BABYL OPTIONS: Version: 5 Labels: Note: This is the header of an rmail file. Note: If you are seeing it in rmail, Note: it means the file has no messages in it.  1,, Received: from geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu by albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Wed, 19 Jun 91 16:18:12 -0400 Received: from sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Wed, 19 Jun 91 16:18:06 -0400 Received: from aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk by sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk via JANET with NIFTP id <5875-0@sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>; Tue, 18 Jun 1991 11:34:34 +0100 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 11:36:08 BST Message-Id: <11615.9106181036@etive.aipna.ed.ac.uk> From: Alan Bundy Subject: EC Copyright Directive: Letter to MP To: ecsr@edinburgh.ac.uk, elpf@edinburgh.ac.uk Phone: Note my new number: 44-31-650-2716 Fcc: +csr.mai Cc: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 11:36:08 BST From: Alan Bundy Subject: EC Copyright Directive: Letter to MP To: ecsr@edinburgh.ac.uk, elpf@edinburgh.ac.uk Phone: Note my new number: 44-31-650-2716 Fcc: +csr.mai Cc: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu ECSR agreed at its meeting of 10.6.91 to institute a letter writing campaign about the EC Directive on Software Copyright. I was charged with encouraging people to do this and to provide a standard letter. This email is the encouragement. One of the most effective techniques is to write to your MP asking him/her to take the matter up with the relevant minister (who in this case is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry). That way an experienced politician, other than the minister concerned, sees both your letter and the reply. It is best if you write this letter in your own words, as lots of identical letter have less effect than lots of different ones, but if you don't have the time to compose your own letter, here is a slightly modified version of the one I sent. Even if you only edit this a little (eg changing the examples) it would help. If you write your own letter there are lots of points raised in Richard Stallman's articles that you could mentioned. It is probably a good idea not to bring up the software patents matter at this stage, as that will tend to muddy the waters. If you have suggestions as to where else to circulate this message then please let me know. Alan Bundy STANDARD LETTER Dear , I am increasingly concerned about the new European Directive on the legal protection of computer programs. I fear that the practical effect of this Directive will be to prevent the adoption of industry wide standards, create {\em de facto} monopolies of certain kinds of computer system and inhibit new developments in the computer industry. In particular, it will give an advantage to well-established, large computer companies at the expense of small start-ups. The problem is that bad drafting of the Directive has left open the possibility of the copyrighting of computer interfaces. Despite the declared intention of the Directive's drafters and their assurances to the contrary, they appear to have left a loophole in the law. This loophole could be closed in the laws drawn up by the EC member countries in their response to the EC Directive. Could you pass this letter to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and ask him what steps he intends to take to close the loophole? The difficulties arises from an ambiguity in the word `interface', which is used in two senses in the computer community. Sense 1 is {\em the rules and conventions whereby a computer communicates with another entity}, for instance, a human user or another computer system. Sense 2 is {\em the part of the computer program which implements these rules and conventions}. The Directive systematically confuses these two senses. Copyright should, of course, apply to interfaces in sense 2, in the same way that it applies to any computer program. However, it is vital that interfaces in sense 1 are not subject to copyright. Interfaces in sense 1 provide the standards of use for computer systems. They are directly analogous to the order of pedals in a motor car or the layout of keys on a typewriter. It is in the public interest to standardise on one interface for each kind of computer system, {\em e.g.} spreadsheet, window system, a programming language, {\em etc.} Once a {\em de facto} standard interface for a particular kind of computer system has emerged, to give a copyright on it to one company is to give that company a {\em de facto} monopoly on that kind of system. Other companies will be excluded from the market because users will decline to learn a new interface. (Imagine that one typewriter company had a copyright on the qwerty layout.) Critics of the Directive have been assured that interfaces in sense 1 are excluded for its provisions because the ``ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program, including those which underlie its interface, are not protected by copyright''. Unfortunately, this is not good enough. The standards implicit in an interface descend to a very low level of detail, for instance the particular keywords of a programming language, the icons of a window system, the order of updating of a spreadsheet's elements. In the USA the judges have interpreted a similar copyright law by treating these low level details as part of the expression of the interface and, therefore, copyrightable. In a succession of `look and feel' legal cases, large computer companies have gained a monopoly over the interfaces (sense 1) of the computer systems they have developed and used this to put their rivals out of business. There is no obstacle to UK judges making a similar interpretation of the EC Directive, unless the UK Government takes steps to close this loophole. What steps will the UK Government take to ward off this threat?  1,, Received: from geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu by albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Mon, 10 Jun 91 18:32:24 -0400 Received: from sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Mon, 10 Jun 91 18:32:19 -0400 Received: from aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk by sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk via JANET with NIFTP id <5451-0@sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>; Mon, 10 Jun 1991 14:10:29 +0100 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 14:12:24 BST Message-Id: <4871.9106101312@etive.aipna.ed.ac.uk> From: Alan Bundy Subject: ECSR Meeting Report To: ecsr@edinburgh.ac.uk Phone: Note my new number: 44-31-650-2716 Fcc: +csr.mai Cc: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu, mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 14:12:24 BST From: Alan Bundy Subject: ECSR Meeting Report To: ecsr@edinburgh.ac.uk Phone: Note my new number: 44-31-650-2716 Fcc: +csr.mai Cc: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu, mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu Thanks to all those people who turned up to the meeting on "Software; patents, copyright and `look and feel'", and especially those who volunteered to undertake specific actions. (We will draw a discrete veil over those who promised to turn up, but didn't.) Here is a report on the decisions of the meeting. 1. Contact with Other Groups We will urge all people interested in this issue to subscribe to the EPLF newsgroup. Alan Black will post appropriate adverts for this newsgroup. Subscribe by emailing to elpf-request@castle. We should consider affiliating to the British League for Programming Freedom, should one be set up. We will contact the European Committee for Interoperable Software. 2. Collecting Information. Alan Black agreed to act as librarian for all relevant information on these issues. Please inform/post him (awb@aipna) anything you know about. Contact him if you need any information. In particular, he will chase up a factsheet that Richard Tobin was to extract from Richard Stallman. Peter Ross will contact two lawyers that he knows (Neil MacCormack & David Kidd) who are interested in computers and the law and try and persuade them to take an interest, maybe attending future meetings. 3. Writing to Politicians. We will organise a campaign of writing to the relevant Minister via local MPs about the copyright issue before the ratification of the EC directive. Alan Bundy will draft a form letter, which Alan Black will post to relevant newsgroups. People will be urged to write their own letter, if possible, and to use the form letter as a last resort. ECSR will also send its own letter enclosing some of the literature provided by Richard Stallman. Richard Rohwer agreed to produce this in a suitably glossy form. We will also write to other politicians, eg Tam Dayell, Emma Nicholson and our MEP, David Martin. Any volunteers for this? At a later date we will try and meet some of these politicians. We should repeat this exercise for the patent issue, but this is less urgent. 4. Articles, Letters, etc We will try and write a collective article expressing our group viewpoint and then place this in the computing/science section of a national quality daily. Richard Rohwer will write the first draft. We will then use this as a basis for: future articles by ourselves and/or friendly journalists, letters to the newspapers, broadcasts, interviews, etc. We need to prepare ourselves with follow-up letters, spokespeople, etc before this article is placed. We should prepare some case studies on particular patents and make them into press releases in order to raise public awareness of the problems. We should emphasise the likely effect on the UK software industry, especially small firms. 5. Information Wanted Does anybody know the answer to any of the following questions? (a) What is the precise name of the EC Directive on software copyright? (b) When will it be ratified by the UK Parliament? (c) Which Minister is responsible for the ratification? Alan Bundy  1, answered,, Received: from geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu by albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Mon, 29 Jul 91 18:25:45 -0400 Received: from sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Mon, 29 Jul 91 18:25:38 -0400 Received: from aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk by sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk via JANET with NIFTP id <9341-0@sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>; Mon, 29 Jul 1991 14:02:02 +0100 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 14:07:01 BST Message-Id: <16923.9107291307@etive.aipna.ed.ac.uk> From: Alan Bundy Subject: Letter to Lord Reay To: ecsr@edinburgh.ac.uk, elpf@edinburgh.ac.uk Phone: Note my new number: 44-31-650-2716 Fcc: +csr.mai Cc: stallman@aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk *** EOOH *** Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 14:07:01 BST From: Alan Bundy Subject: Letter to Lord Reay To: ecsr@edinburgh.ac.uk, elpf@edinburgh.ac.uk Phone: Note my new number: 44-31-650-2716 Fcc: +csr.mai Cc: stallman@aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk Here is a copy of my response to Lord Reay on the EC Software Directive. Alan <---------------------cut here-------------------------------> \documentstyle[a4,12pt]{letter} \begin{document} \name{Professor Alan Bundy} \address{ 23a Lauder Road, \\ Edinburgh {\sc eh9 2jg}, \\ {\sc scotland} } \signature{Professor Alan Bundy} \telephone{031 667-5770} \begin{letter} {\ } \opening{Dear Mr Griffiths,} Thank you for passing on Lord Reay's letter of 5th July, replying to my letter of 13th June about the European Directive on Software Copyright. Unfortunately, I was not reassured by Lord Reay's response. He claims that ``there is nothing in the directive which will extend the copyright protection of computer programmes beyond its present ambit in the UK''. I fear this is not the case. The directive is clearly an attempt to move copyright law in European countries from its current satisfactory state to be more in line with its unsatisfactory state in the USA. The final wording was a compromise between two industrial pressure groups: SAGE and ECIS. SAGE represented the big companies keen for greater copyright protection to see off what they regard as unfair competition. ECIS represented the small companies anxious to defeat what they regarded as attempt to put them out of business. The conservative MEPs tended to side with SAGE for an extension of copyright --- an attitude I find hard to understand given the importance of small, high technology companies for the future health of the European economy. In particular, the European parliament voted out an amendment, which had the support of ECIS, and which would have ensured that interfaces in the `rules and conventions' sense were excluded from the law. \begin{quote} ``Whereas, for the avoidance of doubt, it has to be made clear that only the expression of a computer program is protected and that ideas and principles, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation and concepts which underlie any element of a program, including its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under this Directive; Whereas, these unprotectable items include, for example, protocols for communication, rules for exchanging or mutually using information that has been exchanged, formats for data, and the syntax and semantics of a programming language;...'' \end{quote} The rejection of this amendment could easily be interpreted by the courts as an indication that the European Directive was meant to allow protection of computer interfaces, unless the UK Government makes explicit provision, in its implementation of the Directive, to exclude them. Lord Reay assumes that because the ``ideas and principles underlying any element of a programme'' are excluded by the Directive that an interface, in the `rules and conventions' sense, is automatically excluded. But here is the crux of my worry. `Ideas and principles' is too grand a concept to fit the bill. Many of the `rules and conventions' in an interface are rather lowly affairs: the design of an icon, the place on a window on which one clicks to make it go away, the order in which the elements of a spread sheet are recomputed, the name of the command for removing a file, {\em etc.} A UK court could easily follow the US courts in deciding that these vital but lowly items were part of the `expression' rather than part of the `idea and principles'. That is why the rejected amendment above extends `ideas and principles' to a much longer list of more humble items. It is not enough to hope, as Lord Reay does, that UK courts would not follow the reasoning of the US courts and allow copyright protection of interfaces. The UK implementation of the Directive must try to prevent UK courts taking the US line. I would like to know how the UK Government intends to do this. I would be grateful if you could pass this letter on to Lord Reay and ask for his response. \closing{Yours sincerely,} \end{letter} \end{document}  1, answered,, Received: from geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu by albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Wed, 31 Jul 91 23:27:51 -0400 Received: from sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Wed, 31 Jul 91 23:27:44 -0400 Received: from phoenix.cambridge.ac.uk by sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk via JANET with NIFTP id <24173-0@sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>; Thu, 1 Aug 1991 04:04:16 +0100 Date: Thu, 01 Aug 91 04:08:24 BST From: Clive To: Richard Stallman , ELPF mailing list Cc: Magnus Ramage , Steve Tweedie , John Levine , Mike Williams , mathew , Gavin Matthews Subject: A worrying article Message-Id: *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 01 Aug 91 04:08:24 BST From: Clive To: Richard Stallman , ELPF mailing list Cc: Magnus Ramage , Steve Tweedie , John Levine , Mike Williams , mathew , Gavin Matthews Subject: A worrying article The article below appeared in a feature on the British Technology Group (BTG) in "Software Echo", the journal of the Scottish Software Community, issue 2. The BTG is an organisation concerned with the "exploitation" (their words) of new technology, including developments that result from SERC-funded research in the UK academic community. (SERC is the British Science and Engineering Research Council - the main funding body for UK scientific academic research.) Thus its opinions on software patenting are of not inconsiderable importance, which makes their current stance all the more worrying. I suggest that a concerted effort should be made to point out to them that people are uneasy about their attitude. Given the current state of the British League for Programming Freedom, this would be best done by people as private individuals, rather than as an organisation. Since the article appeared in a Scottish journal, those of you in Scotland might feel especially concerned about this. The journal has a talkback section. Letters for it can be sent to: Hazel Sinclair, Scottish Enterprise, 120 Bothwell Street, Glasgow G2 7JP. Fax: 041-221 3271 Contributions for the next issue should arrive before August 30th. The BTG representative who edited the section is: Dr. Eugene Sweeney, Electronics & Information Technology Division, The British Technology Group, 101 Newington Causeway, London SE1 6BU. Tel: 071 403 6666 Fax: 071 403 0320 Perhaps the BTG should also have it pointed out to them that the very laws they are welcoming to the UK are now under question in the USA? Please also make your departments aware of the possible dangers of associating with the BTG, if possible, although the BTG does provide other useful services, even though misguided on this issue. Distribute details of the BTG's stance on patents to others you think might be interested. My thanks go to Steve Tweedie for pointing this article out to me. --Clive. ----included-article-follows---- PATENTING SOFTWARE This is an area in which BTG believes academic and research organisations can make the most signficant contributions in the long term. Research groups in the UK are well known for producing ideas that are important in computing science. In the past, it was believed that these innovations could not be protected by patenting because algorithms were not patentable. However, recent case law, particularly in the USA, suggests that this is no longer true. Many major US computer and software manufacturers now regularly file patent applications on software concepts. Areas in which BTG believe valuable, and patentable, software innovations could arise are: i) Parallel processing, eg new algorithms that exploit the parallel architecture. ii) Language design, eg functional programming languages that enable algorithms to be specified in a computer-independent manner. iii) Knowledge-based systems, eg natural-language recognition. iv) Logic programming, with particular reference to safety-critical systems and the corresponding design of integrated circuits. v) Data compression, eg image or speech compression. Software is, of course, automatically protected by copyright. This normally belongs to the author (or his/her employer, depending on conditions of employment). ----end-of-included-article----  1, forwarded,, Received: from geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu by albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Thu, 1 Aug 91 14:23:33 -0400 Received: from sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Thu, 1 Aug 91 14:23:20 -0400 Received: from castle.edinburgh.ac.uk by sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk via JANET with NIFTP id <13002-0@sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>; Thu, 1 Aug 1991 17:58:43 +0100 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 18:02:35 WET DST From: Mail System Subject: Failed mail To: rms <@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk:rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu> Message-Id: <9108011802.aa09611@castle.ed.ac.uk> *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 18:02:35 WET DST From: Mail System Subject: Failed mail To: rms <@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk:rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu> Your message was not delivered to the following addresses: (USER) Unknown user name in "rms.elpf@uk.ac.edinburgh.castle" Your message begins as follows: Received: from vax.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk with SMTP inbound id <24940-10@sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>; Thu, 1 Aug 1991 04:56:17 +0100 Received: from [128.52.46.33] by vax.NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK via NSFnet with SMTP id aa25251; 1 Aug 91 4:22 BST Received: by mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) id ; Wed, 31 Jul 91 23:54:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 23:54:40 -0400 From: rms@edu.mit.ai.gnu (Richard Stallman) Message-Id: <9108010354.AA28040@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: CRJ10@uk.ac.cambridge.phoenix Cc: rms.elpf@uk.ac.edinburgh.castle, MAR19@uk.ac.cambridge.phoenix, ST111@uk.ac.cambridge.phoenix, johnl@uk.ac.edinburgh.aipna, MJW19@uk.ac.cambridge.phoenix, mathew@uk.co.mantis-consultants, GRM11@uk.ac.cambridge.phoenix In-Reply-To: Clive's message of Thu, 01 Aug 91 04:08:24 BST Subject: A worrying article Sender: rms@edu.mit.ai.gnu Writing answers to this article is a very useful thing to do. It would be useful for the ECSR to write a letter as an organization. Since they mention data compression specifically, it would be useful to describe the problems caused by the LZW patent in the US--including the fact that LZW compression is now required by various standards, both official standards (for modems) and unofficial ones (Postscript version 2). It is impossible to support these standards without infringing the patent. There are better (faster and more compact) compression schemes which are unpatented, but in practice we are still compelled to use LZW in order to talk to everyone else who does. One thing I notice about the article is that it fails even to imagine that the course of action they propose might be controversial. I suspect the author has never considered the question of whether software patents might be bad for the "exploitation" of software techniques--and therefore may be quite open to considering the idea once it is suggested. So it would be useful for a prominent and articulate spokesperson to telephone the author and discuss the subject. Who knows? The author may agree right away. Perhaps an ECSR officer would be best for this, depending on how the ECSR is regarded in business circles (are they considered sensibly cautious engineers or radical crackpots). This is a peculiar case of selective attention--to be aware of the legal developments in the US, without even noticing how Americans criticize them. You might ask whether it is truly desirable for the UK to follow the US lead blindly. Another interesting point about this article is that it reflects an expectation that the UK is likely to interpret laws as they have been interpreted in the US. This may be useful as an example when you write to legislators about interface copyright, and they reply that "It can't happen here."  1, answered,, Received: from geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu by albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Mon, 5 Aug 91 02:30:02 -0400 Received: from chx400.switch.ch by geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Mon, 5 Aug 91 02:29:58 -0400 X400-Received: by mta chx400.switch.ch in /PRMD=switch/ADMD=arcom/C=CH/; Relayed; Mon, 5 Aug 1991 08:29:42 +0200 X400-Received: by /PRMD=SWITCH/ADMD=ARCOM/C=CH/; Relayed; Mon, 5 Aug 1991 09:25:45 +0200 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 06:29:42 +0000 X400-Originator: brunner@ltisun2.epfl.ch X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=SWITCH/ADMD=ARCOM/C=CH/;9108050625.AA02452] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) From: "(Beat Brunner)" Message-Id: <9108050625.AA02452@ltisun2.epfl.ch> To: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu In-Reply-To: <9107271805.AA14851@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Subject: Re: request for information on software patents in Europe Received: from ltisun2.epfl.ch by SIC.Epfl.CH via INTERNET ; Mon, 5 Aug 91 08:30:52 N Return-Path: Newsgroups: gnu.announce Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne *** EOOH *** X400-Received: by mta chx400.switch.ch in /PRMD=switch/ADMD=arcom/C=CH/; Relayed; Mon, 5 Aug 1991 08:29:42 +0200 X400-Received: by /PRMD=SWITCH/ADMD=ARCOM/C=CH/; Relayed; Mon, 5 Aug 1991 09:25:45 +0200 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 06:29:42 +0000 X400-Originator: brunner@ltisun2.epfl.ch X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=SWITCH/ADMD=ARCOM/C=CH/;9108050625.AA02452] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) From: "(Beat Brunner)" To: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu In-Reply-To: <9107271805.AA14851@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Subject: Re: request for information on software patents in Europe Return-Path: Newsgroups: gnu.announce Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne Ritchard, Even if I don't know of software patents in Germany, I heard of 3 IBM operating system patents on OS2 got accepted for Europe in La Haye, thus probably also beeing valid for Germany. A lawyer told me that the European patent office is now accepting (since a few months) patents on innovative inventions in the field of operating systems but not on software. And of course, it's IBM that succeeded first at doing that.... Best regards, and thanks for fighting against these general software patents. Beat Brunner Lab. Teleinformatique Swiss Federal Institute Of Technology Lausanne, Switzerland e-mail: brunner@ltisun.epfl.ch  1, answered,, Received: from geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu by albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Thu, 8 Aug 91 06:32:21 -0400 Received: from unido.Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE by geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Thu, 8 Aug 91 06:32:09 -0400 Received: from orfeo by unido.informatik.uni-dortmund.de with UUCP (5.65+/UNIDO-2.0.4.d) via EUnet for gnu.ai.mit.edu id AA12254; Thu, 8 Aug 91 12:28:45 +0200 Received: by orfeo.radig.de (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.15) id ; Thu, 8 Aug 91 12:25 MET DST Received: by britesun (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0) id AA00430; Thu, 8 Aug 91 11:23:48 GMT+0200 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 11:23:48 GMT+0200 From: orfeo!britesun!vhs@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Volker Herminghaus-Shirai) Message-Id: <9108080923.AA00430@ britesun > Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.63) To: Richard_Stallman@unido.informatik.uni-dortmund.de Subject: Software patents in Germany *** EOOH *** Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 11:23:48 GMT+0200 From: orfeo!britesun!vhs@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Volker Herminghaus-Shirai) To: Richard_Stallman@unido.informatik.uni-dortmund.de Subject: Software patents in Germany Hi, our local anti-sw-patent-mailing-list-coordinator ("Pi") announced that he had aked the German Patent Office about software patents. He found out that it is only possible to get patents on hardware, or "Chip Topology". I.e. if a Company implements an algorithm in hardware (one that doesn't exist already, I suppose (prior art)) then they can get a patent on the topology of the chip the algorithm is implemented on. Cloning the algorithm in software then *might* be a patent infringement I have today asked at the German Patent Office to send me all the information concerning the exact conditions and proceedings for getting such a chip topology patent. The guy i talked with also told me that software patents are only possible in this way (chip topology) since it has been decided that software is to be protected by copyright law rather than patent law. He also agreed that software patents would be a threat and promised to send me all the material he has about the whole issue. Now I only hope I can understand the special kind of lawyer's german they use =:-}. If I make any progress, I will inform you about the results. If you have any german-speaking friends over there and you want the papers, I can send, fax, or mail the papers to you. Volker  1, answered,, Received: from churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu by albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Thu, 12 Sep 91 13:18:02 -0400 Received: from sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Thu, 12 Sep 91 13:18:00 -0400 Received: from castle.edinburgh.ac.uk by sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk via JANET with NIFTP id <15764-0@sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>; Thu, 12 Sep 1991 15:25:40 +0100 Received: from aisb.ed.ac.uk by castle.ed.ac.uk id aa08895; 12 Sep 91 15:24 WET DST Received: from etive.aisb.ed.ac.uk by aisb.ed.ac.uk; Tue, 10 Sep 91 15:15:57 BST Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 15:18:00 BST Message-Id: <20405.9109101418@etive.aisb.ed.ac.uk> From: Alan Bundy Subject: Software Copyright: Correspondence with Lord Reay To: ecsr@edinburgh.ac.uk, elpf@edinburgh.ac.uk Phone: Note my new number: 44-31-650-2716 Fcc: +csr.mai Cc: stallman@aisb.edinburgh.ac.uk *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 10 Sep 91 15:18:00 BST From: Alan Bundy Subject: Software Copyright: Correspondence with Lord Reay To: ecsr@edinburgh.ac.uk, elpf@edinburgh.ac.uk Phone: Note my new number: 44-31-650-2716 Fcc: +csr.mai Cc: stallman@aisb.edinburgh.ac.uk The story so far: I wrote to Lord Reay via my MP about the European Directive on Software Copyright. Lord Reay is the minister in charge of the composing the relevant changes in UK law. I received a fairly vague reply. I decided to write again. Now read on: Here is the text of my second letter to Lord Reay and his response to that. MY LETTER (via my MP) "Thank you for passing on Lord Reay's letter of 5th July, replying to my letter of 13th June about the European Directive on Software Copyright. Unfortunately, I was not reassured by Lord Reay's response. He claims that ``there is nothing in the directive which will extend the copyright protection of computer programmes beyond its present ambit in the UK''. I fear this is not the case. The directive is clearly an attempt to move copyright law in European countries from its current satisfactory state to be more in line with its unsatisfactory state in the USA. The final wording was a compromise between two industrial pressure groups: SAGE (Software Action Group Europe) and ECIS (European Committee for Interoperable Software). SAGE represented the big companies keen for greater copyright protection to see off what they regard as unfair competition. ECIS represented the small companies anxious to defeat what they regarded as attempt to put them out of business. The Conservative MEPs tended to side with SAGE for an extension of copyright --- an attitude I find hard to understand given the importance of small, high technology companies for the future health of the European economy. In particular, the European parliament voted out an amendment, which had the support of ECIS, and which would have ensured that interfaces in the `rules and conventions' sense were excluded from the law. \begin{quote} ``Whereas, for the avoidance of doubt, it has to be made clear that only the expression of a computer program is protected and that ideas and principles, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation and concepts which underlie any element of a program, including its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under this Directive; Whereas, these unprotectable items include, for example, protocols for communication, rules for exchanging or mutually using information that has been exchanged, formats for data, and the syntax and semantics of a programming language;...'' \end{quote} The rejection of this amendment could easily be interpreted by the courts as an indication that the European Directive was meant to allow protection of computer interfaces, unless the UK Government makes explicit provision, in its implementation of the Directive, to exclude them. Lord Reay assumes that because the ``ideas and principles underlying any element of a programme'' are excluded by the Directive that an interface, in the `rules and conventions' sense, is automatically excluded. But here is the crux of my worry. `Ideas and principles' is too grand a concept to fit the bill. Many of the `rules and conventions' in an interface are rather lowly affairs: the design of an icon, the place on a window on which one clicks to make it go away, the order in which the elements of a spread sheet are recomputed, the name of the command for removing a file, {\em etc.} A UK court could easily follow the US courts in deciding that these vital but lowly items were part of the `expression' rather than part of the `idea and principles'. That is why the rejected amendment above extends `ideas and principles' to a much longer list of more humble items. It is not enough to hope, as Lord Reay does, that UK courts would not follow the reasoning of the US courts and allow copyright protection of interfaces. The UK implementation of the Directive must try to prevent UK courts taking the US line. I would like to know how the UK Government intends to do this. I would be grateful if you could pass this letter on to Lord Reay and ask for his response." LORD REAY'S REPONSE "Thank you for your letter of 31 July enclosing a further letter (returned herewith) from Professor Alan Bundy, 23a Lauder Road, Edinburgh EH9 2JG, on the subject of the EC software directive. I am sorry that my previous reply did not reassure Professor Bundy, but I feel that what I said is essentially correct. May I first of all point out that in meeting our obligations under the directive, we cannot in fact go beyond what is stated in the directive in implementing it in UK law. Thus, the most that could be done in defining the general scope of protection would be to repeat the directive's statement that the ideas and principles which underlie any element of a program, including its interfaces, are not protected. However, as I explained in my letter, we do not intend to do so, as it is already well-established in UK copyright law that this is the case. I would repeat, however, that I do not think that this gives cause for concern. In particular I do not think that the courts will be influenced by the Parliament's failure to adopt the amendment to the directive to which Professor Bundy refers. It is my understanding that the majority view in the Parliament was that the amendment was unnecessary, ie it was felt that the particular items specified in the amendment would in any event be understood as lying outside the scope of protection, given the general statement in the directive that ideas and principles are not protected. Any inference to be drawn from the fate of the amendment would therefore seem to be that interfaces in the sense of "rules and conventions" are excluded from protection under the directive. As to the overall purpose of the directive, I do not think Professor Bundy is correct in saying that the intention is to move European copyright law "from its current satisfactory state to be more in line with its unsatisfactory state in the USA". In fact, the position prior to the directive was far from satisfactory in that there was no clear legal protection for computer programs in several Member States of the Community, and the protection that did exist differed widely. This led to distortions in the internal market and exposed software providers, including many UK companies, to piracy of their products. The directive is intended to rectify this, and does so in a manner which does not significantly extend the scope of copyright protection in those countries, such as the UK, which already protected computer programs under their copyright law. I hope that this is helpful. I would add that in implementing the directive my officials will be consulting with a wide range of interested bodies representing the differing shades of opinion on the directive." The Next Episode I will write a third time. Any suggestions of points to make will be gratefully received. I will mention various `interested bodies' that Reay's officials should consult, including ECSR and UK-LPF (or whatever it decides to call itself). I urge each of you to write to Lord Reay too. Politicians seem to pay a lot of attention to the volume to mail (maybe more than the content). It is also a good way to pin them down on various points. Alan