Source files of fsfe.org, pdfreaders.org, freeyourandroid.org, ilovefs.org, drm.info, and test.fsfe.org. Contribute: https://fsfe.org/contribute/web/ https://fsfe.org
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.

118 lines
3.5 KiB

10 months ago
  1. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
  2. <html>
  3. <version>1</version>
  4. <head>
  5. <title>Bullet Points on Saving the CII
  6. Directive</title>
  7. </head>
  8. <body>
  9. <center>[
  10. <a href="/activities/swpat/swpat.html">Introduction</a>
  11. | <a href="/activities/swpat/background.html">Background</a>
  12. | <a href="/activities/swpat/status.html">Status</a>
  13. | <a href="/activities/swpat/documents.html">Further Reading</a>
  14. ]
  15. </center>
  16. <center><h1>Free Software Foundation Europe:<br />Bullet-Points on
  17. Saving the CII Directive</h1></center>
  18. <p>
  19. Abstaining is not neutral, it means fully supporting the Council's
  20. text.
  21. </p>
  22. <p>
  23. The Council's text ignores the Parliament's first reading and
  24. places no effective limits on the scope of patentability.
  25. </p>
  26. <p>
  27. Interoperability amendments can only fix one class of problems. We
  28. would prefer Erika Mann's amendment to Kauppi's, but preventing the
  29. whole software patent problem would be far better use of this
  30. opportunity.
  31. </p>
  32. <p>
  33. &quot;Computer-implemented inventions&quot;, is a broad term:
  34. </p>
  35. <ul>
  36. <li>
  37. It includes &quot;high-tech&quot; innovations, such as medical
  38. devices and ABS breaking systems for cars. We are NOT opposing
  39. the patenting of high-tech innovations.
  40. </li>
  41. <li>
  42. It also includes ways of using a standard computer: for business
  43. methods, for communication, sharing information, and for
  44. displaying information. We oppose the patenting of these things
  45. (&quot;software patents&quot;).
  46. </li>
  47. </ul>
  48. <p>
  49. The Buzek-Rocard amendments permit patents on high-tech
  50. innovations, but prevent software patents by limiting patentability to
  51. innovations in &quot;applied natural science&quot; (touchable things,
  52. not everything thinkable).
  53. </p>
  54. <p>
  55. Patents would not keep jobs in Europe. US companies are moving
  56. their IT jobs to low cost economies. Gartner Group reports IT
  57. jobs in the US have dropped 16% in 3 years.
  58. </p>
  59. <p>
  60. A recent BSA study confirmed &quot;computer-implemented
  61. inventions&quot; is a term for what is &quot;usually referred to as
  62. 'software patents' in the US&quot;. This is why, despite making
  63. nothing but software, SAP have placed full-page ads in the European
  64. Voice asking for &quot;computer-implemented invention&quot; patents. 2
  65. this week and 2 last week.
  66. </p>
  67. <p>
  68. European patents are enforceable only against Europeans. They are
  69. not enforceable in the US; for that you need a US patent, and they are
  70. already available to Europeans. 73% of European software patents have
  71. been granted to non-European companies.
  72. </p>
  73. <p>
  74. This directive will allow software patenting, not because it
  75. contains clear wording in favour of them, but because it relies on the
  76. undefined terms (&quot;technical&quot;, &quot;technical
  77. contribution&quot;, and others), because it relies on grammatical
  78. tricks like &quot;software as such&quot;, and because it relies on
  79. meaningless classifications like &quot;pure software&quot;. This is
  80. not what EU directive quality should be.
  81. </p>
  82. <p>
  83. To make this directive a directive for &quot;high-tech&quot;
  84. innovations and not the software patent directive that it is today, we
  85. ask you to vote for the Buzek-Rocard amendments.
  86. </p>
  87. </body>
  88. </html>
  89. <!--
  90. Local Variables: ***
  91. mode: xml ***
  92. End: ***
  93. -->