IFSO has now responded and agreed to sign a letter asking for US assistance. The e-mail is below. A draft for an actual call itself is being written below.
Note: I mentioned the three points only for you to understand our approach to the Internet Commons Congress. I am requesting a message like the following, which calls for advocate leaders to issues a supporting statement for your fight against software patents, while also implying the great prospects for this issue through your success thus far. -- Seth
Dear concerned activist,
We are writing to ask you to help us with a key piece of the struggle for information freedom, the work we are presently undertaking to prevent the legalizing of software patents in Europe.
We are aware of the work of the Internet Commons Congress, dealing with communications policy and various issues that depend on a viable Internet Commons. We share your concerns regarding such FCC policies as the prospect of regulating Voice over IP (VoIP) applications, and in general, the protocols that are a critical part of the Internet infrastructure. Of course you are aware of various patents that have been obtained on software related to this infrastructure, such as VoIP, WiFi, Sender-ID and more.
We request that advocates from the United States support our campaign by issuing a common statement which may be addressed to policymakers confronting the software patent issue in Europe. We have had numerous significant successes in our campaign, yet at this point we believe your contribution would provide crucial assistance.
A short introduction to the status of the campaign can be found here: ![[WWW]](/wiki-htdocs/modern/img/moin-www.png){kind=small}
http://kwiki.ffii.org/ShortIntroEn
The following newly published site provides a comprehensive overview of the circumstances: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com
In short, while professing to be opposed to patenting "pure software," a number of parties in the government are presenting a Directive that will overturn the present exclusion of software from patentability under European law. The Directive's proponents appear to heed the word of patent professionals who seek to change the law by disingenuous legal means. They do not heed the results of public consultations, the contributions of legislative committees, economic analyses, or the democratically expressed will of European elected representatives.
The Directive's proponents appear intent on codifying an unsound practice enacted in case law at the European Patent Office. We have successfully conveyed to the EU Parliament the contradiction between the professed goals of the Directive and its real consequences. However, its proponents appear unwilling to acknowledge or examine the legally unsound practice that they intend to codify, and they may continue to divert the attention of lawmakers from the actual import of the Directive.
What we request is that you issue a common statement in our support. We ask that you include the following points:
Software is not appropriate subject matter for patents
The EPO's case law analysis is flawed in its basic foundation
The American experience shows grave consequences for innovation and freedom issue from allowing software patentability
We intend for this message to be addressed to European policymakers at all levels.
We provide relevant analyses of software patent policy here: http://xxxxxx
For the legally curious, the following EPO case is probably the single most comprehensive illustration of the EPO's flawed analysis, showing how they have undermined the explicit exclusion of computer programs "as such" from patentability under the law: http://legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/biblio/t970935eu1.htm
We believe that a statement to the above effect will play a major role in assuring that this issue is addressed by our policymakers in a forthright, accountable, legally sound, and socially-advantageous manner. Please do not hesitate to ask for our assistance in crafting this message.
Cordially,
The undersigned