Shame on DG Infosoc, Shame on Liikanen

Purpose

• template for writing to people at DG Information Society in the context of Cons040504En

How to use

• use for inspiration to write your own letter, preferably on company letter paper

• search people to write to on http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/information_society/

• follow up by telephone later

Related Pages

• Slov040514En: Statement by Slovenian Information Society Ministry

• Ital040514En: Italian Minister for Technology and Innovation Calls on Colleagues to Resist Software Patents

• Program Claims in JURI

• Program Claims in Council

Dear ...

According to the internal session document from DG Internal Market

• http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/cec0405/

it seems that your department is helping the patent industry to prey on the software industry and to stifle innovation and productivity in Europe.

As the Council's patent officials have reached a qualified majority for unlimited patentability, including program claims, it is now up to DG Infosoc to prevent the software patent directive from becoming an A item on the Council's agenda of 2004-05-18.

The question is whether your directorate will stick to its previous position, the rejection of program claims.

According to the document the answer seems to be No.

Is my interpretation correct?

What is at stake can be learnt from our analysis at

• http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/cons0401/

The rejection of program claims is not sufficient for averting disaster from the software industry. Yet without this rejection, there is no hope of defining any limit of patentability. Only when program claims are rejected can the phantom debates about "technical contribution" begin to acquire a meaning.

In the negotiations of 2001/2002, DG Infosoc failed to stand up clearly for the interests of European citizens and software companies. Yet it achieved at least something valuable. Now even this seems to be put at a disposal, and DG Infosoc is preparing to become an enabler for a disgraceful maneuver against the European Parliament and democracy in Europe, without any arguments justifying this kind of stance.

DG Internal Market is now offering a reworded recital 17 as a compensation for your acquiescence to program claims. However, as any attentive reader can easily discover, recital 17 is not a progress at all. Like Art 5(2), it makes matters even worse than they were in February 2002.

What can be done to avert the disaster and bring back some honesty to EU decisionmaking?

Yours sincerely