Re: [Patents][Free-skylarov-uk] Re: Infoworld: EU headed for limited software patent law

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

> This infoworld piece is *especially* bad.
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/06/18/EU%20headed%20for%20limited%20software%20patent%20law%20(IDGNS)_1.html

Indeed its writer Paul Meller, to whom I am cc-ing, is already notorious
for this kind of journalistic practise, see Xavi's critique of his
previous piece, found at

        http://swpat.ffii.org/events/2003/europarl/05/contrib/amccarthy/

> It is particularly unfortunate the way it presents JURI as having
> navigated a safe path between two extremes.
>
>       "The European Parliament is likely to support a law that permits
> software patents but limits their application to inventions that have a
> technical effect outside of just a computer program. A program could
> only be patented if it runs in conjunction with some sort of device such
> as an intelligent household appliance or a mobile phone."
>
> If only this were true.
>
> But it simply isn't.  This is *the* lie that has to be nailed, in all
> communications with MEPs and the public.

Right, and Paul Meller knows it.

Also, like last time, he misleads readers into confusing copyright and
patents and believing that this is about free vs proprietary.  And, while
he quotes lots of patent lobby people, he doesn't quote a single critical
voice.

He can no longer say that he is not aware of

        http://swpat.ffii.org/

but he has chosen to suppress our voices.

This case requires us to call IDG and complain about malpractise of a
journalist.  Could someone do that?

Perhaps there are people at IDG who are concerned about the integrity and
reputation of their house.  Since the patent owners have a lot of money to
spend, the danger of corruption is great everywhere.  Even if Meller
didn't receive any money, it is gross negligence to do such lousy
reporting in such a constellation.

> > By Paul Meller, IDG News Service June 18, 2003
> >
> >
> >
> > BRUSSELS -- The European Parliament is unlikely to demand many changes
> > to a proposed law on software patents that already has the backing of
> > national European governments, parliamentary spokesman Nikolaos Tzorkias
> > said Wednesday.
> >
> > A committee charged with leading the debate on the directive within the
> > European Parliament agreed on a version of the text that makes only
> > minor changes to the original text written by the Union's executive
> > body, the European Commission.
> >
> > "The committee gave strong backing to the proposed EU-wide rules for the
> > patentability of computer-implemented inventions," Tzorkias said.
> >
> > In addition to winning 20 of the 29 votes cast in the legal affairs
> > committee, Tzorkias said the position agreed by the committee has
> > backing from the largest political party in the European Parliament, the
> > conservative European Peoples' Party, as well as support of the
> > third-largest voting block, the Liberal party.
> >
> > The Socialists, the second largest group in the Parliament, are divided
> > with some in the party siding with the Green party in opposing the
> > directive, and others supporting the committee's position, Tzorkias
> > said.
> >
> > "The vote at committee level clears the way for a straightforward vote
> > at the plenary session of the Parliament. The result seems absolutely
> > clear now," he added.
> >
> > EU lawmakers from the three institutions involved with the draft law
> > appear to be converging on a position that ignores views from both
> > extremes of the debate over software patents, and endorses the approach
> > to patentability currently applied by the European Patent Office.
> >
> > Free and open-source software supporters argue that patents should not
> > be awarded to software under any circumstances, while supporters of
> > greater protection argue that Europe should step in line with the U.S.
> > and Japan, which both have fairly lax rules permitting software
> > developers to register patents for business methods.
> >
> > The European Parliament is likely to support a law that permits software
> > patents but limits their application to inventions that have a technical
> > effect outside of just a computer program. A program could only be
> > patented if it runs in conjunction with some sort of device such as an
> > intelligent household appliance or a mobile phone.
> >
> > "I am relieved they kept the status quo," said Thaddeus Burns, a patent
> > lawyer in the Brussels office of law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
> > Feld. Burns believes Europe should fall into line with Japan and the
> > U.S. by allowing business methods to be patented, but feared that EU
> > lawmakers would move in the opposite direction under pressure from
> > software patent opponents.
> >
> > He believes that without patents, software developers have no chance of
> > protecting their inventions, but he warned that the European approach,
> > which requires proof of an invention’s technical effect, would make it
> > more expensive for European developers to protect their intellectual
> > property than in the U.S.
> >
> > "In the U.S. you just have to prove that your invention is novel, it
> > isn’t obvious and that it is useful. The technical effects requirement
> > will make it more time consuming and therefore more expensive to
> > register inventions in Europe," Burns said.
> >
> > Open source and free software supporters argue that they don’t want or
> > need patent protection. Patents, they say, create a legal minefield that
> > only the biggest software firms can navigate successfully, and they
> > don’t offer any real protection because patent disputes are nearly
> > always won by the party with the biggest legal budget.
> >
> > The proposed directive steers a course midway between these two extreme
> > views, and has won the support of organizations such as the Business
> > Software Alliance (BSA), which represents firms including Microsoft and
> > Apple.
> >
> > "We support the move towards a harmonized European approach to software
> > patents," said Francisco Mingorance, director of public policy, Europe
> > for the BSA, adding that the BSA doesn’t want a U.S.-style system. "We
> > agree that technical effects should be a condition of patentability," he
> > said.
> >
> > The text of the proposed law is due for debate by the whole European
> > Parliament at its plenary meeting later this month.
>