Re: You have rights.. Software Patents are Illegal

Dear Jim,


I've been looking around your site.  I am not at all up to speed with
all the technicalities of these arguments, but your position based on
international law is interesting, and the way you argue it seems
convincing to people like me who aren't really following all the
details -- and maybe also to people who *are* following all the
details, I don't know.

Thanks for this.

>How can we expose people with votes that matter (MEPs?) to your
>argument?  Ideally that would mean getting them into discussion with
>you personally, or at least with someone fluent in the argument.  If
>you are already involved with the FFII, perhaps they have ideas on
>this.

Basically if you can forward a summary of these arguments to MEPs in your
area saying that you are aware of these issues- and concerned about software
authors rights that may be violated if patentability extends to computer
programs. I wrote the summary to sum it up quite simply.

>Is the purpose of writing to all these various campaign groups to find
>people to beta-test your arguments?  If so, perhaps I should not have
>attempted to intervene in your discussion with Phil (who seemed to be
>playing Devil's Advocate, as usual).

Yes and no, I have been involved with extensive beta testing with members of
the FFII and lawyers.The FFII seem to be much more clued up than the average
lawyer since they read case law from all over the world and ask these
questions. I have had many debates with the FFII on this- at this point the
case is pretty much made.

The "forces of nature" doctrine was very difficult for me to grasp at first-
indeed I made many of the points that Phil did. Why would a washing machine
be patentable and not a computer program? In order for the doctrine to work
we have to demand that

1) there is a new physical product or process present.
2) this invention  is a new teaching of science

otherwise any product of inventive thought is an invention under law. (e.g.
business methods etc.)

>Also, in your FFII address, you say that you have legal expertise.
>How high-powered is this legal expertise?  I mean, could you hold your
>own in discussion with European legal people?  Or do you need to find
>higher-powered legal people to help verify the soundness of the
>argument?

I was a law student, however I don't claim to be a high court judge :-)

I'm not a legal expert per se, but on this issue I have researched the legal
protection of software under international law more intensely than most
lawyers do. In many ways my scope has been much wider because I'm looking at
statute rather than case interpretation of it (which can be hopelessly
distorted by isolated precident.) Also because I'm looking specifically
questions of copyright and patent law and how they interact, rather than
just "is this software technical?" Originally computer implemented
inventions were things like x-ray machines (new process realised by
softtware). After a while the EPO began to erode the doctrine so that a
computer program running on a computer could be seen as "technical" because
it related to the operation of the computer/network and not "software as
such".. This is where the line must not be crossed.

I suppose if there is someone (e.g. a law professor you know you could also
forward this to them, but the legal profession are prooving very reluctant
to come forward, or explain how the author would not be prejudiced.) This is
the key question that I have not heard answered yet.

Kindest Regards,

Chris

P.s. Thanks for the tips on the website- I will correct the typos, layout. I
have neglected it a bit, but I have been working on the case.