Software patents - the Euro MPs respond

I’ve posted several rants on the subject of the ever-so-slightly controversial European Software Patents Directive in the past, and actually got as far as sitting down to write to the last group of people who can do anything about it, my representatives in the European Parliament.

There are six Euro MPs covering this region - two Labour (left-of-centre social democratic), two Conservative (right-of-centre), one Liberal Democrat (left-of-centre and left-of-Labour) and one UK Independence Party (a generally right-of-centre party whose main raison d’etre is for the UK to leave the EU. There’s an irony present in them having Euro MPs in the first place, but we’ll pass on that for the time being.) The two Labour MEPs act in tandem and respond based on geographic divisions, which reduces the number of responses to five. (I’ve mislaid the response from Diana Wallis, the Liberal Democrat, but she was anti-patent.)

First, the nays. Richard Corbett (Labour) states:

My position is as follows:

• I am not in favour of patenting of software as in the US
• Europe needs a uniform legal approach to stop the drift towards extending patentability to areas that would not traditionally have been allowed…
• Software products as such must not be patented.
• Opensource software must be allowed to flourish and this directive must not have adverse effects on opensource software and small software developers
• Patents and the threat of litigation must not be used as an anti-competitive weapon to squeeze out small companies

Godfrey Bloom (UKIP) states:

It appears that this legislation is being proposed for the benefit of large, often multi-national companies and not for the benefit of smaller businesses or individuals. I and my UKIP MEP colleagues will be opposing this legislation…

Now the ayes:

Timothy Kirkhope (Conservative) states:

We need to consider the potential effect of the Directive on software development. I thing (sic) that the problems here can often be exaggerated. There is little evidence from the USA that software development has been slowed down by the US patent regime. If the EU Directive is passed, it will be more restrictive that the current US patent environment. There is little sign at present of large companies persueing small companies for patent infringement - evidence suggests that the opposite is the case.

And now the “can’t work out if he’s yea or nay”

Edward McMillan-Scott (Conservative) states:

Conservatives have consistently supported the need for the European Union to have a clear patent regime that excludes computer software and business methods from patentability… The proposed directive [...] is not intended to extend existing European patent law into any new areas. It is designed to give patent inspectors an unambiguous legal framework… The directive does not therefor affect the development of open source software, a point of great concern to many software professionals.

Overall, I’ve been impressed with the responses - both in terms of actually receiving any, and in terms of the content- which have generally suggested that a degree of thought has gone into the response, rather than parroting a party line. What’s interesting is the dichotomy in the right-of-centre responses. UKIP, who are generally regarded as being slightly to the right of Attila the Hun and several sandwiches short of a picnic (Google ’swivel eyed loons’ and you’ll see what I mean) are anti, while the Conservatives (generally not quite as right-wingingly loony as UKIP, although there are one or two that would make Attilla look like a limp pink liberal) are more-or-less in favour.

Overall this suggests that the European Commission may have a fight on their hands - this isn’t a simple left-right issue, and there’s a distinct whiff of upset about the way the process has been handled. It could be that the Parliament is prepared to put up a fight, regardless of the tables being stacked in the Commission’s favour.

[In the letter from Timothy Kirkhope, he mentioned that the Conservative position on the Directive was being led by Malcolm Harbour - so if you're lobbying the Conservatives, it may be worth including him in the correspondance.]