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

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Bullet Points on Saving the CII
Directive</title>
</head>
<body>
<center>[
<a href="/activities/swpat/swpat.html">Introduction</a>
| <a href="/activities/swpat/background.html">Background</a>
| <a href="/activities/swpat/status.html">Status</a>
| <a href="/activities/swpat/documents.html">Further Reading</a>
]
</center>
<center><h1>Free Software Foundation Europe:<br />Bullet-Points on
Saving the CII Directive</h1></center>
<p>
Abstaining is not neutral, it means fully supporting the Council's
text.
</p>
<p>
The Council's text ignores the Parliament's first reading and
places no effective limits on the scope of patentability.
</p>
<p>
Interoperability amendments can only fix one class of problems. We
would prefer Erika Mann's amendment to Kauppi's, but preventing the
whole software patent problem would be far better use of this
opportunity.
</p>
<p>
&quot;Computer-implemented inventions&quot;, is a broad term:
</p>
<ul>
<li>
It includes &quot;high-tech&quot; innovations, such as medical
devices and ABS breaking systems for cars. We are NOT opposing
the patenting of high-tech innovations.
</li>
<li>
It also includes ways of using a standard computer: for business
methods, for communication, sharing information, and for
displaying information. We oppose the patenting of these things
(&quot;software patents&quot;).
</li>
</ul>
<p>
The Buzek-Rocard amendments permit patents on high-tech
innovations, but prevent software patents by limiting patentability to
innovations in &quot;applied natural science&quot; (touchable things,
not everything thinkable).
</p>
<p>
Patents would not keep jobs in Europe. US companies are moving
their IT jobs to low cost economies. Gartner Group reports IT
jobs in the US have dropped 16% in 3 years.
</p>
<p>
A recent BSA study confirmed &quot;computer-implemented
inventions&quot; is a term for what is &quot;usually referred to as
'software patents' in the US&quot;. This is why, despite making
nothing but software, SAP have placed full-page ads in the European
Voice asking for &quot;computer-implemented invention&quot; patents. 2
this week and 2 last week.
</p>
<p>
European patents are enforceable only against Europeans. They are
not enforceable in the US; for that you need a US patent, and they are
already available to Europeans. 73% of European software patents have
been granted to non-European companies.
</p>
<p>
This directive will allow software patenting, not because it
contains clear wording in favour of them, but because it relies on the
undefined terms (&quot;technical&quot;, &quot;technical
contribution&quot;, and others), because it relies on grammatical
tricks like &quot;software as such&quot;, and because it relies on
meaningless classifications like &quot;pure software&quot;. This is
not what EU directive quality should be.
</p>
<p>
To make this directive a directive for &quot;high-tech&quot;
innovations and not the software patent directive that it is today, we
ask you to vote for the Buzek-Rocard amendments.
</p>
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->