|FFII calls on Committee of National Parliaments (COSAC) to review Council Patent legislation||OFE 04/08/24||Bitkom 04/08/24||Nokia 03/11/07||EPO 04/08/24|
Dear Mr. Taylor,
The signatories of the "Joint Statement", among them you as a representative of the open source software community, are sending their appeal to all members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in an attempt to create the impression that the OSS community or its more reasonable part (i.e. people like you) trust the European Patent Office and want patents to be enforcable against programmers or ISPs who publish an infringing text on their website.
I would find it very interesting to hear you argue in what way the demands which you are advocating could be beneficial to the constituents of your organisation.
Could you perhaps come to the Software Patent Hearing & Conference in/at the European Parliament on May 7.-8. in Brussels and explain your point of view? Which of the panels in the Conference, as proposed so far, do you think would be most suitable?
But that's not the central point here.
There is no difference between the US practise and that of the European Patent Office, as far as software is concerned.
Just look at the patents granted by the EPO on the basis of the rules which MEP McCarthy wants to codify:
Again the proposal which you endorse achieves the opposite of what you say is your goal: it makes sure that interoperable software can neither be published or used without a license.
Your belief is wrong, the opposite is true.
See our analysis at
and the tabular comparison of proposal and amendment proposals at
It would have been a good idea to consult the internal eurolinux list, to which I am cc-ing, before speaking about patent legislation in the name of the opensource community.
We cannot let the impression that "the oss community is split on patents" stand. It must be wiped out forcefully in one way or other. Damage could be turned into benefit.
What would you propose?