Software Patents in Europe [Update]

scojones

I emailed my three MEP's today and this is the response I received.

Dear Mr. X

Thank you for writing to Marian Harkin regarding this pertinent issue. As you know, following Monday's decision by the Competitiveness Council to adopt a 'common position' on the first reading of the software patents proposal, the European Parliament requested a statement to be made by the commissioner responsible - Mr. Charlie McCreevy to the EP Plenary yesterday in Strasbourg. An account by the EP's press service of the subsequent debate is available below while Commissioner McCreevy's statement is available at:

http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/05/151&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

As it stands, the EP still has the opportunity to table amendments which were not taken up in the Council's common position, which the EP has yet to see, or to reject the common position entirely. If the EP decides to amend and Council still refuses to accept its amendments, a conciliation committee of MEPs and national civil servants will meet to reach a compromise. If none is found, the proposal falls. Most importantly the Ministers do not take the final decision on this issue - they must work with the EP.

It would appear that there are many MEPs against the patenting of software inventions and Marian will work closely with her group - the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats to examine all issues on the debate and to ensure that the voice of the EP, and thereby of citizens is heard.

The EP's first reading position can be downloaded from
http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?L=EN&OBJID=79550&MODE=SIP&NAV=X&LSTDOC=N&LEVEL=2

Kind regards,

Sinéad Meehan
Assistant to Marian Harkin MEP

<<phone number and address snipped>>

So what the hell does it mean?

scojones

Here's another reply

Dear X,

Mr. Higgins has asked me to thank you for your email on the subject of
software patents - one of a number of such emails he has received over
the last few weeks.

You will no doubt be pleased to know that Mr. Higgins shares your
concerns regarding the Draft Directive and supports the position of a
great many users, people from within the IT sector and small software
companies throughout Ireland - that is, to oppose the Directive by
voting against it when it next comes before the European Parliament.

Kind regards,

Mark Taylor

Assistant to Senator Jim Higgins MEP

nadir

aye, same reply here from Jim Higgins, good stuff
how does this work, is it a majority we need ? or is this some type of undemocratic process?
and what makes me think we are fighting against the odds here?

scojones

Yeah I'm pretty sure we need a majority. I also have the feeling we are fighting against the odds - but I live in hope.

alc

Anyone care to post sample text for an email to MEP regarding this (on the anti-SoftwarePatent-argument, as opposed to pro-SoftwarePatent-argument!)

Sorry, I'm lazy but would like to add a voice to this argument.

scojones

Sure, here's what I said in my email to the MEP's.

Hi MEP's,
The European commission has just passed its directive on
software patents, violating democratic rules and procedures to the
sole benefit of big non-European corporation and Ireland and to the
detriment of small and medium sized businesses (which comprise 99% of
the European software industry) and free software.

The European parliament will now be taking the last stand against
software patents in a voting for which an absolute majority is needed.
Such a majority is hard to come by in a parliament with a low
attendance level.

But not all is lost yet as long as you decide it is time to make a
difference and take action. This is our last opportunity to fend off
software patents worldwide, there will be no second chance for the
foreseeable future.

Please read the following link for information on why software patents
are not a good thing.
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/industry-at-risk.html

It should only take 20 minutes of your time. Thank you very much for
listening, and please vote NO for software patents.

Thanks,
<insert name here>

scojones

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/25/eu_patents/

The European Parliament re-opened the debate on the future of the EU's directive on software patents, last week. Arguments for and against the bill took the lines we have come to expect from each side: the pro-patent lobby arguing that the directive merely formalises the status quo, and the anti-patent contingent arguing that patenting software is like trying to patent music or mathematics.

According to Florian Muller, ex-head of anti-patent group No Software Patents, told us: "The first debate in the Legal Affairs Committee on Thursday showed that the official rapporteur on this directive, Michel Rocard MEP (a former prime minister of France), and various other MEPs really want to help and restrict the scope of patentability but they face stiff opposition."
Click Here

When the original draft of the directive went to Parliament for its first reading in 2003, MEPs made several significant changes to the text. They limited the scope of what could be patented to software that supported new physical processes, such as steel-making, or a new anti-lock braking system.

However, the Council of Ministers, under the Irish presidency, voted to reject these changes, and returned the draft almost to its original form. Critics say the current for of the directive allows for direct software patentability of computer programs, data structures and process descriptions, areas the MEPs had voted off the agenda.

In last week's debate, Irish MEP Brian Crowley was among those opposing any amendments to the council's text, arguing that smaller companies benefit as much as larger ones. He said that in the US, 92 per cent of patents have been granted to SMEs. Germany's Erika Mann said that the Parliament needs to be flexible, and stressed that there are some good articles within the directive as it stands.

Finnish MEP Piia-Noora Kauppi agreed that the Parliament should not exclude all software from patentability, but argued in favour of new amendments. Kauppi also accused the bill's supporters of overstating the negative effects of the changes Parliament made in 2003. (see transcripts of the session here.

Amendments must be tabled by early May, and JURI (the group responsible for proposing any amendments to the directive) will meet again to discuss the changes at the end of that month. The directive's official rapporteur, Michel Rocard, wrapped the session by scheduling a vote on the directive for 20 June before it moves to a plenary vote in Strasbourg, in July.

The Foundation for a Free Electronic Infrastructure (FFII) warns that the main danger now is that there will not be enough MEPs in Parliament to approve any changes.

Although passing amendments during a second reading is more difficult - it requires an absolute majority vote - according to Joe McNamee, EU policy director at the Political Intelligence consultancy, it happens fairly often.

"The point here is that the Parliament could simply adopt the amendments that it knows the Council won't accept and just stick with them - meaning that the Directive will ultimately fall. The Parliament already said that the Directive should be redrafted, so that would be the logical thing for them to do, unless they've changed their minds," he said. ®

Please, please email your MEP's. This is not looking too good at all. I have a feeling that software patents will be granted, and that only a limited redraft will be required. This is not good enough.

declan_lgs

http://www.kde.ie/patents/mep-status.php

I'm gonna write up an email and send 'em all one now.....

EDIT: here's what I sent:

MEP,

I'd like to know your position on software patents in the EU, and ask
you to vote against them because they pose a serious threat to the
software industry.


http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/industry-at-risk.html if you have not
done so already.
It should only take less than 20 minutes of your time and is an essential read.

Please get back to me as soon as possible.

Thanks,
Declan

Just kept it simple.