From: Tim Jackson <tim@timj.co.uk>
To: "Bashir Khanbhai" <bkhanbhai/at\europarl.eu.int>
Subject: Re: Software patenting: request for action
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:54:00 +0100
Dear Mr. Khanbhai,
Thank you again for your correspondence on this matter. I would be
grateful if you would allow me to address some points from your previous
letter (prefixed by '>') directly.
> I have passed your response to my colleague, Malcolm Harbour MEP, who is
> leading on the issue.
I am, of course, more than happy for you to share my concerns with your
Parliament colleagues of all political persuasions. However, from the
evidence that I can see, the only "issue" which Mr. Harbour is "leading
on" is a pro-patent agenda and therefore even if he is a trusted
colleague, I sincerely hope that you will form an opinion on your personal
stance as representative of the Eastern region independent of Mr.
Harbour's views.
Naturally, I sincerely hope that as a visible figure in the software
patent debate, Mr. Harbour will take on board my comments but I fear that
he will dismiss them, as I am led to believe he has similar complaints
from technically knowledgeable constituents in various regions, as
"misguided lobbying" or "groundless fears", perhaps due to claimed lack of
knowledge of the patent system on our behalfs, and in that event I urge
you to challenge him on this matter and consider any pro-patent arguments
against the overwhelming strength of evidence and opinion which
demonstrates software patents to be an extremely bad idea for industry,
consumers and civil liberties alike.
I would also suggest that the views which pro-patent lobbyists seek to
dismiss are often held by people, such as myself, who as practical
engineers "skilled in the art", have a deep and intimate understanding of
the complex philosophical and practical issues which this issue raises. I
assert that, if anything, we are able to see more clearly the real impact
of Directives such as that proposed, than the legal advisors/patent
"experts" and others with similar backgrounds whose views appear to
currently be far more clearly represented in this debate.
> It is not his view that this directive is an attempt to expand the scope
> of patentability and we are not passing the proposal on this basis.
Once again, with the greatest of respect to Mr. Harbour, may I urge you in
the strongest terms to review the evidence personally, and not take Mr.
Harbour's opinion as fact on this case without challenge. In the strongest
terms, I believe that his assertions are inconsistent with the wording of
the Proposal (as amended) and past behaviour of the European Patent
Office.
Though I am not affiliated with FFII/EuroLinux (and I make that point
specifically, since I do not wish my personal, independent opinions and
requests as a constituent to be aggregated as forming part of any kind of
interest-group petition or submission, because they are not), I support
their counterproposal on this issue, and may I specifically request that
you enumerate what, if any, objections you have to it? Their proposal
seems to me to contain an extremely fair set of amendments which address
in a clear and unambiguous way the issues which yourself and Mr. Harbour
have raised, yet provide a fairer framework which will not adversely
affect smaller enterprises and individuals or impede the growth of
open-source software in a spirit of academic freedom which has produced
astonishing innovation over recent years. Furthermore, I believe that the
FFII amendments are insightful and based more clearly on a deep
understanding of the social and philosophical issues at hand and will,
through clear and unambiguous use of wording and definitions, lead to more
legal certainty in an implemented Directive. I believe we are all in
agreement that this certainty is crucial to continued European economic
development and success in this sector.
For your reference, an extremely easy-to-follow version which compares,
side-by-side, point-by-point, the original Proposal and the FFII
counter-proposal is available at:
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/kern/index.en.html
Sadly, the current proposed Amendments do not incorporate any elements of
the FFII's suggestions, which begs the question why, and indicates even
more strongly than before a bias towards the demands of those who favour
software patents.
> There is also a 'review clause' in the directive, therefore, if the
> directive does not achieve its policy objectives, it can be
> reconsidered.
I appreciate this; however, the presence of a review clause should not be
a substitute for a carefully considered and balanced Directive in the
first instance, which I do not believe the current Proposal (even in its
current amended form) will lead to.
Thank you most sincerely for your attention to this matter.
Kind regards,
Tim Jackson