[Patents] swpat.ffii.org now also in English

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

Please comment, criticize, supply additional links:=20

lynx -dump http://swpat.ffii.org/indexen.html


   ffiirj
  =20
  =20
   keyword search:
   _______________
   Patent Inflation Encroaching on the Infosphere
   [1]News
   [2]Workgroup
   [3]Members and Sponsors
   [4]Criticism and Proposals
   [5]Letter to EU Competion Commissioner
   [6]Letter Template
   [7]Patents in Logical Language
   [8]Further Reading
  =20
  =20
            [9][DE Deutsch] [10][translatable text] [11][howto translate]
                                 ----------------------------------------
                                                                        =20
  =20
               Patent Inflation Encroaching on the Infosphere
                                     =20
       After having bent the law so as to be able to grant patents on
   information and life, the European Patent Office and the EU commission
   want to change the law itself so as to legitimate their practise. They
    have not even bothered to ask how this may affect the development of
                          information technology.
                                     =20
  =20
     * [12]In Defiance of Economy and Law --- The Relentless March of the
       Intellcto-Proprietary Complex
     * [13]What can we do?
     * [14]Preemption of upcoming patent lawsuits
     * [15]Discussion Groups
      =20
In Defiance of Economy and Law --- The Relentless March of the
Intellcto-Proprietary Complex

   In the [16]Halloween Documents a Microsoft strategist explores
   remedies against the threat that open source software like Linux and
   Apache poses to his company. After an exhaustive investigation into
   all possibilities, he proposes two paths to follow:
    1. proprietary extension/replacement of so-far open internet
       protocols
    2. Systematic acquisition of "software patents"
      =20
   But this kind of protection until very recently would have worked only
   in the US and even there, the idea of patenting informational seemed
   unacceptable until very recently. Informational works are the domain
   of copyright. When the state disallows someone the publication of his
   own work, that has normally been called "censorship".
  =20
   The patent system was established in 19th century Europe against a
   strong current of criticism. It prevailed only because its proponents
   were able to limit it to a core domain, in which its restriction on
   freedom is not widely felt and its usefulness is often highly valued:
   the domain of "industrial application".
  =20
   In the manufacturing industry, there are usually only a handful of
   companies, whose production involves high organisational efforts and
   equipment costs. Industrial companies keep their knowledge secret, in
   order to protect themselves against the depletion of their funds by
   copycat companies, who need less research and development. But, since
   secrecy is not good for overall social progress, the patent system
   strikes an interesting deal: the inventive company is granted a
   temporary monopoly in return for publishing its knowldege.
  =20
   It is up to the present day not clear, whether the patent system in
   its traditional limits has done more good than bad. But, as the system
   is well established, the original wave of skepticism has faded, and
   the people within the system now have the resources and leverage to
   further expand the system, dissolving the borders that originally made
   it acceptable. This has already induced a flood of ligitation about
   trivial Internet techniques in the US. Even large innovation leaders
   like [17]Adobe and [18]Oracle have stated, that patents are more
   harmful than useful to them. Important Software projects like
   [19]Secure Shell were forced to seek refuge in Europe.
  =20
   Nonetheless the EU Commission's patent politicians at the DG 15 and
   the board of directors of the European Patent Office, the European
   Patent Organisations, adhere to what a [20]UNDP study called the
   "relentless march of intellectual property rights", without even
   trying to offer an economic rationale
  =20
   Even today the European Patent Office grants patents on informational
   works (guised as "program products"), on business methods (guised as
   software with "technical aspects" like IP addresses), and on living
   beings and parts thereof (such as chromosomes). It is very hard to
   claim this practise to be legal: the [21]=A752 of the European Patent
   Convention clearly exempts "computer programs" from patentability, and
   =A753 exempts living beings. This systematic violation of law by the EPO
   has created legal insecurity: the patent lawyers do not know, whether
   they can actually get any meaningful protection in return for the fees
   they pay to the patent office.
  =20
   In order to reassure their customers and legitimate the current
   illegal practise, the EU and the European Patent Organisations plan to
   change =A752 until June 2000, at the latests.
  =20
   The EC's DG 15 has moreover published a [22]Directive for the
   Harmonisation of Utility Certificate Protection, which no longer lists
   computer programs on the list of exceptions. In other words, it will
   become possible to achieve "small patents" valid for 5-10 years
   without the otherwise required novelty examination procedure.
  =20
What can we do?

   Greenpeace has published a [23]Study, in which it accuses the EPO of
   breaching the law, and they have induced the German Ministry of
   Justice to criticize the EPO for this.
  =20
   The governments of the European countries are called for to take up
   their responsibility for legislation on such grave public issues as
   the scope of patentability. The EPC is a treaty among European states
   (including non-EU states). Only the governments of these states have
   the right to act, when the patent offices violate the letter or the
   spirit of these treaties.
  =20
   The [24]Association for the Promotion of a Free Informational
   Infrastructure has, at the end of May, published and sent a [25]letter
   to the EU competition commissioner Karel van Miert and pointed out the
   dangers of patents for the freedom of competition in the already now
   monopoly-ridden area of software.
  =20
   Moreover we organised a [26]kongress in Cologne, where [27]Jean-Paul
   Smets, who had already done [28]thourough documenation work and
   mobilised parts of the government and parliamnent in France, gave a
   lecture.
  =20
   Before the Conference of the European Patent Organisations on June 24
   in Paris we sent a letter to the two delegates of the German Ministery
   of Justice, which was answered.
  =20
   European governments are not doing their jobs. They have delegated
   their responsibility for defining the borders of the patent system to
   an unelected party which has a vested interest in expanding these
   borders. Moreover, they have followed the patent organisations ins
   signing the international TRIPS treaty, which demands that "patents
   must be available in all fields of technology" and are planning to
   further hardcode this requirement into European and national laws.
   Although we should to appeal to our governments to revoke this treaty
   at the earliest possible date, currently it is not this treaty that is
   giving us trouble. The TRIPS treaty leaves enough room for us to
   disallow the direct patenting of information works and life.
  =20
   We have prepared a [29]declaration template, which companies could
   modify or adapt to and put into the WWW. You can also help us by
   filling in a [30]questionnaire. We will evaluate everything, no matter
   what your opinion is, in order to do some of the research work that
   the legislators failed to do.
  =20
   Moreover, with the support of [31]a few companies, we have formed a
   [32]workgroup that has already, in the framework of the [33]EuroLinux
   Alliance, had a [34]meeting with the legislators in Brussels.
  =20
   Wir are the people. The patent offices should execute the laws that we
   make, not vice versa.
  =20
   FFII is campaigning for the right of us and other interested groups to
   participate in legislation. Governments should name a responsible
   person for this issue and conduct a discussion in public. Our
   [35]proposal for revision of =A752 is ready. An alternative would be to
   leave =A752 as it is and revise the Interpretation Guidelines. Case-Law
   needs a stronger conceptual fundament, so it can't drift away and
   become a vehicle of expansion of the patent system.
  =20
Preemption of upcoming patent lawsuits

   Regardless of whether we will succeed in containing the expansionism
   of the patent lobby, we have to become more aware of the patent
   systems and take measures to deal with it.
  =20
     * [36]Refuting Novelty
     * [37]Multilateral Company Agreements, Mutual Defense Alliances,
       Assurances
      =20
Refuting Novelty

   FFII has already started to document the state of the art of all
   FFII.ORG projects. This documentation is archived in a public library
   with a time stamp once a month.
  =20
   For defense against frivolous patent attacks, the only real help is
   the proof that "this technology was already documented in 19xx-xx-xx
   as described in cited document Dx". Refuting novelty is the only way
   to beat a patent. Other criteria such as "inventivity" / "inventive
   step" have been softened to near-uselesness by the patent offices.
  =20
Multilateral Company Agreements, Mutual Defense Alliances, Assurances

   Software professionals are not forced by fate to submit to
   bureaucratic idiocy. With a minimum of good will, they can forge
   alliances, form "fair use agreements" that achieve a (relatively)
   tolerable harmonisation between the interests of patent owners and
   those of the freedom of informational infrastructure.
  =20
   It would also be possible to build, within the framework of such
   alliances, affordable law protection insurances for programmers of
   free software. The protection against patent claims would then be
   professionalised. We could move to counter-attack and become a feared
   force that could make patent sharks think twice.
  =20
   These ideas have been proposed before, but they have failed due to a
   lack of good will and solidarity in the software industry. They are
   not an alternative to fighting against the abusive extension of the
   patent system, only a possible remedy that should be pursued
   simultaneously.
  =20
Discussion Groups

   If you want to keep the infosphere free of patents or would like to
   discusse about this subject, you can subscribe to our
   (German-speaking) [38]mailing list, which is also [39]archived.
  =20
   Moreover, there is an [40]English and French speaking mailing list
   about this subject as well as a very active mailing list of the
   [41]Italian Initiative against Software Patents.
     _________________________________________________________________
  =20
  =20
    http://swpat.ffii.org/indexen.html
    1999-12-18 [42]PILCH Hartmut
   =20
  =20
  =20
  =20
       [ Patent Inflation Encroaching on the Infosphere | [43]News |
   [44]Workgroup | [45]Members and Sponsors | [46]Criticism and Proposals
     | [47]Letter to EU Competion Commissioner | [48]Letter Template |
          [49]Patents in Logical Language | [50]Further Reading ]

References

   1. http://swpat.ffii.org/news/indexen.html
   2. http://swpat.ffii.org/ag/indexen.html
   3. http://swpat.ffii.org/sarji/indexen.html
   4. http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/indexen.html
   5. http://swpat.ffii.org/miert/indexen.html
   6. http://swpat.ffii.org/nopat/indexen.html
   7. http://swpat.ffii.org/lojban/indexen.html
   8. http://swpat.ffii.org/links/indexen.html
   9. http://swpat.ffii.org/indexde.html
  10. http://swpat.ffii.org/indexen.txt
  11. http://swpat.ffii.org/langtxten.html
  12. http://swpat.ffii.org/indexen.html#pat
  13. http://swpat.ffii.org/indexen.html#ag
  14. http://swpat.ffii.org/indexen.html#pri
  15. http://swpat.ffii.org/indexen.html#ml
  16. http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
  17. http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/testimony/statements/adobe.testimony.ht=
ml
  18. http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/testimony/statements/oracle.statement.h=
tml
  19. http://www.ssh.fi/sshprotocols2/index.html
  20. http://www.undp.org/hdro/index2.html
  21. http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/epue52en.html
  22. http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg15/en/intprop/indprop/utility.htm
  23. http://swpat.ffii.org/www.greenpeace.de/GP_DOK_3P/STU_LANG/C05ST02.PD=
F
  24. http://www.ffii.org/indexen.html
  25. http://swpat.ffii.org/miert/indexen.html
  26. http://kongress.ffii.org/indexen.html
  27. http://www.smets.com/partners/jp/
  28. http://www.freepatents.org/
  29. http://swpat.ffii.org/nopat/indexen.html
  30. http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/preti/indexen.html
  31. http://swpat.ffii.org/sarji/indexen.html
  32. http://swpat.ffii.org/ag/indexen.html
  33. http:///index.html
  34. http:///index.html
  35. http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/epue52en.html
  36. http://swpat.ffii.org/indexen.html#neu
  37. http://swpat.ffii.org/indexen.html#bund
  38. http:///index.html#swpat
  39. http://www.ffii.org/archive/mails/swpat/
  40. http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents
  41. http://no-patents.prosa.it/
  42. mailto:phm@a2e.de?subject=3Dhttp://swpat.ffii.org/indexen.html
  43. http://swpat.ffii.org/news/indexen.html
  44. http://swpat.ffii.org/ag/indexen.html
  45. http://swpat.ffii.org/sarji/indexen.html
  46. http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/indexen.html
  47. http://swpat.ffii.org/miert/indexen.html
  48. http://swpat.ffii.org/nopat/indexen.html
  49. http://swpat.ffii.org/lojban/indexen.html
  50. http://swpat.ffii.org/links/indexen.html