Re: [Fsfe-uk] Software patent MEP response

[Jim Peters]

Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> I think the way it should work is that if you are using a "normal"
> computer, no matter what code is running on it, you cannot be
> infringing a patent. Who cares what is then patented - as long as
> you aren't using special hardware, you cannot be in violation.

This seems to me to be a very generous and optimistic interpretation.
See here for another opinion on the matter: (and see below)

  http://www.xenoclast.org/free-sklyarov-uk/2003-May/004828.html


It seems that I've jumped in the deep end with this one, as this
discussion is now spanning three mailing lists.  Hartmut Pilch (FFII)
noticed my posting and cross-posted it to another mailing list
(address@hidden) adding his own comments about Malcolm Harbour and
the situation:

  http://www.xenoclast.org/free-sklyarov-uk/2003-May/004827.html

Someone else has written to me personally suggesting that what Malcolm
Harbour has said to me is inconsistent with his previous statements
and/or actions:

> I have happened to read Mr Harbour's reply
> to your letter. He has always been a proponent
> of total patentability, submitting himself
> amendments in favor of claims on "programs stored
> on any medium and carriers", to be able to sue
> individuals and ISPs as well, and his talks about
> "patent quality" and "technical requirement"
> are just plain lie.

I have already come across evidence of his strong involvement in this
field from a quick search:

  http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/groups/240101.htm
  
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:kPZ9fbyg2MoJ:www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20021107/468231en.pdf+%22malcolm+harbour%22+patent&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

In the document in the second link above, they discuss 'technical
effect'.  To use their example, a technique which saves memory thereby
enabling a computer to run faster has a 'technical effect' and is
therefore patentable.  So pure software inventions do indeed seem to
be patentable, so long as you get within the rather fuzzy notion of
'technical effect'.

This seems to be just as frightening as I/we feared.


I haven't yet decided if or how I'm going to reply to this guy.  He
clearly has his own strong ideas, and arguing with him is not going to
change them, most likely.  Perhaps it is more productive to put energy
into persuading other MEPs, writing with the aim of countering the
propaganda that they must have been hearing from people like Malcolm
Harbour.

In particular, it may be worth pointing out that the requirement for a
'technical effect' in a software patent is not in any way sufficient
protection for the Open Source community (or even the software
industry in general).


I know I'm not at all up to speed with the software patent issue
compared to some people on this list (who was that guy who spoke at
the meeting?), so please correct me if necessary.

Jim

-- 
 Jim Peters                  (_)/=\~/_(_)                 address@hidden
                          (_)  /=\  ~/_  (_)
 Uazú                  (_)    /=\    ~/_    (_)                http://
 B'ham, UK          (_) ____ /=\ ____ ~/_ ____ (_)            uazu.net

 SBaGen: binaural beats for brainwave entrainment:  http://uazu.net/SB