Opponents of a proposed European law on software patents
have overhauled their lobbying efforts in a last-ditch attempt to
turn lawyers' opinions in their favour.
Next Wednesday the Green Party in the European Parliament, which
agrees with opponents such as the open-source and free software
communities, will host a conference on the draft law, on which
voting is scheduled to take place at the next plenary session of
the parliament towards the end of this month.
Unlike previous events, the list of speakers at the half-day
event come from the academic mainstream and also include consumer
representatives.
Tim Berners-Lee, director of the World Wide Web Consortium, is
expected to give a virtual address and then participate in an
online debate with conference attendees.
Alan Mycroft from Cambridge University will present a petition
signed by fellow scientists urging lawmakers to rethink their
supportive views about the draft law before they vote.
Luc Soete, Founder of Merit at the Maastricht Economic Research
Institute on Innovation and Technology, will present a letter
co-signed by fellow economists urging European Parliamentarians to
change their minds.
Jim Murray, head of the Europewide consumer group BEUC, will
explain to delegates that the directive as it stands is too unclear
to pass as law. "I doubt a few amendments by the European
Parliament will fix that," he said.
As a consumer representative, Murray will argue why it is in the
interests of European citizens that European Parliamentarians
should take more time to understand the complex issues at stake
before voting on the text.
The conference will also hear from representatives of local
government in Europe who have already opted for open-source
structures for their office software needs. Jens Mülhaus, a member
of the City Council of Munich, Germany, will outline why his
organisation prefers a computer software environment not dominated
by a few large patent-owning corporations.
Previous attempts by the open-source and free software
communities to steer European lawmakers away from supporting the
draft law are widely seen to have failed, according to public
affairs and lobbying experts in Brussels.
"Up until now the lobbying effort against this software patent
law has been a shambles," said one expert with no direct
involvement in the debate, who asked not to be named.
He added, "They have been totally outgunned by the slick
lobbying of corporations like IBM and Microsoft. At last the
opponents appear to be getting their act together, and now the
fight appears to be more balanced."
Previous lobbying efforts used Richard Stallman, the
uncompromising, evangelical figurehead of the free software
movement as their ace when trying to win over MEPs bewildered by
the complexity of the subject.
"Their earlier conferences here attracted computer science
geeks. They looked like Stallman clones with their ponytails and
hippy demeanour. I think that rather put off the well-coiffed MEPs
who were the target of the events," said another veteran lobbyist
who also requested anonymity.
The line-up next week is overwhelmingly European. Previously,
the lobby was dominated by Americans. The only group the old lobby
managed to win round was the Green Party, which has hosted previous
events as well as next week's conference.
Most MEPs have converged on a position that ignores the views
from both extremes of the debate over software patents, and more or
less endorses the approach to patents applied at present by the
European Patent Office (EPO).
If the directive is passed in its current form it would,
effectively, harmonise the existing regime at an EU-wide level. EPO
standards on passing patents vary from country to country.
Arlene McCarthy, the socialist MEP responsible for proposing
changes to the text at the plenary session, has come under intense
criticism from the open-source and free software lobby for refusing
to hear their point of view.
However, she claimed her critics have not read her proposed
amendments.
"I am trying to improve the existing text by restricting what
can be patented," she said, adding that she plans to table more
amendments to the text before the plenary vote that will tighten up
the definition of what can be patented even further.
Free and open-source software supporters argue that patents
should not be awarded to software programs under any circumstances,
claiming that patents stifle innovation by favouring big
corporations with extensive patent portfolios and large legal
budgets.
At the other end of the debate supporters of greater patent
protection argue that Europe should step in line with the US and
Japan, which both have fairly lax rules that permit software
developers to register patents for so-called business methods.
These supporters also argue that their position promotes
innovation because they claim that patents allow inventors to reap
financial rewards from their inventions.
McCarthy said the hardline rejection of any Europewide law is
misguided. "We can leave things as they are, but is that better for
the future of software development in Europe? I don't think so.
"If we scrap this directive the problem won't go away. Under the
current EPO regime several patents of dubious quality have been
approved, and that will continue to happen."
But next week's presentations will tell MEPs that what most of
them they view as a safe middle position in this complex debate is,
in fact, dangerous for the future of Europe's software
industry.
"It's going to be a close call, now that the patent opponents
have got their act together," said one neutral lobbyist. "MEPs
could well swing round and side with the directive's opponents. If
they do it will be in spite of, not because of the lobbying effort
so far."
Paul Meller writes for IDG News Service