[chapter-delegates] Fwd: John Naughton: It's patently absurd to let the bureaucrats take over

[Veni Markovski]

FYI and possible action?
May be ISOC and any ISOC chapter within the EU can come out with a 
statement and support?

>John Naughton
>Sunday March 13, 2005
>The Observer
>
>Do you know who your MEP is? If not, can I respectfully suggest that you
>click on www.europarl.org.uk and find out, pronto? There are 12 European
>constituencies in the UK, and each has between three and 10 MEPs. They
>need to hear from you, because they hold your future in their hands. And
>the irony is that many of them probably don't know that yet.
>
>At stake is a simple but overarching question: who runs Europe: the
>elected European Parliament or the unelected European Commission? This
>may seem a rather grand question for a technology column, but bear with me.
>
>It just so happens that the issue which has brought the power struggle
>between the parliament and the commission to a head concerns the future
>of software, and especially the future of open source software, the
>stuff that makes the internet (and a great deal more besides, including
>your broadband modem) work. What's happening is that the commission has
>been nobbled by a small number of large software companies (among them a
>noted US monopolist), and is trying to railroad through a directive that
>would enable them to control the evolution of software.
>
>Here's the story so far. In 2002, the commission proposed that
>'computer-implemented inventions' should be patentable in Europe. In
>2003, the European Parliament amended the proposal to exclude computer
>programs and 'business methods'. Last May, these amendments were
>discarded by the commission and the original draft directive was
>resurrected.
>
>In December, the commission tried to push the directive through by
>making it an 'A-list' item at the (wait for it) European Fisheries
>meeting. (An A-list item is one that is approved without either a
>discussion or a vote.) This wheeze was initially foiled by Poland. The
>parliament then considered the whole affair and demanded that the
>commission think again about software patents.
>
>The commission refused and tabled the directive as an A-list item at
>last Monday's council of ministers meeting. This time, Denmark requested
>a postponement but Luxembourg (currently holding the presidency) refused
>the request - on 'institutional' grounds. The directive now goes back to
>the parliament, where it can be stopped - but only by a majority vote of
>MEPs.
>
>Why are software patents bad news? Simply because patents (unlike
>copyright) allow someone to control access to an idea. Ideas are not
>copyrightable - only tangible expressions of them are. Thus James
>Joyce's idea of stream-of-consciousness narrative could not be
>copyrighted, but the text of Ulysses (in which the idea was given
>expression) could be. And that's fine.
>
>But a patent gives the patentee monopoly control of an idea - not of a
>tangible implementation of it - for 20 years. There is a valid US patent
>for a method of exercising one's cat by using a laser pointer to create
>a moving spot of light. (I'm not making this up - it's US patent no.
>5,443,036). So if you decide to exercise your moggie by using a small
>mirror to deflect sunlight onto the floor you may be infringing
>someone's intellectual property.
>
>In most areas of life, we can live with that. But the trouble with
>software is that it is pure 'thought-stuff'. A computer program is a set
>of ideas turned into instructions that a computer can execute. Software
>is thus the expression of an idea, and is rightly covered by copyright.
>And again, that's fine. If I have the talent and dedication to write a
>great program, it's reasonable that my creation should be protected.
>
>But extending patent law to cover software would have a chilling effect
>on creativity and competition. Take for example the idea of using a
>computer to organise the composition of documents - ie what we now call
>word-processing. There are innumerable programs on the market that do
>this - all protected by copyright. But imagine if someone had been able
>to patent the original idea. That would have meant that nobody could
>have developed a word-processing program without the permission of the
>patentee and paying a royalty for the privilege.
>
>The fact that software hasn't been patentable has led to an explosion in
>creativity because the barriers to entry to the market are very low. To
>create a great program, all you need is an idea, programming talent,
>dedication and a computer. But in the world desired by the European
>Commission, the first thing you will need is a patent lawyer - to check
>that the ideas embodied in your embryonic program are not owned by
>someone else.
>
>And if your program turns out to be popular, it will only be a matter of
>time before a patent lawyer acting for a big company claims that you may
>have infringed one of his client's patents. So you stop selling and
>spend months checking whether this is true. Even if you're sure you're
>not infringing, there is the risk that he will raise the ante by
>threatening to take you to court anyway. And he's got a colossal budget
>for litigation, whereas you don't. So perhaps the best thing is to cave
>into the blackmail and pay the royalty. After all, you're a programmer,
>not a poker player.
>
>The only people who can play this kind of poker are big companies with
>huge patent portfolios which they trade with one another - thereby
>keeping troublesome outsiders out. These are precisely the outfits that
>have nobbled the commission and led it to cock a snook at the
>parliament. They must not be allowed to get away with it.
>
>Which brings us back to your MEPs. They may not be aware of the
>technical issues involved, but they will understand that there is a big
>political issue here. The European Parliament is the only democratically
>accountable institution in the EU. So far it has displayed a good
>understanding of the patent issue.
>
>It is being treated with contempt by the commission's unelected
>bureaucrats. Sanity can be restored - but only if politicians turn up
>and vote on the issue. So email your MEPs now. And if you need a basic
>text to work from, follow the Footnotes link below.
>
>
>Recent columns
>05.10.2003: Microsoft's might makes us insecure
>14.09.2003: Breaking through with the Baghdad blogger
>07.09.2003: Hutton website shows where the betrayal lay
>08.06.2003: Web's lack of bell curve is alarming
>01.06.2003: If you really want to know, ask a blogger
>18.05.2003: How will Gates fight Linux? It's a dead giveaway
>25.05.2003: 3G fiasco - only the porn barons win
>27.01.2002: Why Google just leaves everybody goggling
>06.01.2002: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, horrible spam, disastrous spam...
>30.09.2001: Jack Straw blames me for bin Laden