[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Thursday 26 May 2005 10:31 pm, Robin Cornelius wrote:
The report on "those workshops" some of us attended has now been published :- http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/issues/eurocomp/full_report.pdf
1. The UKPO clearly state that the purpose of the exercise from their perspective was to "find a definition that fits the current [case] law" - sounds a lot like "decide what you want and make the facts conform afterwards". What the FFII and free software developers want is a CHANGE in the law and, as discussed prior to the workshops, this was never going to be within the remit of the workshops themselves as the UKPO cannot legislate. (Actually, despite having no legislative capability, the UKPO and EPO can and do make up the rules as they go along and that is precisely why we're in this mess.) 2. The UKPO at least admit that none of the definitions - including the one in the Directive that the Council want to force through - actually fit even that limited remit. This was inevitable and everyone on the FFII lists knew this in advance - nobody actually WANTS what the UKPO want. Useful snippets for those writing letters: (Definition A is the Directive, B is the FFII) The two "benchmark" definitions considered at every workshop were definitions A and B. It would be fair to say the workshops felt definition A, taken from the Council of the European Union's common position, did not achieve what it sets out to achieve. It was ambiguous - possibly because the references to novelty and non-obviousness confuse the test - and appeared to be more permissive than current European law in terms of what is patentable. The FFII definition, definition B, had it supporters, but it also had plenty of critics. The critics particularly disliked the concept of "controllable forces of nature", feeling it was uncertain as it was open to both wide and narrow interpretations. Indeed, one delegate summed this up neatly by asking "when is the workshop on controllable forces?". The ambiguity was reflected in the higher proportion of "unclear" verdicts. Further, like definition A it did not achieve a boundary that is close to the current position in Europe. (Umm, that was the POINT! The FFII are nowhere near agreement with the current position in Europe (as understood by the UKPO / EPO)!!! that's why we were there!!) Please, everyone, note well that first paragraph: The Directive, as it currently stands, is MORE PERMISSIVE than the current law. The UKPO have NOT accepted this as their position on the directive, it is merely the opinion of those at the workshops. We need to drive home the message that the UKPO's own workshops showed that their recommendation, as embodied within the Directive, does NOT maintain the status quo - in direct contravention of everything the UKPO has published on the Directive. The Directive, if passed in the version proposed by the EU Council, WILL move the balance in FAVOUR of more software patents AND give ALL existing software patents the full force of European law. The current Directive is the worst possible result of this whole mess - every software patent claim that is currently granted but unenforceable will become enforceable and a whole raft of NEW areas will also become patentable with immediate effect. There are tens of thousands of patent claims in the pipeline already and these would receive the widest possible reading of the Directive. Robin, what were your thoughts on the workshops? Aaron? What's your view from the report alone? My summary would be: 1. The expected results were seen: a. Nobody liked the Directive, b. Nobody agreed with the UKPO c. Nobody wants the status quo, except the UKPO. 2. The UKPO were actually the wrong people to run the workshops. a. They closed their minds to a change in the law, despite interpreting the existing law in more and more relaxed ways. b. They think the Directive is A Good Idea (TM) c. They assessed the proposals only in terms of their preconceptions. 3. A useful opportunity was largely wasted. 4. A definition of technical contribution is still elusive - and should probably stay that way. (i.e. it's an oxymoron and unworkable anyway.) 5. The existence of any "technical contribution" clause is a loophole in any Directive and should be resisted - for all practical purposes, it is an undefinable term and we need a change in the law to enforce that NO software can be patented. No exceptions, no loopholes, no compromises. 6. Everyone using free software should support the European Parliament amendments and work towards a complete restart of the entire Directive. What the Council want to force into law is going to be bad for everyone - the workshops showed that the current directive text offers no protection at all. It is vague, imprecise and undefined - if it goes through, ANY software patent will be allowed. The terms of the definitions are meaningless and unusable, leaving a "restriction" that can be easily evaded by any patent lawyer and in practical terms is non-existent. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpTVFUD3wJ8B.pgp
Description: PGP signature