The letter has been sent, but these comments may still be useful for the next letter. Not everything could be addressed in this letter.
I received a confirmation letter yesterday (2004 11 02) stating that the letter will be shown to the Minister on his return (from wherever he is just now).
Are we explaining the background sufficiently?
Software has always been patent-free in europe. Are the reasons as stated in the History section?
It is the case that patents on software in a device are patents on software. Should we make this point after the "meaningless distinction" paragraph?
* Another line that also elucidates is "a patent on software in a device is a patent everywhere." Think about that. It's comment on the nature of the Directive, is a very good main thing and a very good first thing to present the unversed with. Then proceed to explain how there's no distinction and how this is the nature of abstraction: it can't ever be somehow magically confined to a device. All abstractions are abstract. Duh, but this is the sequence of presentation that makes it clear. So then you say a patent on software in a device is a patent on software, just so long as it's established what we're talking about.
Say something about the parliament amendment that made sure TRIPS could not be used as an excuse to subvert the directive?
I'd like to see matters put a bit more starkly to emphasise the potential consequences of an ill-considered decision. After all, that's the reason for the amendments and (what I refer to as the "Sanity clauses"). To someone not technically up to speed, I fear the letter isn't generally 'in your face' enough... thoughts? Mel
Here's some rhetoric I composed a little while back (Seth):
Click here to see my usage of this rhetoric on the nosoftwarepatents site: ![[WWW]](/wiki-htdocs/modern/img/moin-www.png){kind=small}
http://nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=492#492
Pure abstraction is not patentable, even if it expresses a breakthrough discovery. This understanding is stronger in the European tradition (though these days this understanding seems unfortunately to be located outside of the EU patent establishment, despite what the law says). Europe is presently going through paroxysms as their tradition confronts privileged interests who are trying every form of political trickery and deceit to enable the patenting of algorithms in the European Union. A particularly ludicrous case in point is the Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions, which attempts to enable software patents when they are part of a "computer-implemented invention." There's absolutely no difference between patenting software in a device and patenting software. Software is abstract. A patent on software in a device is a patent everywhere. That's the nature of abstraction.
Those behind the Directive on Computer-Implemented Inventions have decided that the reason why theory, etc. are excluded from patentability is not because they are abstract, but because patentable subject matter has a nebulous, undefined "technical effect." They have fallen under the illusion that patent policy is foremost about giving exclusive rights as a form of protection, rather than about what would stifle innovation and what wouldn't. The members of the patent establishment have succumbed to the same fallacy we see in America -- to such an outrageous extent that they have forgotten why patents on abstraction are ridiculous.
This confusion has led them to fail to draw a distinction between instructions for computers (software) and concrete methods that show us how to employ natural forces in new ways.
The simplest way to explain how software is different is to look at what the computer is. A computer doesn't do anything but logic. It's different from other devices because it's designed to automate abstraction. When you look at it that way, you can see clearly that software is nothing but abstract logic, instructions designed for a logic device. Software is therefore the same as math or scientific laws, something anybody can "implement" without considering for a moment that somebody might have a claim on it as a concrete discovery.