[translatable text] [howto help] [printable version] [Addenda]
Google
FFII calls on Committee of National Parliaments (COSAC) to review Council Patent legislationOFE 04/08/24Bitkom 04/08/24Nokia 03/11/07EPO 04/08/24

FFII invites OpenForumEurope to explain how text patents benefit open source software
Commemorate Banana Union Day

Open Forum Europe is lobbying the European Parliament in the name of "open source companies" in order to make software directly patentable and to ensure that interoperable software may not be written. We invited Graham Taylor of Open Forum to explain. An short dialog followed, in which Taylor presented himself as naively well-believing about the meaning of what he signed and reluctant to repair the damage.

The Text

To graham at openforumeurope org

Dear Mr. Taylor,

At

Unice/Eicta/ICC etc 2003/05/22: %(q:Joint Statement of the Industry) for Software Patents
you find news about how your initiative, Open Forum Europe, is providing invaluable help to the community of industrial patent lawyers in their effort to push the European Parliament to legalise program claims, business method patents and restrictions on interoperability.

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?

Yours sincerely

Answer to Answer of Graham Taylor

In an answer on Apr 28th, Mr. Taylor declined our invitation and offered a dialogue in writing. We ansered immediately, as below, and have so far not received further mails:

IP has been one way in which suppliers can gain a return on their investment. Software patents are intrinsically no different to any other IT patent and are ONE (but only one) way of protecting IP.

see

Patent Jurisprudence on a Slippery Slope -- the price for dismantling the concept of technical invention

But that's not the central point here.

The potential chaos caused by ill thought through granting of software patents, as in the US is clearly damaging to any small software house (not just OSS) and puts our industry at risk, and needs to be avoided in Europe. So firstly our stance is one of a strong definition on granting of software patents. Indeed we prefer the phrase, software patents will not be granted UNLESS there is clear indication that there is both significant innovation and technical contribution - and making this a real fence to climb.

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:

European Software Patent Horror Gallery

In addition we support the position that if a patent is granted there must be special arrangements made for free access if it forms part of an open standard.

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.

So there is the option to say no s/w patents or control them in a tight disciplined manner, as I believe the EU are proposing.

Your belief is wrong, the opposite is true.

See our analysis at

CEC & BSA 2002-02-20: proposal to make all useful ideas patentable
and the tabular comparison of proposal and amendment proposals at
EU Software Patent Directive Amendment Proposals

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?

Sincerely

Annotated Links

->Unice/Eicta/ICC etc 2003/05/22: %(q:Joint Statement of the Industry) for Software Patents
In a "Joint Statement of the Industry", directed to the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), the presidents of various industry associations, including Graham Taylor from the "Open Forum Europe" as a representative of the Linux/Opensource world, asks the legislators to ensure
  1. that computer programs are treated as patentable inventions and
  2. programs are directly claimable, so that programmers can be sued for publishing a program.
Moreover, as means of "protecting opensource software", the signatories ask the European Parliament to ensure that
  1. whenever an interface is patented, interoperable software may not be published or used without a license
  2. business methods are patentable "only" to the extent that a computer or some other device is involved
  3. the European Commission shall publish more papers (obituaries?) about the effects of patents on SMEs.
This statement was sent to many MEPs, together with accompanying letters from the patent arms of national industry associations. Traditionally industry associations have left patent politics completely to corporate patent lawyers, who typically form each association's "industrial property committee". This committee's papers are usually signed by the president of the association without further consultation of other committees. Gentle doublespeak with an ungentle insider meaning, as explained above, is also part of the game. What is unusual about the current letter is that an apparent "opensource community leader" was enlisted for the maneuver.
->phm 2003/07: McCarthy cites support by "opensource community"
Arlene McCarthy seems to be referring to Graham Taylor's initiative when she writes in her report about the software patent directive to the European Parliament:
The rapporteur has also carefully weighed the arguments put forward by industry and the open source community, some members of which have expressly stated their support for this plan to provide clarity and a clear explanation of when patents will be granted in this field.
->jheald 2003/06: Open Forum Europe Stitched by Lobbyists
James Heald reports about statements made by a representative of Open Forum Europe at a booth. When questioned by critical visitors, this representative pretended to be politically naive and misinformed the public about the positions which OFE had supported.
->redhat.com: Open Letter fo members of Open Forum Europe
Redhat Inc criticises Open Forum Europe and restates its support of the FFII/EuroLinux position on software patents. It remains unclear who the other members of OFE are and whether they support the position of Graham Taylor.
->The Register: Perens criticizes Graham Taylor
Bruce Perens points out that Graham Taylor can only speak for himself: No real OSS community leader would speak to politicians about such a sensitive subject without consulting other people in the community.
->OpenForum Europe 2003/05/09: Position on Software Patents
Graham Taylor makes things only worse by saying that he did not claim to represent the open source community. Taylor indeed signed the patent-extremist Joint Statement as "Graham Taylor, Open Forum Europe Programme Director, Initiative to accelerate the market take up of Open Source Software", and even in his excuse letter he insinuates that he is speaking for "hard business interests" of his constituents in his function as a promoter of open-source software.
->The Register 2003/05/09: OpenForumEurope rejects Perens charges
The Register publishes Graham Taylor's excuse letter, beginning with the words
OpenForum Europe draws its members from both the business user and supplier communities (including HP, IBM, Red Hat, SCO, SuSE and SUN) and has consistently adopted a pragmatic approach to the perceived business needs of users as reported by our members and by independently commissioned research.

Unfortunately this pragmatic approach is not welcomed in all quarters and our recent support of proposed revisions on software patents at the EU has created much negative and extreme comment from some members of the OSS community, based on incorrect information on our position. As a result we are today posting the following response on the website and writing to Bruce Perens and others clearly explaining our position and credentials. We hope this will provide greater clarity on our thinking and true beliefs.

Unfortunately the text clarifies neither the position on software patents nor the credentials of OFEu. Instead, like Taylor's other letters, it works with insinuations, trying to make readers believe that Taylor's position on software patents was moderate and pragmatic and that he is not making any representation claims, while at the same time he insinuates that he is representing business needs of his members. Later the version on the OpenForumEurope pages was changed, references to member companies removed.
->Letter from MEP Malcolm Harbour
UK Conservative MEP Malcolm Harbour, a relay of industrial patent lawyers in the European Parliament, supports Graham Taylor's demands for extension of patentability beyond the scope of the European Commission's proposals, explains that he has met Graham Taylor and that Graham Taylor does not claim to represent the OSS community.
->openforumeurope.org
The website says
OpenForum Europe is backed by the "not for profit" IT Forum Foundation, which has already established the highly influential InterForum, whose membership includes suppliers, users, e-market intermediaries, and government departments.
We found NO member list (which is kind'a strange for an "open" organisation).
->Press Release announcing Creation of OFE 2003/03/12
mentions "those organisations who contributed to the work during the 3 month prelaunch period included Caldera, Citibank, Compaq, the Financial Times, GBdirect, Globix, IBM, Identrus, IT Direct at Lloyds, Reed in Partnership and the DTI." ... hardly representative of Open Source. One could even imagine that OFE was created to have a controlled "open source" organization in order to be able to misrepresent the community.
->The Register about founding of OpenForumEurope
Says that it is backed only by large corporate and institutional members, most of whom do not use opensource software, and membership fees are from 3000 pounds upwards. Other sources from UK say that OFEu promotes not only software patents but also rigid copyright laws and proprietary software.
->Hits at Google
IT Forum foundationgives 28 hits at Google
OpenForum Europegives 300 hits at Google
Eurolinux20,000 hits
->JURI 2003/04-6 Amendments: Real and Fake Limits on Patentability
Positions in the current JURI discussion. Graham Taylor took sides for the most extreme patent inflationist of these positions
[ FFII calls on Committee of National Parliaments (COSAC) to review Council Patent legislation → FFII invites OpenForumEurope to explain how text patents benefit open source software | FFII an Bitkom: Gesetzentwürfe an Testsuite messen! | Letter to Telecom CEOs | Questions to the President of the European Patent Office ]
Valid XHTML 1.0!
http://swpat.ffii.de/xatra/ofeu034/index.en.html
© 2005/01/06 (2004/08/24) Workgroup
english version 2004/09/09 by Hartmut PILCH