" will be at a disadvantage if software becomes patentable: - patenting software works against competition and can prevent interoperability. - 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.
Malcolm.
-----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
How exactly are we responding to the McCarthy FUD about the anti-patents movement? I know that ffii has put together a rebuttal - but is that being exposed to the right audience?
I am surprised that nobody has put together a spreadsheet of MEPs together with their positions, and likelihood that their positions might be swayed.
I hope I am wrong - but from my distant vantage point over here in California - it seems like momentum has dissipated somewhat since the protests.
What remains to be done? Who still needs to be persuaded? What must they be persuaded of? Who is coordinating this effort?
Ian.
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 02:57:30PM +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
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
Fsfe-ie mailing list Fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
I am surprised that nobody has put together a spreadsheet of MEPs together with their positions, and likelihood that their positions might be swayed.
That would be very useful Ian, please send it on.
adam
<?php $s=array(74,65,112,104,112,72,32,59,45,41); for($i=0;$i<count($s);$i++){echo'&#'.$s[$i].';';} ?>
Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the available information. I am swapping continents in two weeks.
Ian.
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 07:19:51PM +0100, adam beecher wrote:
I am surprised that nobody has put together a spreadsheet of MEPs together with their positions, and likelihood that their positions might be swayed.
That would be very useful Ian, please send it on.
adam
<?php $s=array(74,65,112,104,112,72,32,59,45,41); for($i=0;$i<count($s);$i++){echo'&#'.$s[$i].';';} ?>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 13 Sep 2003 at 11:02, Ian Clarke wrote:
How exactly are we responding to the McCarthy FUD about the anti-patents movement? I know that ffii has put together a rebuttal - but is that being exposed to the right audience?
The Irish MEP's I'm told have excellent FUD filters because of usually weekly meetings with their constituents. What I can say is that their response to our campaign on this directive has been far more constructive than the similar response in the UK.
I am surprised that nobody has put together a spreadsheet of MEPs together with their positions, and likelihood that their positions might be swayed.
My understanding is that 13 of 15 are anti-patent. But the "common position" directive is preferred over the JURI one and I'm not sure that's warranted. I've asked Helmut Pilch for a copy of this original original directive, but so far he's not replied. Also, don't publish such a list in public, PGP it or something.
I hope I am wrong - but from my distant vantage point over here in California - it seems like momentum has dissipated somewhat since the protests.
Actually we have reached a level of coordination, activity and cohesiveness unparalleled before. This last two months has been amazing - we actually are having an effect. I think this is in no small part down to (a) the campaign money pledged by certain benefactors like George Soros and (b) we're sounding with one voice, plus instead of talking we're now lobbying.
What remains to be done? Who still needs to be persuaded? What must they be persuaded of? Who is coordinating this effort?
In Ireland I think we've done brilliantly given all factors concerned. The UK has been much harder, most especially because British MEP's are from this experience anyway completely devoid of capacity for independent thought. They just vote and believe as party central tells them to :(
This does not mean the battle is over. New letter someone? I can't write it because no one ever understands me :)
Cheers, Niall
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 09:46:39PM +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
What remains to be done? Who still needs to be persuaded? What must they be persuaded of? Who is coordinating this effort?
In Ireland I think we've done brilliantly given all factors concerned. The UK has been much harder, most especially because British MEP's are from this experience anyway completely devoid of capacity for independent thought. They just vote and believe as party central tells them to :(
As someone that has participated in British politics, one of my first observations was that most people vote on the basis of party rather than the individual - and I suspect that this is especially true for MEPs. This means that most British MEPs care much more about pleasing their party leadership than pleasing those that voted for them.
What can be done about this? Not much unless the opinion of the leadership of the UK political parties can be changed. This is probably a waste of energy given our short time-frame.
This does not mean the battle is over. New letter someone? I can't write it because no one ever understands me :)
I could write a letter if someone could outline what needs to be said (presumably this would need to be more tailored than a general anti-SWPat rant). Note, however, that I am shortly moving from the US to the UK so my time is very limited.
Ian.
Hi, I've just returned from the moon[0] so I'm catching up with threads quickly so some stuff I say could be out of date.
[0] no internet up there, just ether
A letter: I think another letter would be a great idea. We need to counter the claim that this directive will not create "pure software" patents. Other FUD such as "TRIPS requires swpats" also needs addressing. I jotted down some notes while I was away, I'll gather them and post them here on Monday.
Who should we target? Obviously it's useful to target the pro-directive people but anti-swpat MEPs also need our help. For example, Avril Doyle is definitly anti-swpat but she still thought that the TRIPS agreement required us to allow swpats. I mailed her the relevent TRIPS text but we don't know how many other MEPs that are "on our side" share this misbelief. We have to provide solid info to all MEPs.
Is there a "Pro Vs. Anti" MEP table somewhere? No. FFII have a lot of this info but for tactical reasons they haven't publicised it anywhere. Most Irish MEPs have responded to various people but we were not organised during the initial lobbying rounds so Irish "Pro Vs. Anti" is not collected anywhere. I'd like to see a table drawn up. I believe Niall Douglas and Malcolm Tyrrell have gotten the most correspondence. Can someone offer to coordinate the coordination of this data?
Well done, IE Vs. UK: I think we've had a slightly easier time than other countries due to the lower levels of corporate interests over here but we've been doing great work. To be effective, we must include the UK MEPs in our larger efforts. It's possible that some UK MEPs are under the influence of USA Megacorps but we can't know or change that, so we just have to ignore it.
MEPs voting with their party: One Irish MEPs seems to use the "convince my party" line quite frequently but is actually on our side. It's a "go away" line. I think it is used as a response to ranty or bad emails (they're overloaded, they have to filter out the noise). Some MEPs won't care about this issue, but doing nothing won't change their minds, so we just have to continue convincing them that we are informed, concerned, and that this issue is really important. MEP X may not care, but if we can get the majority of her party to care, there will be pressure on her to care.
What to do: The beef. I want to work on another joint letter. The focus being on the text of the directive. *Exactly* what we don't like and *exactly* what would make us happy. We have to counter the FUD flying around the EP.
I have to get up to speed on what has happened in the last two weeks but I should have a very drafty draft ready for mid week.
Any thoughts? let me know, or wait for the draft and comment on that.
ciaran.
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 08:11:45PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 09:46:39PM +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
What remains to be done? Who still needs to be persuaded? What must they be persuaded of? Who is coordinating this effort?
In Ireland I think we've done brilliantly given all factors concerned. The UK has been much harder, most especially because British MEP's are from this experience anyway completely devoid of capacity for independent thought. They just vote and believe as party central tells them to :(
As someone that has participated in British politics, one of my first observations was that most people vote on the basis of party rather than the individual - and I suspect that this is especially true for MEPs. This means that most British MEPs care much more about pleasing their party leadership than pleasing those that voted for them.
What can be done about this? Not much unless the opinion of the leadership of the UK political parties can be changed. This is probably a waste of energy given our short time-frame.
This does not mean the battle is over. New letter someone? I can't write it because no one ever understands me :)
I could write a letter if someone could outline what needs to be said (presumably this would need to be more tailored than a general anti-SWPat rant). Note, however, that I am shortly moving from the US to the UK so my time is very limited.
Ian.
-- Ian Clarke ian@locut.us Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Weblog http://slashdot.org/~sanity/journal _______________________________________________ Fsfe-ie mailing list Fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 19 Sep 2003 at 14:41, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Firstly, agreed on all the previous points.
Is there a "Pro Vs. Anti" MEP table somewhere? No. FFII have a lot of this info but for tactical reasons they haven't publicised it anywhere. Most Irish MEPs have responded to various people but we were not organised during the initial lobbying rounds so Irish "Pro Vs. Anti" is not collected anywhere. I'd like to see a table drawn up. I believe Niall Douglas and Malcolm Tyrrell have gotten the most correspondence. Can someone offer to coordinate the coordination of this data?
Alex Macfie from FFII has collated this information AFAIK.
The beef. I want to work on another joint letter. The focus being on the text of the directive. *Exactly* what we don't like and *exactly* what would make us happy. We have to counter the FUD flying around the EP.
Seeing as I seem to be too radical in my arguments for anyone to understand me, I'd like to offer more help this time. Though you must not let me have too much of my way, because then no one would understand the letter again! :)
Can I just add that MEP Brian Crowley said that your letter had had an enormous effect right across the parties (he specifically singled it out). He suggested another one would be a good idea.
Cheers, Niall
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 07:55:46PM +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 19 Sep 2003 at 14:41, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Is there a "Pro Vs. Anti" MEP table somewhere?
[snip]
Alex Macfie from FFII has collated this information AFAIK.
From previous conversations, I got the feeling that they have
a lot of info but they haven't gotten it organised yet. IIRC, he asked if I had such a table, and could I pass it on.
FFII keep a lot of info secret. This can be understandable, I'm not sure if I agree with it, but again this isn't something we can change. I'll see what info he can give me.
(I mentioned that Malcolm Tyrrell was the other person with the most responses. I think he's away at the moment and won't be back until after Sept 27th)
The beef. I want to work on another joint letter. The focus being on the text of the directive. *Exactly* what we don't like and *exactly* what would make us happy. We have to counter the FUD flying around the EP.
Seeing as I seem to be too radical in my arguments for anyone to understand me, I'd like to offer more help this time. Though you must not let me have too much of my way, because then no one would understand the letter again! :)
I'll get that draft up asap for comment.
Can I just add that MEP Brian Crowley said that your letter had had an enormous effect right across the parties (he specifically singled it out).
Kick ass. This highlights a mistake I made though. Since the letter was due to arrive the day before the Sept 1st vote, I thought there wasn't much point including contact info, so we never got feedback about it.
With our next letter, it would be good to include a note to say that we are the originators of the previous letter.
ciaran.