Does anyone have a copy of the above going before the september plenary session? I've looked all over europarl and just can't find a modern copy.
I could probably get my MEP to get it if needs be. BTW, I think I have over half the Irish MEP's against the directive in its current form now. If I could get a recent copy, I can propose one simple wording change which would completely change the impact (ie; patent implementation not idea). Circulate widely that single amendment and who knows, we might avert US-style software patents!
Cheers, Niall
The official URL is: ttp://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PROG=REPORT&L=EN&SORT_ORDER=DDD&S_REF_A_TYPE=%25&S_REF_A_YEAR=%25&S_REF_A_NUM=%25&REF_A=A5-2003-0238&F_REF_A=A5-0238%2F03&PUBREF=&PART=&NAV=S&LEG_ID=5&I_YEAR=03&I_YEAR=&I_NUM=0238&LEVEL=2
A Ter, 2003-08-12 às 20:54, Niall Douglas escreveu:
Does anyone have a copy of the above going before the september plenary session? I've looked all over europarl and just can't find a modern copy.
I could probably get my MEP to get it if needs be. BTW, I think I have over half the Irish MEP's against the directive in its current form now. If I could get a recent copy, I can propose one simple wording change which would completely change the impact (ie; patent implementation not idea). Circulate widely that single amendment and who knows, we might avert US-style software patents!
Cheers, Niall
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On 12 Aug 2003 at 21:31, João Miguel Neves wrote:
The official URL is: ttp://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PROG=REPORT&L=EN&SORT_ORDER=DDD &S_REF_A_TYPE=%25&S_REF_A_YEAR=%25&S_REF_A_NUM=%25&REF_A=A5-2003-0238& F_REF_A=A5-0238%2F03&PUBREF=&PART=&NAV=S&LEG_ID=5&I_YEAR=03&I_YEAR=&I_ NUM=0238&LEVEL=2
Excellent! Thanks for that!
Cheers, Niall
El Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 08:54:09PM +0100, Niall Douglas deia:
Does anyone have a copy of the above going before the september plenary session? I've looked all over europarl and just can't find a modern copy.
I could probably get my MEP to get it if needs be. BTW, I think I have over half the Irish MEP's against the directive in its current form now. If I could get a recent copy, I can propose one simple wording change which would completely change the impact (ie; patent implementation not idea). Circulate widely that single amendment and who knows, we might avert US-style software patents!
Cheers, Niall
All I have (read) is linked from http://patents.caliu.info
In particular
JURI report http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/OM-Europarl?PROG=REPORT&L=EN&REF_A=A...
Directive proposal from the European Commission http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indprop/com02-92en.pdf
But this is not specially new. What do you need exactly, a version of the directive as it would result if the JURI report was approved in plenary? (that is: the amendments passed in JURI integrated in the CEC proposal). Maybe I have missed that document, I don't know it exists. Is it what Joao has sent?.
Since you want to talk to MEPs who have to vote in plenary (Sept 1st 2003) the JURI report, you may be interested in the 4 pages summary at http://patents.caliu.info/juri.en.html
On 13 Aug 2003 at 11:16, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
I could probably get my MEP to get it if needs be. BTW, I think I have over half the Irish MEP's against the directive in its current form now. If I could get a recent copy, I can propose one simple wording change which would completely change the impact (ie; patent implementation not idea). Circulate widely that single amendment and who knows, we might avert US-style software patents!
But this is not specially new. What do you need exactly, a version of the directive as it would result if the JURI report was approved in plenary? (that is: the amendments passed in JURI integrated in the CEC proposal). Maybe I have missed that document, I don't know it exists. Is it what Joao has sent?.
The one he sent was spot on.
Since you want to talk to MEPs who have to vote in plenary (Sept 1st 2003) the JURI report, you may be interested in the 4 pages summary at http://patents.caliu.info/juri.en.html
From the MEPs I've talked to, they all are very clear that this is a
deeply unpopular law with individual engineers. Even Arlene McCarthy's report says so between the lines in her report.
What the MEPs seem to want is in short, succint terms, what amendments should they call for? In my view, patenting the implementation not idea could actually be a good idea and in the worst case scenario, it won't make things really awfully worse.
I appreciate your comments on patents plus all the FSF have written about the matter. But it's all useless - you all speak of "software patents" being bad full stop period. A MEP might know that and even agree, but the EU is *mandated* to enforce software patents. Therefore, you are fighting a war which cannot be won.
Instead you should accept that the EU *shall* have software patents, and this fight is all about making software patents as least damaging as possible. Therefore you should be proposing alternative forms of software patent ie; not Arlene McCarthy's proposal.
To differentiate, I use "US-style software patent" for anything which patents the idea behind a program. These must be avoided at all costs. I then propose a new and improved form of software patent patenting the implementation, one a MEP can debate for in their plenary session.
You all might be interested that the SME group in the EU parliament is very worried about the proposed directive but their proposed amendments aren't much use. Irish MEP Avril Doyle is on that committee and I am liasing with her wrt to tabling amendments. If the SME committee could come behind these amendments, they have a much louder voice than any one MEP or party.
Cheers, Niall
El Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:22:07PM +0100, Niall Douglas deia:
What the MEPs seem to want is in short, succint terms, what amendments should they call for? In my view, patenting the implementation not idea could actually be a good idea and in the worst case scenario, it won't make things really awfully worse.
What the MEPs want is 2 small amendments that please everyone. That is impossible. There are just too many holes in it. Yet it is their responsability to fix it. If it takes many amendments then that's it. I'm sorry, I didn't write the CEC proposal, so don't blame it. The FFII has some amendment proposals. This is not necessarily the only way to fix it, but it is very easy to fail in fixing it. They have always the option of rejecting the directive, if fixing it is too much work.
I appreciate your comments on patents plus all the FSF have written about the matter. But it's all useless - you all speak of "software patents" being bad full stop period. A MEP might know that and even agree, but the EU is *mandated* to enforce software patents. Therefore, you are fighting a war which cannot be won.
This is wrong, to say it politely. Who do you think is mandating anything to the EU but itself?.
Instead you should accept that the EU *shall* have software patents, and this fight is all about making software patents as least damaging as possible. Therefore you should be proposing alternative forms of software patent ie; not Arlene McCarthy's proposal.
Software patents are as absurd as saying pi equals 5.6. There is nothing you can do to make them less harmful without making them worthless to applicants. But we discussed a bit about that some time ago, didn't we?.
To differentiate, I use "US-style software patent" for anything which patents the idea behind a program. These must be avoided at all costs. I then propose a new and improved form of software patent patenting the implementation, one a MEP can debate for in their plenary session.
That's probably either meaningless, or more likely worthless for patent applicants. The only way for software patents to do that is to turn them in a more expensive and less lasting copyright.
There's a bit about it lost somewhere in http://patents.caliu.info/aboutMcCarthyConsiderations.html
You all might be interested that the SME group in the EU parliament is very worried about the proposed directive but their proposed amendments aren't much use. Irish MEP Avril Doyle is on that committee and I am liasing with her wrt to tabling amendments. If the SME committee could come behind these amendments, they have a much louder voice than any one MEP or party.
Since you don't mind commenting that on a public list, would you mind discussing the precise text of the amendments you would like?. Is the SME committee an EP committee ? I thought it was some other group of MEPs. Anyway, are you aware that one MEP cannot table amendments in plenary?.
We need a consensus on what amendments to endorse.
There are 14 proposed amendments, the list is available at: http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20030616/juri20030616.ht...
Amendments are marked "AM". Amendments can only be tabled at JURI meetings and there are no such meetings until Sept 10th, so this is the final list.
In Ireland, we've worked hard on the patents issue. The response we get is that they know the directive is bad but they don't want to vote against it, they want to amend it (so that the process won't have been a complete waste of time and money).
No matter how hard it is, we have to find a set of amendments that will make us happy. We then say to our MEPs "Unless amendments X, Y, and Z are passed, you must vote No". This gives us a chance to get a good law passed, and it gives our MEPs a firm reason to vote No if needs be.
Does anyone know of a good/agreed set of amendments? I'll try to work out a set myself if no one knows. I think the Greens/EFA drafted an amendment, I'll start by looking for this one.
We must rally around one set of amendments rather than end up with 4 good amendments each getting a quarter of our support.
Any help or pointers would be very much appreciated. Ciaran O'Riordan
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:50:43PM +0200, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
El Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:22:07PM +0100, Niall Douglas deia:
What the MEPs seem to want is in short, succint terms, what amendments should they call for? In my view, patenting the implementation not idea could actually be a good idea and in the worst case scenario, it won't make things really awfully worse.
What the MEPs want is 2 small amendments that please everyone. That is impossible. There are just too many holes in it. Yet it is their responsability to fix it. If it takes many amendments then that's it. I'm sorry, I didn't write the CEC proposal, so don't blame it. The FFII has some amendment proposals. This is not necessarily the only way to fix it, but it is very easy to fail in fixing it. They have always the option of rejecting the directive, if fixing it is too much work.
I appreciate your comments on patents plus all the FSF have written about the matter. But it's all useless - you all speak of "software patents" being bad full stop period. A MEP might know that and even agree, but the EU is *mandated* to enforce software patents. Therefore, you are fighting a war which cannot be won.
This is wrong, to say it politely. Who do you think is mandating anything to the EU but itself?.
Instead you should accept that the EU *shall* have software patents, and this fight is all about making software patents as least damaging as possible. Therefore you should be proposing alternative forms of software patent ie; not Arlene McCarthy's proposal.
Software patents are as absurd as saying pi equals 5.6. There is nothing you can do to make them less harmful without making them worthless to applicants. But we discussed a bit about that some time ago, didn't we?.
To differentiate, I use "US-style software patent" for anything which patents the idea behind a program. These must be avoided at all costs. I then propose a new and improved form of software patent patenting the implementation, one a MEP can debate for in their plenary session.
That's probably either meaningless, or more likely worthless for patent applicants. The only way for software patents to do that is to turn them in a more expensive and less lasting copyright.
There's a bit about it lost somewhere in http://patents.caliu.info/aboutMcCarthyConsiderations.html
You all might be interested that the SME group in the EU parliament is very worried about the proposed directive but their proposed amendments aren't much use. Irish MEP Avril Doyle is on that committee and I am liasing with her wrt to tabling amendments. If the SME committee could come behind these amendments, they have a much louder voice than any one MEP or party.
Since you don't mind commenting that on a public list, would you mind discussing the precise text of the amendments you would like?. Is the SME committee an EP committee ? I thought it was some other group of MEPs. Anyway, are you aware that one MEP cannot table amendments in plenary?.
-- Xavi Drudis Ferran xdrudis@tinet.org _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
A Qua, 2003-08-13 às 23:56, Ciaran O'Riordan escreveu:
We need a consensus on what amendments to endorse.
There are 14 proposed amendments, the list is available at: http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20030616/juri20030616.ht...
Amendments are marked "AM". Amendments can only be tabled at JURI meetings and there are no such meetings until Sept 10th, so this is the final list.
Wrong. JURI is over. Ammendments can only be tabled in plenary by a political group or a group of 32 MEPs (Members of European Parliament).
In Ireland, we've worked hard on the patents issue. The response we get is that they know the directive is bad but they don't want to vote against it, they want to amend it (so that the process won't have been a complete waste of time and money).
No matter how hard it is, we have to find a set of amendments that will make us happy. We then say to our MEPs "Unless amendments X, Y, and Z are passed, you must vote No". This gives us a chance to get a good law passed, and it gives our MEPs a firm reason to vote No if needs be.
You should present them a vote list. That is, a list of ammendments and yes or no for all of them. Conditionals are too complex to advocate for.
Does anyone know of a good/agreed set of amendments? I'll try to work out a set myself if no one knows. I think the Greens/EFA drafted an amendment, I'll start by looking for this one.
There will be tabled ammendments in plenary that have not been discussed in any of the committees so far. If you have contacts with irish MEPs please contact europarl-ie@ffii.org for coordination. You'll be able to get most of the information from there.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 12:26:26AM +0100, Jo?o Miguel Neves wrote:
A Qua, 2003-08-13 ?s 23:56, Ciaran O'Riordan escreveu:
We need a consensus on what amendments to endorse.
The above line was my main point. Does such a consensus exist already?
There are 14 proposed amendments, the list is available at: http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20030616/juri20030616.ht...
Amendments are marked "AM". Amendments can only be tabled at JURI meetings and there are no such meetings until Sept 10th, so this is the final list.
Wrong. JURI is over. Ammendments can only be tabled in plenary by a political group or a group of 32 MEPs (Members of European Parliament).
(JURI is a committee, it cannot be "over") I spoke to the European Parliment Office in Ireland, they say that amendments are proposed at the meetings of the relevent committee (JURI in this case), and that there are no more JURI meetings until Sept 10th. The amendments are voted on by the plenary at the start of September.
You should present them a vote list. That is, a list of ammendments and yes or no for all of them.
This is a good idea.
Does anyone know of a good/agreed set of amendments? I'll try to work out a set myself if no one knows. I think the Greens/EFA drafted an amendment, I'll start by looking for this one.
There will be tabled ammendments in plenary that have not been discussed in any of the committees so far. If you have contacts with irish MEPs please contact europarl-ie@ffii.org for coordination. You'll be able to get most of the information from there.
I'll contact ffii to clear this up.
ciaran.
A Qui, 2003-08-14 às 01:13, Ciaran O'Riordan escreveu:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 12:26:26AM +0100, Jo?o Miguel Neves wrote:
A Qua, 2003-08-13 ?s 23:56, Ciaran O'Riordan escreveu:
We need a consensus on what amendments to endorse.
The above line was my main point. Does such a consensus exist already?
There are 14 proposed amendments, the list is available at: http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20030616/juri20030616.ht...
Amendments are marked "AM". Amendments can only be tabled at JURI meetings and there are no such meetings until Sept 10th, so this is the final list.
Wrong. JURI is over. Ammendments can only be tabled in plenary by a political group or a group of 32 MEPs (Members of European Parliament).
(JURI is a committee, it cannot be "over")
JURI intervention regarding software patents is over. They've done their report and the issue is going to plenary. Sorry for not being explicit enough ;).
I spoke to the European Parliment Office in Ireland, they say that amendments are proposed at the meetings of the relevent committee (JURI in this case), and that there are no more JURI meetings until Sept 10th. The amendments are voted on by the plenary at the start of September.
Yes, but it's possible to table ammendments for the plenary. There's no need to restrict to JURI ammendments (fortunately).
You should present them a vote list. That is, a list of ammendments and yes or no for all of them.
This is a good idea.
Does anyone know of a good/agreed set of amendments? I'll try to work out a set myself if no one knows. I think the Greens/EFA drafted an amendment, I'll start by looking for this one.
There will be tabled ammendments in plenary that have not been discussed in any of the committees so far. If you have contacts with irish MEPs please contact europarl-ie@ffii.org for coordination. You'll be able to get most of the information from there.
I'll contact ffii to clear this up.
ciaran. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On 13 Aug 2003 at 23:56, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
In Ireland, we've worked hard on the patents issue. The response we get is that they know the directive is bad but they don't want to vote against it, they want to amend it (so that the process won't have been a complete waste of time and money).
Precisely what I've been hearing. I've still pointed out that the "process" didn't bother consulting actual real engineers like the droves who have been writing in to complain. This says to me that the process is broken.
No matter how hard it is, we have to find a set of amendments that will make us happy. We then say to our MEPs "Unless amendments X, Y, and Z are passed, you must vote No". This gives us a chance to get a good law passed, and it gives our MEPs a firm reason to vote No if needs be.
If there were any chance it could be struck down, I'd be far happier. But sure, the one amendment changing the patenting from idea to implementation would utterly alter the impact of the law. A nice second amendment would be the total prohibiting of any monopoly of development of idea in software, then we could clean up those marginal cases from happening.
Does anyone know of a good/agreed set of amendments? I'll try to work out a set myself if no one knows. I think the Greens/EFA drafted an amendment, I'll start by looking for this one.
We must rally around one set of amendments rather than end up with 4 good amendments each getting a quarter of our support.
Agreed. However, I fear the real fight will be coming at the three year review stage where the multinationals will be pushing for much expanded ability to patent things and everyone else will be pushing the other way.
Ultimately I think only a large wodge of campaign money will make any difference as these things always do. And that'll only come from EU businesses getting it in the neck.
Cheers, Niall
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 12:54:27AM +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 13 Aug 2003 at 23:56, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: I've still pointed out that the "process" didn't bother consulting actual real engineers like the droves who have been writing in to complain. This says to me that the process is broken.
Changing the EU process will have to wait for another time :)
No matter how hard it is, we have to find a set of amendments that will make us happy. We then say to our MEPs "Unless amendments X, Y, and Z are passed, you must vote No". This gives us a chance to get a good law passed, and it gives our MEPs a firm reason to vote No if needs be.
If there were any chance it could be struck down, I'd be far happier.
If it's struck down, we keep the status quo, software patents continue to be handed out, and when we fight this again, the companies with software patents will fight harder because they will stand to lose more. We must aim to end this now.
But sure, the one amendment changing the patenting from idea to implementation would utterly alter the impact of the law. A nice second amendment[...]
We can only ask our MEPs to vote for amendments that exist. And we must tell our MEPs how we want them to vote on every amendment. This isn't fun work, it hard and laborious, but it's how we can win.
I fear the real fight will be coming at the three year review stage[...]
This is another battle. Today, we have to fight the proposed directive.
Ultimately I think only a large wodge of campaign money will make any difference
The effect of a wodge of money is not something we can think about, we just have to lobby our MEPs, and do it right.
We can win this.
Thanks for including the Irish MEPs in you letter sending campaign, you're obviously not afraid of occassional hard, laborious work :)
Ciaran.
On 14 Aug 2003 at 1:42, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
If there were any chance it could be struck down, I'd be far happier.
If it's struck down, we keep the status quo, software patents continue to be handed out, and when we fight this again, the companies with software patents will fight harder because they will stand to lose more. We must aim to end this now.
I agree. I had been thinking when I wrote it all software patents actually though this was out of context.
Thanks for including the Irish MEPs in you letter sending campaign, you're obviously not afraid of occassional hard, laborious work :)
Oh I live in Cork. And besides, fifteen Irish MEP's in nothing compared to 89 British MEP's. I sent fifteen letters a day which took me over an hour to individually stamp, address and stuff the letter into.
I would even have written to all the Spanish MEP's as my spanish is passable and I used to live there. But I haven't worked in over a year, so couldn't afford the stamps :(
Cheers, Niall
We need a consensus on what amendments to endorse.
There are 14 proposed amendments, the list is available at: http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20030616/juri20030616.ht...
The text by Xavier Drudis Ferran which you appended below contains much of the answers to your concerns already, you just have to read it.
And read http://swpat.ffii.org, which tries to provide a short cut to fully understanding the situation. The site also contains a counter-proposal and a minimal set of amendments.
It is probably not a good idea to restart this work in the name of FSFE. You are likely to "reinvent it, just poorly", as is said about some people who do not understand Unix.
No matter how hard it is, we have to find a set of amendments that will make us happy. We then say to our MEPs "Unless amendments X, Y, and Z are passed, you must vote No". This gives us a chance to get a good law passed, and it gives our MEPs a firm reason to vote No if needs be.
That is a correct way to proceded.
Does anyone know of a good/agreed set of amendments?
see Xavier's comments.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:50:43PM +0200, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
El Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:22:07PM +0100, Niall Douglas deia:
What the MEPs seem to want is in short, succint terms, what amendments should they call for? In my view, patenting the implementation not idea could actually be a good idea and in the worst case scenario, it won't make things really awfully worse.
What the MEPs want is 2 small amendments that please everyone. That is impossible. There are just too many holes in it. Yet it is their responsability to fix it. If it takes many amendments then that's it. I'm sorry, I didn't write the CEC proposal, so don't blame it. The FFII has some amendment proposals. This is not necessarily the only way to fix it, but it is very easy to fail in fixing it. They have always the option of rejecting the directive, if fixing it is too much work.
I appreciate your comments on patents plus all the FSF have written about the matter. But it's all useless - you all speak of "software patents" being bad full stop period. A MEP might know that and even agree, but the EU is *mandated* to enforce software patents. Therefore, you are fighting a war which cannot be won.
This is wrong, to say it politely. Who do you think is mandating anything to the EU but itself?.
Instead you should accept that the EU *shall* have software patents, and this fight is all about making software patents as least damaging as possible. Therefore you should be proposing alternative forms of software patent ie; not Arlene McCarthy's proposal.
Software patents are as absurd as saying pi equals 5.6. There is nothing you can do to make them less harmful without making them worthless to applicants. But we discussed a bit about that some time ago, didn't we?.
To differentiate, I use "US-style software patent" for anything which patents the idea behind a program. These must be avoided at all costs. I then propose a new and improved form of software patent patenting the implementation, one a MEP can debate for in their plenary session.
That's probably either meaningless, or more likely worthless for patent applicants. The only way for software patents to do that is to turn them in a more expensive and less lasting copyright.
There's a bit about it lost somewhere in http://patents.caliu.info/aboutMcCarthyConsiderations.html
You all might be interested that the SME group in the EU parliament is very worried about the proposed directive but their proposed amendments aren't much use. Irish MEP Avril Doyle is on that committee and I am liasing with her wrt to tabling amendments. If the SME committee could come behind these amendments, they have a much louder voice than any one MEP or party.
Since you don't mind commenting that on a public list, would you mind discussing the precise text of the amendments you would like?. Is the SME committee an EP committee ? I thought it was some other group of MEPs. Anyway, are you aware that one MEP cannot table amendments in plenary?.
-- Xavi Drudis Ferran xdrudis@tinet.org _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
-- Irish Free Software Forum: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hi Hartmut.
The Irish MEPs have replied to us saying: "I'd rather fix the directive than just vote No, what must I do?"
What must we tell them, in order to get the result we want?
"Unless amendments X, Y, and Z are passed, you must vote No".
Does FFII know what X, Y, and Z are?
I am assuming that good amendments exist, and that they have names or document numbers.
Can anyone tell me the list of names or document numbers that our MEPs must vote Yes for?
Thanks. Ciaran O'Riordan P.S. Hartmut, thanks for your work in organising the EP conference in may, it's what got me started lobbying our MEPs.
(I've re-read Xavier's mail but I don't see the answer. I've spent hours on swpat.ffii.org and I can't find it there either.)
El Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 05:45:00PM +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan deia:
Hi Hartmut.
The Irish MEPs have replied to us saying: "I'd rather fix the directive than just vote No, what must I do?"
What must we tell them, in order to get the result we want?
I'm trying to finish an update + translation of http://patents.caliu.info/codecisio.html about the procedure, where it is and what's next. But the gist is:
The ITRE and CULT EP committees already voted their amendments. Those amendments and the ones presented by the rapporteur in JURI, Arlene McCarthy, together with the rest of amendments in JURI were voted in JURI already, and a subset were approved and got into the JURI report.
All amendments from McCarthy, rest of JURI, ITRE and CULT were analysed already before the JURI vote in this page:
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/juri0304/index.en.html http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/juri0304/juri0304.en.pdf
This includes a score for each amendment.
If you need a too brief summary, footnote 21 in the document
http://patents.caliu.info/aboutMcCarthyConsiderations.html
says
* [21]List of necessary amendments 4, 5, 9, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 48,50?, 51, 52, 54, , 59, 63, 65, 68, 70, 71. Cult4, Cult5, Cult6, Cult9, Cult11, Cult18, Itre1, Itre2, Itre3, Itre11, Itre14, Itre15, Itre18, Itre19. For more details on why these are needed and what other options are there, and what are the consequences of each choice, see http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/juri0304/
and somewhere else it says the rest needed to be voted down. Unfortunately the result of the JURI vote in June 17th 2003 was very different.
Please note that the notation is: - ItreXX is amendment XX in the ITRE committee opinion - CultXX is amendment XX in the CULT committee opinion - XX is amendment XX tabled for JURI
The text of the amendments is in the swpat URL, extracted from official EP documents linked from http://patents.caliu.info/codecisio.html#Parlament
Since some of the amendments passed the vote and some not, all amendments are renumbered, so the numbers of the amendments in the JURI report that plenary will vote are not the same numbers used in this document, and many good amendments didn't make it into the JURI report.
Plenary will vote only the following amendments: - Those in the JURI report (that is, those accepted by JURI in the JURI vote 2003.6.17 which are mostly harmful, with some useful and some acceptable) - Those tabled for plenary by a whole political group in EP before thursday, August 28th 12:00 - Those tabled for plenary by 32 MEPs before thursday, August 28th 12:00
Some MEPs/assistants prefer to table amendments that were already tabled in the committees but failed in JURI (or in ITRE or CULT?), because then they already have the support they got there to start with. Some other prefer to table new amendments because the old ones already failed, or because they want better amendments than what has been tabled so far.
For those who want new amendments the FFII proposal can be a good inspiration. There are 2 proposals. - a 50 odd amendments set correcting every wrong detail in the CEC proposal http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/prop/
- a small set of amendments but with bigger changes (one for instance proposes erasing almost all the directive and replace it with something else) http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/prop/mini/
No MEP can table amendments in plenary all alone, and of course the more amendments tabled the less probability for good ones to get enough votes, since it may cause dispersion. So consensus is indeed necessary. This consensus implies that it is quite risky to give an amendment to a MEP on monday August 25th afternoon (this is the day MEPs should come back from holidays, AFAIK), because they may not have time to discuss the amendments with their group or with other 31 MEPs. It's not impossible, but it's not easy.
In addition to all that, public discussion of amendments or political strategies of MEPs and groups before those are officialy published may alienate some MEPs for good reasons (and also for bad reasons), and make the work more difficult. It might also somehow make the amendments stronger, but that depends on the MEP views, I guess.
For all these reasons, I believe it is difficult to propose amendments to MEPs in a distributed fashion, although all these information can be made available to them. It's possibly too much information for the average MEP/assistant to digest, but hopefully when one gets in touch with them one has already digested it and can ask their questions or explain how good or bad their proposals are.
I think the most important goal is getting your MEP in contact with other anti-swpat MEPs, and make them understand the basic problems in the JURI report. Some of the anti-swpat MEPs have spoken publically, see for instance this post or some links from there:
http://gnu-friends.org/story/2003/6/25/03633/3084
For anything more concrete either the lobbier or the assistant/MEP can contact europarl-<country code>@ffii.org (or even me as last resort).
"Unless amendments X, Y, and Z are passed, you must vote No".
Yes, this is a decision MEPs must make, because after they have voted what they wanted for each amendment they must decide whether to accept the whole lot of amendments depending on the result of the voting, that is, on what the rest of MEPs have voted. So this can only be suggested as a rule to evaluate "at runtime" not as a precomputed yes or no.
It would be helpful if we could suggest such a rule, but as for the rest, it is too soon now (see below).
Does FFII know what X, Y, and Z are?
I am assuming that good amendments exist, and that they have names or document numbers.
Note than the list of tabled amendments for plenary (and therefore their numbers) won't be known until thursday august 28th afternoon or evening. And then there's still the order in which they will be voted that matters, because sometimes one amendment approved can cause other amendments for the same paragraph to fail (i.e. not be voted at all). So depending on the order they are voted you may play some tricks that change the voting list. I don't think this order is ever published before the plenary vote, so the perfect voting list may be impossible to produce on time, although after some analysis starting on august 28th night some approximation may be possible.
Can anyone tell me the list of names or document numbers that our MEPs must vote Yes for?
Not yet, sorry.
For now, sensibilisation work in the EP is important, as is information to the press. If we can get "important" lobbiers, that's also helpful (for instance companies that sell or even use software signing the call for action, or directly lobbying EP, etc.
Call for action: http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/demands/index.en.html )
"Unless amendments X, Y, and Z are passed, you must vote No".
Does FFII know what X, Y, and Z are?
So far the amendments that have been put to vote are not known yet.
One simple rule is: if Rocard, Greens and EDD don't all recommend "yes", better vote "no". If one or more of the Rocard group's amendments are rejected, vote "no".
This isn't to say that the directive with the Rocard group's amendments will be an acceptable one. Unless about 90% of the recitals and articles are deleted or rewritten along the lines of the FFII counter-proposals, it will still be a bad law that ought to be rejected, if the EP has any self-esteem.
On 13 Aug 2003 at 23:50, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
What the MEPs seem to want is in short, succint terms, what amendments should they call for? In my view, patenting the implementation not idea could actually be a good idea and in the worst case scenario, it won't make things really awfully worse.
What the MEPs want is 2 small amendments that please everyone. That is impossible. There are just too many holes in it. Yet it is their responsability to fix it. If it takes many amendments then that's it. I'm sorry, I didn't write the CEC proposal, so don't blame it. The FFII has some amendment proposals. This is not necessarily the only way to fix it, but it is very easy to fail in fixing it. They have always the option of rejecting the directive, if fixing it is too much work.
I completely agree. I always start any conversation with a MEP by saying the entire directive is crap and should be complete rewritten. But then I'm always told we're too far down the line to start over so the only realistic possibility are amendments.
I appreciate your comments on patents plus all the FSF have written about the matter. But it's all useless - you all speak of "software patents" being bad full stop period. A MEP might know that and even agree, but the EU is *mandated* to enforce software patents. Therefore, you are fighting a war which cannot be won.
This is wrong, to say it politely. Who do you think is mandating anything to the EU but itself?
Once an international agreement is signed, it's binding (unless you're the US). I don't think any MEP was happy with the TRIPS agreements, the US screwed us over on a number of points bad for the EU and we could have done much better. But then the EU isn't a cohesive whole pulling in the same direction - during the negotiations the US kept using divide & conquer tactics to wring out more concessions.
Once it's done though, it's done. We must have software patents. Luckily, the TRIPS wording as to what they must entail is quite vague.
Instead you should accept that the EU *shall* have software patents, and this fight is all about making software patents as least damaging as possible. Therefore you should be proposing alternative forms of software patent ie; not Arlene McCarthy's proposal.
Software patents are as absurd as saying pi equals 5.6. There is nothing you can do to make them less harmful without making them worthless to applicants. But we discussed a bit about that some time ago, didn't we?.
Yes. However, I've considerably improved by background understanding of the theory of patents, how they work wrt classical economic theory, and why under that same theory US-style patents have the opposite effect.
Of course, classical economic theory is also all arse, Hazel Henderson's economic books go some of the way in illustrating how we got Adam Smith totally wrong but I'd go much further. Still, you can't go saying the entire world is wrong when you're arguing with conventionally minded MEPs, so you use their flawed models.
To differentiate, I use "US-style software patent" for anything which patents the idea behind a program. These must be avoided at all costs. I then propose a new and improved form of software patent patenting the implementation, one a MEP can debate for in their plenary session.
That's probably either meaningless, or more likely worthless for patent applicants. The only way for software patents to do that is to turn them in a more expensive and less lasting copyright.
I think everyone here can agree that book-style copyright is totally inappropriate for software too. In fact, all IP law for anything representable inside a computer needs completely rewriting.
That time is coming. The day someone writes a cheap peer-to-peer fully encrypted and completely untrackable file sharing system with integrated anti-spy measures, the death bell will truly have knelled. I estimate no more than five years away.
You all might be interested that the SME group in the EU parliament is very worried about the proposed directive but their proposed amendments aren't much use. Irish MEP Avril Doyle is on that committee and I am liasing with her wrt to tabling amendments. If the SME committee could come behind these amendments, they have a much louder voice than any one MEP or party.
Since you don't mind commenting that on a public list, would you mind discussing the precise text of the amendments you would like?
Shouldn't I comment that on a public list? I'm sure it's public information.
Is the SME committee an EP committee ? I thought it was some other group of MEPs. Anyway, are you aware that one MEP cannot table amendments in plenary?.
Mrs. Doyle ran through the amendments procedure with me and well, it's complicated. She said she wants one or two amendments as you had thought with extremely strong but concise arguments in favour of them.
Now I finally have the proposed directive, I can finally be specific wrt revisions. I'll give it a first reading tonight before bed.
Cheers, Niall
A Qui, 2003-08-14 às 00:54, Niall Douglas escreveu:
Once an international agreement is signed, it's binding (unless you're the US). I don't think any MEP was happy with the TRIPS agreements, the US screwed us over on a number of points bad for the EU and we could have done much better. But then the EU isn't a cohesive whole pulling in the same direction - during the negotiations the US kept using divide & conquer tactics to wring out more concessions.
Once it's done though, it's done. We must have software patents. Luckily, the TRIPS wording as to what they must entail is quite vague.
WRONG. There's nothing in TRIPS forcing software patents, no matter how many people repeat that mistake:
Is the SME committee an EP committee ? I thought it was some other group of MEPs. Anyway, are you aware that one MEP cannot table amendments in plenary?.
Mrs. Doyle ran through the amendments procedure with me and well, it's complicated. She said she wants one or two amendments as you had thought with extremely strong but concise arguments in favour of them.
If you're talking to MEPs, please coordinate with europarl@ffii.org. There are MEPs that are going to table ammendments that haven't been presented yet, and it could be helpful to put the MEPs you're contacting with others from the same political group.
A Qui, 2003-08-14 às 01:12, João Miguel Neves escreveu:
WRONG. There's nothing in TRIPS forcing software patents, no matter how many people repeat that mistake:
Sorry, I forgot the link: http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/trips/index.en.html
On 14 Aug 2003 at 1:12, João Miguel Neves wrote:
Once it's done though, it's done. We must have software patents. Luckily, the TRIPS wording as to what they must entail is quite vague.
WRONG. There's nothing in TRIPS forcing software patents, no matter how many people repeat that mistake:
It says they must for "inventions for all fields of technology" if I remember. Ok, you can argue that software isn't an invention, but you're on thin ground because software can be an industrial tool. And since any software program could be implemented purely in electronics, you're scuppered because if an electronic machine can be patented (it can), and you can implement some of it in software, ipso facto software must be patentable. Wasn't there some German court ruling on this?
Anyway, it's a null point. All the MEPs think it needs patenting. And they would sound incredulous if you tell them TRIPS doesn't mandate it.
If you're talking to MEPs, please coordinate with europarl@ffii.org. There are MEPs that are going to table ammendments that haven't been presented yet, and it could be helpful to put the MEPs you're contacting with others from the same political group.
First time I've heard of that list. When did it arise?
Cheers, Niall
A Qui, 2003-08-14 às 01:31, Niall Douglas escreveu:
It says they must for "inventions for all fields of technology" if I remember. Ok, you can argue that software isn't an invention, but you're on thin ground because software can be an industrial tool. And since any software program could be implemented purely in electronics, you're scuppered because if an electronic machine can be patented (it can), and you can implement some of it in software, ipso facto software must be patentable. Wasn't there some German court ruling on this?
I recommend Phillipe Aigrain's text on this:
http://cip.umd.edu/Aigrain.htm
He was the responsible for software in the IST program. As for the german court ruling, there are other rulings that contradict it.
Anyway, it's a null point. All the MEPs think it needs patenting. And they would sound incredulous if you tell them TRIPS doesn't mandate it.
Nice, wrong generalization. Some of the MEPs I've discussed this issue are AGAINST software patents.
If you're talking to MEPs, please coordinate with europarl@ffii.org. There are MEPs that are going to table ammendments that haven't been presented yet, and it could be helpful to put the MEPs you're contacting with others from the same political group.
First time I've heard of that list. When did it arise?
According to my records, July 5. Each of the europarl-<country code>@ffii.org addresses include the people who have been fighting this at the europarl level. I'm in the europarl-pt list.
Contact with them. The situation is not as bleak as you think and any help is greatly appreciated.
Op do 14-08-2003, om 01:54 schreef Niall Douglas:
In fact, all IP law for anything representable inside a computer needs completely rewriting.
I agree. In the US academic interest is growing with people like Lessig, Boyle, Zithrain, ... There are a very interesting organisations like the EFF, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, The Center for the Public Domain, Public Knowledge, ...
Why don't we have similar organisations here? Is the situation less severe in Europe or are many academics just not paying attention?
Wouter Vanden Hove http://www.opencursus.be http://textbook.wikipedia.org