(got a FAX machine? see end.)
I'm still trying to get up to date with the patent situation.
Is this vote happending on the 24th? If so, we need to tell our MEPs how to vote today.
ffii.org.uk says that the plenary discussion is on the 23rd and the vote is planned for the 24th. I can't find anything which contradicts these dates. (please let me know if I've missed something). If this is correct, we don't have time for a letter. I've mailed Alex Macfie but he's probably real busy.
Here's the current list of amendments: http://www.europarl.eu.int/direct/application/fr/vote/contentAmend.asp?num=A... (Warning: they are in OpenOffice.org's "Microsoft Word" format)
(note: amendments 001-028, 068, 074-075, and 081 are not available in english. Anyone out there fluent in another EU language?)
My quick review of the amendments: (+=good, ++=brilliant, 0=not great, -=lethal, ?=I don't understand) 29-35 + 36 ? 37-39 ++ (38 is of questionable practicality. These three define "technology", "industry", and "invention" respectively) 40-41 + 42 ? 43-45 ++ (43 & 44 are duplicates of 39 & 38) 46 + (duplicate of some previous amendment) 47-49 0 (possibly written with good intentions, it's wording opens loopholes) 50 + (the "interoperability" patent excpetion clause.) 51 0 52 ? (amends the proposal to reject itself?!?) 54r1 ? (amends the proposal to reject itself?!?) 55 ++ (defining "technical field") 56-58 + 59 + 60 0 61 + (!acknowleging the social value of free software!) 62 ++ (!patent *exemption* for Free Software! weird. ++ or +, not sure) 69 ++ 70 ? 71 - (aims to lower patent costs for SMEs. We'd rather reject patentabiltiy) 72-73 + 76 + (another interoperabiltiy clause. good, but we should aim higher) 82-85 + 86 ? 87 ++ ("Exclusions from patentability") 88 ? 89 ? (probably ok, definitely not great. Not enough context, no justification) 90 0 91 - (tries to sound pro-SME, but it's more pro-swpat) 92 - (not much context given. The author doesn't seem to understand TRIPS) 93 - (lacking purpose. MEP annoyingly doesn't give justification) 94 - (lacking purpose. Fluff. same MEP as 92 & 93) 95 ++ (doesn't alter the directive, but it calls for a review of EPO practices) 96 + (or maybe 0. This amendment changes very little) 97 ++ (defines "technical field", and "technical", excludes date processing) 98 + 99 ? 100 - (claiming to be pro-SME, it simply extends the power of patentability) 101-102 + (I'm not 100% certain but I think these are good for us) 103 ++ (seems dodgy, kinda overly broad, but it's in our favour) 104 ++ (or maybe 0. requires unrestricted source code to accompany patents) 105 + (another interoperability clause. okay but we should aim higher) 106 + (7 year term for "computer-implemented inventions")
These numbers are all prefixed with "A5-0238/" to form their full name.
My hope is to make a voting list with a short cover note and send it to as many of the UK & Ireland MEPs as possible.
Fax and email are our only options. I have no Fax access. This list/note won't be ready until teatime today (Monday), so I'm looking for someone that can send a 1 page FAX to loads of Strasbourg numbers, sometime after 1800h. Any takers?
Any comments on my amendments review?
Ciaran.
weird.
While I was reading all those amendments and drafting my comments, FFII published their amendment comments: http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/plen0309/
Weirder still is that they used an almost identical ranking system (+++ ++ + o - -- ---). I'll concede that FFII have more authority on this matter and will generaly side with them on the amendments where we differ. Also, their comments include some of the non-english amendments.
Importantly, they comment that "real tabled amendment numbers will likely be different". So we have to tell the MEPs what amendments we want by giving them the text rather than just the number. (silly system.)
My take is that the most important amendments are:
Art 2(b): defining "technical contribution" (amd 107 very good, 69 good)
Recital 11: software is not a "field of technology" (amd 33)
Article 3 (a) (new): excluding data processing (amd 45)
Article 2 (ba) (new): defining "technical field" (amd 37, 97, 55, 108)
Article 2 (bb) (new): defining "invention" (amd 39, 43)
Article 2 (bc) (new): defining "industry" (amd 38, 118, 44)
Article 4.4 (d) (new): currnt swpats no enforcable (amd 46, 83)
Nice extras: Article 6 (a): interoperability (FFII have this as +++) (amd 50)
Article 5 (a) (new): Free Software always exempt (amd 62)
Proposal title: add words "limits of" (amd 29, 59, 41)
anyway, I'll get working on that email/fax. ciaran.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 04:30:06AM +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: [...]
My quick review of the amendments: (+=good, ++=brilliant, 0=not great, -=lethal, ?=I don't understand) 29-35 + 36 ? 37-39 ++ (38 is of questionable practicality. These three define "technology", "industry", and "invention" respectively) 40-41 + 42 ? 43-45 ++ (43 & 44 are duplicates of 39 & 38) 46 + (duplicate of some previous amendment) 47-49 0 (possibly written with good intentions, it's wording opens loopholes) 50 + (the "interoperability" patent excpetion clause.) 51 0 52 ? (amends the proposal to reject itself?!?) 54r1 ? (amends the proposal to reject itself?!?) 55 ++ (defining "technical field") 56-58 + 59 + 60 0 61 + (!acknowleging the social value of free software!) 62 ++ (!patent *exemption* for Free Software! weird. ++ or +, not sure) 69 ++ 70 ? 71 - (aims to lower patent costs for SMEs. We'd rather reject patentabiltiy) 72-73 + 76 + (another interoperabiltiy clause. good, but we should aim higher) 82-85 + 86 ? 87 ++ ("Exclusions from patentability") 88 ? 89 ? (probably ok, definitely not great. Not enough context, no justification) 90 0 91 - (tries to sound pro-SME, but it's more pro-swpat) 92 - (not much context given. The author doesn't seem to understand TRIPS) 93 - (lacking purpose. MEP annoyingly doesn't give justification) 94 - (lacking purpose. Fluff. same MEP as 92 & 93) 95 ++ (doesn't alter the directive, but it calls for a review of EPO practices) 96 + (or maybe 0. This amendment changes very little) 97 ++ (defines "technical field", and "technical", excludes date processing) 98 + 99 ? 100 - (claiming to be pro-SME, it simply extends the power of patentability) 101-102 + (I'm not 100% certain but I think these are good for us) 103 ++ (seems dodgy, kinda overly broad, but it's in our favour) 104 ++ (or maybe 0. requires unrestricted source code to accompany patents) 105 + (another interoperability clause. okay but we should aim higher) 106 + (7 year term for "computer-implemented inventions")
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Article 6 (a): interoperability (FFII have this as +++) (amd 50)
Article 5 (a) (new): Free Software always exempt (amd 62)
Maybe it would be easier for us to just push these two. If Free Software is exempt from patenting and litigation (I'm assumung thats what the ammendment means) then we're on a home run. - -- Thank you, Aidan Delaney.
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:07:36AM +0100, Aidan Delaney wrote:
Article 6 (a): interoperability (FFII have this as +++) (amd 50)
Article 5 (a) (new): Free Software always exempt (amd 62)
Maybe it would be easier for us to just push these two. If Free Software is exempt from patenting and litigation (I'm assumung thats what the ammendment means) then we're on a home run.
The first amendment is: "Member States shall ensure that, wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion between the conventions used in two different data processing systems so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement"
My understanding is that you could write an mp3->ogg converter without requiring a license but you could not write an mp3 player. I don't see the big win here, patents would still be an obsticle and patent infringement suits (legitimate or not) would still be a threat.
The Free Software amendment would be great, it would encourage companies to release Free Software as a means of avoiding patent requirements. The down side is that I'm not sure this amendment will get majority support.
If I had to pick a minimum, I'd go for the amendments that define terms like "technical" (Article 2 (ba), (bb), and (bc)), or explicitly state that data processing is not patentable.
Also, FFII say that the proposal should not be accepted if it contains the phrase "computer-implemented invention" anywhere in it. This good advice for our MEPs since it's short and pointful.
It's pretty important to fix Recital 11 too, it states: "computer-implemented inventions are considered to belong to a field of technology" Amendment 33 deletes this line.
ciaran.
FFII amendment comments: http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/plen0309/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 22 Sep 2003 at 10:39, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
My understanding is that you could write an mp3->ogg converter without requiring a license but you could not write an mp3 player. I don't see the big win here, patents would still be an obsticle and patent infringement suits (legitimate or not) would still be a threat.
Pro-patent lobby groups are targeting the interoperability clause the hardest. They quite rightly realise that if passed it would represent a major blow to enforceability of patents.
Your example is the most obvious, but we can go much further. For example you could write your mp3 player in two parts - one converts the mp3 to wav, and the second part plays the wav - of course you do this internally. You've just got around the patent.
The Free Software amendment would be great, it would encourage companies to release Free Software as a means of avoiding patent requirements. The down side is that I'm not sure this amendment will get majority support.
I STRONGLY oppose such an amendment. The biggest threat of software patents is not against non-commercial software at all because royalties are usually waived (proof is in the US). The single biggest loser from software patents are SME's and most especially technology startups.
I know most free software believers think software is the free property of all mankind but I absolutely urge you not to create a two tier environment. GPL believers may not like it, but there is no realistic business or economic model for making GPL software - RedHat only turn a profit because they do very little of the overall work. No company can possibly make a profit selling the most popular kinds of free software.
The solution here is alternative types of free software, but I'd doubt if the OSI would approve.
Cheers, Niall
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:37:56PM +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
The Free Software amendment would be great, it would encourage companies to release Free Software as a means of avoiding patent requirements. The down side is that I'm not sure this amendment will get majority support.
I STRONGLY oppose such an amendment.
As per my previous email, I share your strong opposition to this amendment despite the fact that I am (obviously) a big supporter of free software.
Our argument has been that software patents are an assault on innovation generally. This amendment is basically saying "Its ok to assault innovation - provided you don't assault *our* innovation". This amendment is extremely divisive and just proposing it will alienate the majority of those that support the anti-swpat movement - myself included, as it suggests that the free software community cares more about its own ability to innovate, even if this is at the expense of the rest of the software community.
Ian.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 22 Sep 2003 at 15:52, Ian Clarke wrote:
As per my previous email, I share your strong opposition to this amendment despite the fact that I am (obviously) a big supporter of free software.
Well I am a strong supporter of free software, it's just I oppose GPL software because it's not free software. And besides, there are types of free software you can sell (eg; one where limitations on copying/derivation etc are temporary).
Our argument has been that software patents are an assault on innovation generally. This amendment is basically saying "Its ok to assault innovation - provided you don't assault *our* innovation". This amendment is extremely divisive and just proposing it will alienate the majority of those that support the anti-swpat movement - myself included, as it suggests that the free software community cares more about its own ability to innovate, even if this is at the expense of the rest of the software community.
I completely agree. Unfortunately the history of free software shows that some of its leaders are very fond of creating division and I personally don't like how the GPL is supposed to be the leading license of the free software movement when it's not free software.
But, this is entirely another thread, and I really should be doing some programming!
Cheers, Niall
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:07:36AM +0100, Aidan Delaney wrote:
Article 5 (a) (new): Free Software always exempt (amd 62)
Maybe it would be easier for us to just push these two. If Free Software is exempt from patenting and litigation (I'm assumung thats what the ammendment means) then we're on a home run.
I completely disagree, I am concerned about patents because they will affect the entire industry, not just free software. Many of the people that have devoted their time and resources towards this fight care about the freedom to create non-free software, protecting free software and throwing non-free software to the wolves would be a total betrayal.
Ian.
Fax and email are our only options. I have no Fax access. This list/note won't be ready until teatime today (Monday), so I'm looking for someone that can send a 1 page FAX to loads of Strasbourg numbers, sometime after 1800h. Any takers?
Define "loads".
adam
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:02:32AM +0100, adam beecher wrote:
Fax and email are our only options. I have no Fax access. This list/note won't be ready until teatime today (Monday), so I'm looking for someone that can send a 1 page FAX to loads of Strasbourg numbers, sometime after 1800h. Any takers?
Define "loads".
adam
102. (15 IE & 87 UK MEPs.)
(and if possible it could be 2 pages.)
This would be better spread between multiple peoples. Anyone else available?
We're starting at zero, so any FAXes you could send would be a bonus.
Also, this number would be reduced if we could email some MEPs. Anyone have a listing of any available strasbourg addresses for MEPs? (they mightn't be able to check home or part email in strasbourg)
ciaran.
From: adam beecher lists@beecher.net
- (15 IE & 87 UK MEPs.)
Ten or fifteen is the most I'd be comfortable taking.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:18:54AM +0100, Adam Moran wrote:
hi ciaran,
i'll do another 15
[...]
adam moran
Thanks guys, 25-30 MEPs is 4.5% of the total vote. Not bad.
any other post-teatime faxers?
I'll split up the MEPs when I have a draft of the letter done.
ciaran.
Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox have written an Open Letter on the issue, addressed to Pat Cox. It's quite short, I've included the text below:
http://www.effi.org/patentit/patents_torvalds_cox.txt
Subject: Open Letter on Software Patents from Linux developers Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:31:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds
Open Letter to the Honourable Pat Cox, the President of the European Parliament, members of the European Parliament:
Dear Mr. Cox,
We have been following with growing concern that Europe has been extending patentability to computer programs. Now European Parliament is about to vote on a directive that could put a stop to this development, or make it worse, depending on how it is amended by the Parliament.
US experience shows that, unlike traditional patents, software patents do not encourage innovation and R&D, quite the contrary. In particular they hurt small and medium-sized enterprises and generally newcomers in the market. They will just weaken the market and increase spending on patents and litigation, at the expense of technological innovation and research.
Especially dangerous are attempts to abuse the patent system by preventing interoperability as a means of avoiding competition with technological ability. Standards should never be patentable! Likewise, patents should never be used as means for preventing publication of information - the whole idea of patents is to provide time-limited monopoly in exchange for publication of the invention.
Software patents are also the utmost threat to the development of Linux and other free software products, as we are forced to see every day while we work with the Linux development. We want to be able to provide the world with free high class, high quality, highly innovative software products that really empower the users and offer the best and only real chance to narrow the digital divide. Please do not make this harder to us that it already is! In conclusion, we would recommend You to vote for such amendments that
* clarify limits of patentability so that computer programs, algorithms and business methods really cannot be patented as such; * make sure that patents cannot be abused to avoid technical competition by preventing interoperability of competing products; and * ensure that patents cannot be used to prevent publication of information.
To that end we would suggest following FFII's voting recommendations on this directive (see www.ffii.org).
Sincerely,
Linus Torvalds Alan Cox