You have rights.. Software Patents are Illegal

Hello Everyone,

Please forgive this cross-posting, but I wanted to send you all a summary of my research in this area for your reference- in one single e-mail. 

At the moment, members of the Council of the EU are deciding on an issue that effects not only software authors, but all those who are concerned with the freedom of ideas. If the Council draft is anything less than a demand for the realisation of a physical product or process in order to constitute an invention, then ideas themselves will be reclassified as "inventions" that can be owned by a single person or body corporate. This has been done on the incorrect assumption that Treaties require us to patent software.

What started off as an area of personal interest has become a much wider issue of freedom of speech itself, and indeed freedom of thought- for this issue is nothing less than that. Who can own an idea by itself?

The "restrictions on patentability" of "normal interactions" are wholly
inadequate, as they have been lifted from overrun PTO  practise, which
already allows for program claims and does nothing to prevent patenting of
computer programs when they are loaded into a computer and run . (the whole reason
why computer programs are written in the first place).

After writing numerous articles on this issue I have concluded:

1) Computer programs are literary works under every treaty we have signed on their protection because they are pure information. Literary works are by definition not inventions and concepts within them are no one person's property. This is the correct and only legitimate way to protect software.

2) The protection as a literary work extends "by any means and in any form"-  including processing of the program. (extensively documented)
not merely "the lines of code in written form" - yet more nonsense.

3) Software authors have the same rights as any other author to distribute and profit from their work in any form. Pure software patenting would be prejudicial to the rights of authors because it would allow an "inventor" to claim they own the author's ideas and block these rights . (A major breach)

4) Therefore proposals to extend patentability into data processing  place us in express violation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, The Berne Convention, The Software Copyright Directive and the TRIPS Treaty itself.

I have sent a copy of all my work with a covering letter  to the Council of Europe, as well as MEPs,  asking that they consider these points urgently.
The important thing that we must remember is: Authors are the legitimate right holders in software.  No one is asking for a change in the law, only that it be upheld. 
If the Council decides to go ahead without imposing proper restrictions to prevent data process patenting, they cannot say they haven't been warned of the very real breaches that would occur.

The main documents I have written on this issue.

http://www.beauprez.net/softpat/presumption.html The Origins of Software patenting: The Fatal Presumption. Explains the fundamental flaw in logic  that led to software patenting. Also explains why in reality patents and copyright cannot co-exist in the same field.

http://www.beauprez.net/softpat/summary.html Why is pure software patenting in breach of international obligations? A brief summary.

http://www.beauprez.net/softpat/ffii-talk140404.html The full address that I gave to the FFII at the Parliament on the 14th. Includes footnote references that link direct to treaties so that people can decide for themselves. Also demonstrates why the Council's restrictions in current form won't work.

http://beauprez.net/softpat/compliance.html The Compliance chart showing conformity of the Parliament and Council documents more broadly with international obligations.

http://beauprez.net/softpat/legalfacts3.html : Legal facts, Legal Fictions....

http://beauprez.net/softpat/dreamdirective.html  I wrote the dream directive to demonstrate simply how simple it is to have a directive that is compatible with all forementioned treaties, that would allow all new physical products or processes while disallowing pure software patentability. (In fact this is the only real way to comply with international obligations)

Once again thankyou to all of you for your thoughtful ideas, debates and patience.
 I do hope that we can put enough pressure on the Council to hand this issue of major legal as well as philosophical importance back to Parliamentary democracy.
 Please raise these issues with your representatives and anyone else who maybe interested.

Kindest Regards,

Christian