[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Computer Implemented Inventions Directive DTI Conference.
14th December 2004.
Read this before you reply:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/developer/0,39020387,39181169,00.htm
The full transcript of the meeting was promised by the DTI but isn't
available yet.
Also, read about the shenanigans we had even getting IN!
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/developer/0,39020387,39179365,00.htm
(I was one of those who was dropped from the list but the efforts of the FFII
made sure everyone in our party was able to get into the meeting.)
The initial expectations were for a packed meeting with standing room only. I
was concerned to see vacant seats in the hall. Whether others were not
admitted is unknown. However, those who were invited made up for any spaces -
the floor made sure that the panel were under no illusions of the level of
commitment, determination and plain passion aroused by the directive and in
particular, the actions of the Council of Ministers - largely at the behest
of the UK representatives - to drop the amendments proposed by the European
Parliament.
As it stands now, the Directive will be passed by the upcoming Fishery or
Environment Council meetings, the last ones of this year. Contrary to recent
information given by the Belgian government, the Dutch Presidency is
apparently still trying to push through the text from last May as an A-item,
i.e. without discussion and without vote. The published justifications for
throwing away all of the European Parliament's substantial amendments range
from the longtime debunked ("TRIPs requires software patents") to the
downright absurd ("politicians must not change established practice").
http://kwiki.ffii.org/Cons041213En
Note WELL:
1. Fisheries ministers will pass the directive
2. without discussion or a vote.
On 14th December 2004, at the DTI conference on the directive, Lord Sainsbury
acknowledged that more consideration was needed:
Mooting the idea of a seminar on the issue of technical contribution, Lord
Sainsbury said: "We will see if we can do some more work on technical
contribution. It would be useful for us to get some more views, even if after
this legislation is passed, on how we interpret that. This is key to the
whole issue."
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/developer/0,39020387,39181169,00.htm
Please write to your MP's to press Lord Sainsbury to do this work on technical
contribution before the legislation is passed - to hold up the directive
until this work is done, if necessary. He has acknowledged that this is the
key to the whole issue, please support us in preventing a bad directive being
passed without the key issue even being resolved.
Make it clear you would support the directive as amended by the European
Parliament - give him something attainable to seek. You won't get far if you
expect him to get the entire directive dropped - although there are attempts
to get the Directive put back to square one, this is expensive for the EU and
has significant hurdles.
We may only get guidelines issued to the UK Patent Office that specify a
higher barrier for claiming a 'technical contribution' - this is likely to be
a fudge and we need the directive changed. It cannot make sense to pass bad
legislation and then try to change it later!
At the meeting, many developers detected a horrifying lack of awareness on
the part of Patent Office officials for current trends in programming and
software design. One of the crucial tests for any patent is the 'obvious
test' - whether someone experienced in the field would consider the claim of
the patent as obvious in the light of current or past techniques and
practices. It was clear that patent office examiners were years behind the
times in some crucial areas of software design, making it easy for patent
applicants to clear the obvious test in a field where significant design
improvements are superceded within months. Free software and open source
developers are willing to help plug this gap and many at the meeting felt
that a method should be created for Patent Office examiners to be easily
updated by all sections of the industry without prejudicing the independence
of the examiners or the Patent Office.
(One Patent Office expert on the panel failed to make the distinction between
a data structure in memory and a file format on a filesystem. Note once, but
FOUR times he equated the two - despite vocal complaints from the floor that
the two cannot be considered as equivalent.)
--
Neil Williams
=============
http://www.dclug.org.uk/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/isbnsearch/
http://www.williamsleesmill.me.uk/
http://www.biglumber.com/x/web?qs=0x8801094A28BCB3E3
Attachment:
pgp00033.pgp
Description: PGP signature