Re: [Fsfe-uk] Draft PR on swpat directive

[Alex Hudson]

On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 00:45, P.L.Hayes wrote:
> Can you say what kind of article this will be Alex?

To be honest, I can't - given the length of time from the actual
decision, it's no longer really "news", therefore I would be expecting
something other than a write-up of the directive. I promised the journo
a copy of the PR when we finished it, so that would be an ideal time to
ask.

> Firstly, I have been disgusted and shocked at the tactics used by the 
> pro-swpat lobbies; the disingenuity, the out of hand dismissals of expert 
> opinion, of research and of petitions and the nasty stench of corporate 
> threats and bribery in the background.

I know exactly what you mean. I did kind of allude to this, although to
be fair I think that the anti-swpat brigade could also have some
criticism levelled against them in terms of lobbying tactics (witness
the article in The Register). However, I thought the anti-swpat guys
responded brilliantly to the criticism and just became even more
organised. 

I think it seems fairly clear that a lot of the pro-lobbying was on
behalf of a small number of very large companies with good contact
bases. I think it's also the case that there is a lot of movement behind
the scenes by these people; and that we haven't seen the last of their
attempts to frame a US-style patent law.

> Secondly, the entire debate in the EU has focused almost exclusively on the 
> economic arguments - are software patents good for EU business or not? The 
> MEPs may have been persuaded that they are not - how fortunate! But what if 
> they had been persuaded otherwise?

I'm not sure on what other basis they would be willing to consider this
type of law; it could be a question of what is qualititative and what is
quantitative. After all, most of the focus of the EU is on the single
market and breaking down barriers that affect the market - I think they
would see that in the same light. 

I guess part of the problem is that this area isn't seen as arts and
science, it's seen as industrial technology. Or at least, it's supposed
to be, and I think the amendments now confirm that. If it was broader,
it would have affected the arts and sciences but still been shielded
under the guise of industrial technology. It's a difficult line to
tread.

> Have these cretins any idea of the damage they were about to do by allowing, 
> effectively, the patentability of maths - of ideas?

No, I don't think they do. And it's hard to quantify. I think it's true
to say that at the moment, the damage has been quite limited. A lot of
patent litigation has been big co. versus big co., and they are
effectively immune to any damage. However, it's beginning to change - MS
versus Eolas is turning out to be a great example. Possibly I should try
to work that example into the PR somehow...

> If the members of the press still cannot understand what is wrong with 
> software patents and maybe find the examples I have given to be somewhat 
> obscure and irrelevant, consider what might have happened if Einstein had not 
> bothered to continue along his famous and historical line of thought and had 
> stopped at the Special Theory of Relativity.

I don't want to besmirch the fine journos within our midst, but perhaps
comparing them to Einstein is over-egging the pudding somewhat ;)

Seriously, most journos I've talked to don't really have time for
investigation - they basically expect you to tell them what they need to
know. They talk to all sides, and write a "balanced" piece of text
representing everyones views. Usually their deadline is about 15 minutes
ago, and they only really want to hear the major bullet points. That's
the kind of person we're aiming at :/

Cheers,

Alex.