Re: [Fsfe-uk] Software patents

[Bernhard Kaindl]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Phil Driscoll wrote:

> I recently emailed my (labour) MEP regarding software patents.
>
> Below is his response. If anyone who is more clued up about this issue than I
> am has ideas for a suitable response, please let me know.

I'll try...
>
> ************************
> The patenting of computer-implemented inventions is not a new phenomenon:
> patents involving the use of software have been applied for and granted since
> the earliest days of the European Patent Office (EPO).

LOL!!!!!

your MEP did just copy'n'paste from a note from McCarty.

You can find her complete note at:
http://swpat.ffii.org/events/2003/europarl/05/contrib/amccarthy/amccarthy030503.pdf

And this is the answer from Xavi Drudis Ferran to it:
http://patents.caliu.info/aboutMcCarthyConsiderations.pdf

Here, sending this to her is archived:
http://www.aful.org/wws/arc/patents/2003-06/msg00040.html

So in your reply to your MEP, you can just ask if there is any answer to
the above mail from Xavi Drudis Ferran.

Apart from it, be sure to read the first page of Xavi's
aboutMcCarthyConsiderations.pdf, it basically says (As far as I
understand) that the first sentence of McCarhty's note is just
not true and mixes things which should not be mixed.

The result is a wrong impression to the reader of the note. It is
very badly written as Xavi's pdf points out.

And the directive isn't written better(IMHO)

Bernhard

> Applications are on
> the increase, at the EPO 110,000 applications were received, 16,000 of them
> dealt with inventions in computer-implemented technologies. Concern has been
> raised that if matters are left as they are, Europe will drift towards
> extending the scope of patentability to inventions, which traditionally would
> not have been patentable. If the EU does not take the step to develop its
> competence with regard to computer-implemented inventions, then the EPO and
> its boards of appeal will continue to be the main arbitrators of the law.
>
> The aim of the proposal going through the European Parliament is to harmonise
> and clarify the law, to stop the expansion of the patents system, and stem
> the current drift towards broadening the scope of innovation in software that
> can be patented. There is a need to ensure that patents for
> computer-implemented inventions are granted on the same footing across the
> European Union and that national courts can deal with contested patents on
> the basis of uniform principles and within an EU legal framework. An EU
> directive should not allow the extension of patentability, but neither should
> it exclude patent protection altogether. Small software developers should not
> have to face a minefield of poorly granted patents for obscure or obvious
> patents. The Directive must allow open source software to flourish.
>
> Labour Euro MPs will continue to monitor closely the directive through the
> European Parliament.
> --
> Phil Driscoll
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fsfe-uk mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
>