[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
87: will be adopted unammended, -> unamended 92: While there are claims -> Whilst there are 94: ths is is largely untrue -> this 107: If a company breaches their patent (patents are often so general, that it is difficult to write software which does not breach at least one patent), they will (with the threat of legal action) force the other company to license any patents they own to the large corporation, in return for a license to use the patented technology in question. Edit into two/three separate sentences? Typically, a patent will be defined in only general terms, to make it difficult to write software outside the patent. Aggressive patent owners will threaten legal action against anyone within touching distance, knowing that most accused will not be able to afford to prove their innocence in court. The announcement of legal action is enough to damage the reputation of a target company and the length of patent cases forces smaller companies to consider negotiating with the aggressor. The patent accusation is quietly dropped as long as the target company agree to punitive terms but at no point is the patent tested in court, the aggressor cannot risk letting the profitable sideline being shown as junk. In this way, patents are used as weapons to damage other companies, not to protect knowledge. (oops, that got a bit long!) Perhaps stress more that this is about protecting the small guy from false accusations from US corporates. The idea, as hinted above, that patent accusations will not be tested in court and can therefore be made with impunity. Also, maybe elaborate on this point: While there are claims that small businesses in particular will benefit from software patents, ths is is largely untrue. It's not just about money, there is a principle here: basic informational resources should be protected and freely usable. programmers, information-creating enterpreneurs and informationally literate citizens have political weight. http://www.ffii.org/index.en.html http://www.codehelp.co.uk/html/patent.html Perhaps draw this idea: the creator should be protected against the plagiator and the public against monopolies. into your draft as a two-way mechanism - patents will allow one-way protection for the creator but (as you already state) the reverse cannot operate because of the structure of software creation. You've almost covered this, but it might need to be expressed explicitly - to crystalise the rest of your argument. Make a point and state it, don't assume that the reader will 'get the message' - it's always helpful to summarise. In effect, you are using Labour spin (something all MP/MEP's understand) to your own ends. Critically, give him the insight to understand what he can do: The Economic and Social Council of the European Union, a consultative organ of experts from various fields, criticises the European Patent Office's software caselaw and the European Commission's proposal for a software patentability directive and asks the European Parliament to reject the proposal and instead ask for a reconfirmation of the non-patentability of software. This study met strong resistance from a group of supporters of the European Patent Office, but was in the end passed with a 2/3 majority." "The Committee considers that given the lack of independent, in-depth, serious economic and impact studies, in particular on SMEs-SMIs, employment and long-term social impact, it would be dangerous to rush legislation through to extend the arrangements for patents to an indefinite number of software programmes considered to produce a "technical effect", but that it would be more appropriate to harmonise laws and, by a knock-on effect, the jurisprudence of the member countries by confirming, as is already the case in most member countries, the possibility of allowing patents for technical inventions that include specific dedicated code indispensable for them to operate (but not those solely or mainly in the software or which would use standard software almost exclusively)." http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/esc0209/index.en.html http://www.codehelp.co.uk/html/patent-2.html (So patents on engine management chips could include the code used by the chip but not the software that wrote the code. Note the distinction between CODE and SOFTWARE and the restriction to technical inventions instead of technical effect. Technical invention is a defined term, technical effect is not. In these situations, definitions are intended to be left to case law but as the vast majority of the aggressive patent accusations will never reach court, the term will remain undefined for as long a period as the aggressors can attain.) This is a report from within the EU itself, so it does have weight. MP/MEP's are born compromisers, by definition. If they see a conflict, they must: 1. take sides (but not openly/irrevocably unless everyone agrees) 2. pretend to mediate 3. take credit, whoever wins. Therefore, you cannot just give them the problem, they need to see that you appreciate their needs and have considered what they can DO. Watch any politician and you'll see the pattern. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.codehelp.co.uk/ http://www.dclug.org.uk/ http://www.isbn.org.uk/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/isbnsearch/ http://www.biglumber.com/x/web?qs=0x8801094A28BCB3E3
Attachment:
pgp00003.pgp
Description: signature