[Free-sklyarov-uk] letter to Arlene McCarthy MEP

[phil hunt]

In today's Guardian there's an article by Arlene McCarthy MEP
in favour of software patents. I've written a reply to her. The
text of my reply is below (this includes the URL for the guardian
article). Any replies, I'll post here.

================ text of letter follows ================


[ this letter is being forwarded to my MEPs (David Martin Ian
Hudghton, Struan Stevenson, Bill Miller, Sir Neil MacCormick,
John Purvis CBE, Elspeth Attwooll, Catherine Stihler) and put on
my weblog at <http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/current.html>. All
replies will also be put on my weblog. ]

Dear Arlene McCarthy MEP,

I am writing to you in response to your article in the
Guardian, dated 12 Jun 2003, available on the web at
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,975126,00.html>.

Firstly, regarding which software is to be patentable, my
understanding is that your proposal is that software can be
patentable if it has a "technical solution". I submit that this
is very vague language, similar to the "technical effect"
language other pro-software-patent advocates are using. I've been
a professional computer programmer for almost 2 decades, and I've
no idea what it is supposed to mean.

Your proposal goes on to say that "algorithms and underlying
programming ideas will not [...] be patentable". You are aware I
take it that everything in a computer program is, pretty much by
definition, an algorithm? So taken at face value, your proposal
is that no program be patentable, which is clearly not what you
mean, so again your proposal is too loosely worded --  you need
to clarify the wording.

In your article you say that "his directive will not have any
adverse effects on open source software development". If this is
true, I welcome it. But I don't believe it necessarily will be
true. I suggest the proposal be ammended to state directly and
unequivocally: "no open source program shall be in contravention
of any patent granted within the EU". If what you say is true,
then no-one can object to this extra amendment, since it merely
clarifies what you say already.

As you point out in your article, many open source programs,
such as Linux and Apache are very popular and getting more
popular. In fact, I think you understate the case for the
importance of open source software in the EU. Many people and
organisations in the EU are starting to move towards open-source
software, often migrating away from the Microsoft Windows
platform.

Most of Europe's computers currently run the Microsoft Windows
operating system, and run Microsoft Office software. Microsoft
is a non-EU company, so this is a drain on the EU's ecomony in
the order of several billion Euros every year; if it was
possible to reduce this drain, Europe would gain immensely.
(Consider that a license for MS Windows and MS Office on one
computer costs several hunmdred pounds).

Open source advocates are not asking for special favours for open
source, all we are asking for is to not enact laws which would,
in practise, make open source software illegal -- which is what
some implementations of software patent law would do.

Unfortunately, a bad implementation of software patents in the EU
could prevent the drift from Microsoft to open source software.
For example, Microsoft could create a new data format, patent
software for encoding and decoding it, and refuse to license its
patents to open source competitors. That's why the EU needs an
open-source exemption to software patents.

You furthermore say in your article "It is time some of the
'computer rights campaigners' got real. Patents for software
inventions will not go away." This sounds dangerously close to
saying "we're going to do what we want to anyway, and if you
don't like it, tough". That's not a very democratic sentiment, 
is it?



-- 
Phil Hunt
The announcement by SCO last week that it intends to sue everyone 
who has ever uttered the word "Linux" is the latest in a series of 
desperate measures by SCO to be noticed. -- Humorix.org