<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/plain; charset=utf-8">

#title: UK Patent Orifice: Software Patentability Rally Brussels 2002-06-19

#descr: The UK Patent Office, wearing the hat of the British Government, has
entrusted one of its subcontractors to organise a high profile rally
in support of the proposed CEC/BSA software patentability directive. 
Speeches will be held by hard core patent movement activists from the
European Commission, the UK Government, the European Patent Office,
the IBM patent department and some well-known patent law firms.  At
the end of an intensive 6 hour long software patentablity propaganda
firework a podium discussion will be held in which an %(q:open source
representative) will be allowed to sit at the table.  The organisers'
initial choice was Alan Cox.  Alan has occasionally expressed deep
concern about the software patent problem but, as a core developper of
the Linux kernel and other key projects, he never really had the time
to study the legal intricacies.  This fact alongside with his long
hair and beard seemed to make him particularly qualified for the role
of the social romantic dissident, generously tolerated by a group of
patent lawyers posing as the businessmen of the real software
industry.  Alan immediately understood the game and declined the
invitation, handing the case over to the Eurolinux Alliance.  We have
meanwhile been put on the conference program, but our abstract was
doctored, our criticism suppressed, our message distorted, so that now
we nevertheless fit into the design of this rally.

#Otc: Conference Organising Subcontractor

#Shd: Original Schedule

#HiW: How the Eurolinux abstract was doctored

#ibr: including some possible topics for an Eurolinux presentation

#Ang: As can be observed here, the UKPO and related circles are a
traditional major customer of IBC, perhaps even the most important
one.  IBC is also closely connected to or published journals such as
%(q:Patent World) and %(q:IT Law Today).  It can be safely considered
to be a reliable member of the %(uk:UK Patent Family).

#Aba: A similarly structured patent orifice had been set up by the UK patent
establishment and organised by IBC in London on 2000-10-20, with
%(rh:Robert J Hart) acting as the chairman.  However there was a
slightly larger participation of dissenting views than envisaged this
time.

#plan: Proposal for a Directive on the Protection of Computer Implemented
Inventions

#Car: Chairman

#Ohg: On 2002-03-11 Hartmut Pilch answered to the following request of the
organisers:

#Ioo: I would also be grateful if you could let me have three or four bullet
points outlining the main issues that you would cover.  I am pasting
the programme at the bottom of this email.

#bsn: by suggesting the following as a discussion basis (%(q:for the time
being), cc to the eurolinux mailing list, speaker not yet determined):

#Twa: The Eurolinux Alliance, representing 120000 signatories and 300
software companies and organisations from the free and proprietary
software world, sees the directive proposal as a poorly crafted
attempt to

#lul: legalise 30000 ridiculous patents illegally granted by the EPO

#mns: make everything under the sun patentable

#sWn: suck the life blood out of the European software industry

#pea: plunge the patent system even deeper into chaos and dysfunctionality

#Tpa: The IBC people then changed this to

#TWr: The Eurolinux Alliance, representing 120000 signatories and 300
software companies and organisations from the free software world,
sees the directive proposal as a poorly crafted attempt to

#leW: legalise 30000 patents

#mrp: make everything patentable

#tWn: take the life blood out of the European software industry

#ppe: plunge the patent system into chaos

#ToW: The above version was, without any further communication, printed on a
pamphlet and sent out to the potential participants, probably
thousands of patent professionals, during the latter half of March.

#Teh: The main differences between the versions are:

#Eiv: Eurolinux version

#IWr: IBC version

#cme: comments

#rmi: representing ... from the free and proprietary software world

#rlW: representing ... from the free software world

#Iic: This turns our statement into its opposite.  Indeed 1/2 of the 300
Eurolinux sponsors write proprietary software, much of which runs on
MS Windows or Mac OS.  Yet it is the policy of the patent
establishment to portray its critics as %(q:opensource) or %(q:free
software) advocates and thus make them look like a minority.

#lWi: legalise 30000 ridiculously trivial software patents, illegally
granted by the EPO

#leW2: legalise 30000 patents

#Tao: This takes away our whole criticism.

#pea2: plunge the patent system even deeper into chaos and dysfunctionality

#ppe2: plunge the patent system into chaos

#NWe: This turns our statement into its opposite and makes it look
ridiculously dramatic.  The IBC version implies that the patent system
is in order and the directive proposal has a huge impact.  Our version
said that it is already in chaos and the directive proposal pushes
this a little further.

#WWh: On 2002-03-28, when we protested against this rewriting of our text,
IBC representative Anna D'Alton told us that our initial outline had
to be amended because it had been too long and %(q:too inflammatory).

#Inf: It should be noted that even our first preliminary outline would not
have been the longest on the program, and there was certainly room for
consenting on changes, as long as our basic message was preserved.

#Bqe: But Anna didn't respond to Hartmut's mail.  This mail also contained
other questions and offers, such as an offer to bring more qualified
speakers to the conference, so as to turn it into a real forum of
dialogue.

#IWe: It is quite clear what UK patent family is afraid of: dialogue.  They
must insist on conducting a virtual debate in Brussels in order to
create the impression that any opposition to legalising their practise
is only marginal.  All the other speakers are carefully chosen to
achieve this purpose, and critics are only allowed to appear in a
marginalised role, carefully assigned to a minority position.

#WtW: We have asked for a correction at least on the website (the thousands
of leaflets alread printed and distributed will be difficult to
correct), but again didn't receive a response.

#Mtf: Misrepresenting our outline may be covered by section 80.  However
illicitely copying our work is not the real problem.  Rather the
organisers claim that we said something which we didn't say, and they
use this claim to make us appear silly in the eyes of a large public: 
libel.  Also, public institutions such as the UK government, its name
and possibly its money, are being enlisted for collusion in propaganda
activities at the service of predatory groups.

#Tht: By changing our title and mispresenting our position, the UKPO's
subcontractors may have violated UK laws concerning copyright, libel
et al.  Which and how?

#NWo: Please find and quote the relevant law texts for us.

# Local Variables: ;
# coding: utf-8 ;
# srcfile: /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/phm/sys/mlht.el ;
# mailto: mlhtimport@ffii.org ;
# login: gibuskro ;
# passwd: YYYYY ;
# feature: swpatdir ;
# dok: swpukpo026 ;
# txtlang: fr ;
# multlin: t ;
# End: ;