Software Patent IRC 14 Oct 2023

slef (~mjr@81.86.163.141) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
Topic for #uk-swpat-talk is "UK Software Patent Talk: Meets Tues/Weds. FFII: www.ffii.org.uk AFFS: www.affs.org.uk Info: www.softwarepatents.co.uk"
Topic for #uk-swpat-talk set by slashroo!~slash@barney.alcoholicsunanimous.com at Mon Oct 13 18:13:18
Glyn_ (~chatzilla@cpc3-flee1-4-0-cust142.glfd.cable.ntl.com) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<Glyn_> Hey :)
<slef> hi
wolfbone (~wolfbone@host81-152-204-147.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<slashroo> hi guys
<wolfbone> greetings :)
alexmacfie (~amacfie@genba.ffii.org) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<alexmacfie> who
<slashroo> imaginative greeting as always, mr macfie ;)
<slashroo> is that a mark and lard impression?
<alexmacfie> hello
alexmacfie has quit (Quit: Leaving)
alexmacfie (alexmacfie@194.73.116.114) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<slashroo> welcome back ;)
<alexmacfie> I've put up the new council page now
<alexmacfie> Thanks :)
<slashroo> yeah, i'm reading it now
<slashroo> the dates are a bit ambiguous
<slashroo> 23rd Oct vs. 10th Nov, I mean
<slashroo> I don't think the length is terrible, but then I have a 19" flatpanel ;o)
nickhill (~nick@213.152.57.82) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<alexmacfie> Some of the text is ambiguous too... exactly who is meeting on 23 October?
<slashroo> precisely
<slashroo> should those dates be the same?
<alexmacfie> Is it patent office reps internationally or in the UK ... or is it gvt ministers
<slashroo> hi nick ;)
<nickhill> Hi Who is slashroo?
<slashroo> alexmacfie: are we talking about theory or practice ;)
<alexmacfie> Theory
slashroo is now known as alexh
<alexh> theory I guess it's the minister who is responsible
<alexmacfie> Which means it *is* by 23 October that we have to convince the minister
<alexmacfie> And who is slashmoo? Not asking people to change their handles, just identify themselves ;)
<alexh> it's my window at work, sorry ;)
<alexmacfie> OK
<alexh> where did the 10th November date come from?
<alexh> ah, the council meetiong
<alexh> I see now
<Glyn_> How will MPs be able to that? I am booked in to see my MP on Friday, I am sure I can explain it to him but am unclear how he can really put any influence on the minister.
<alexh> Glyn_: their job is to represent their constituents - he is your hotline into Government
<alexh> He should at least pass on your views
<alexh> what party is he?
<Glyn_> Conservative.
nickhill-mobile (~nick@213.152.57.80) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
nickhill has left #uk-swpat-talk (Client Exiting)
<Glyn_> The reply from the minister is the leter you have on the new council page.
<alexmacfie> That was there before, although not linked to from the council page
Insti (~Insti@cpc3-cmbg3-5-0-cust171.cmbg.cable.ntl.com) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<alexh> I'm amazed by their ability to peddle the 'status quo' line
<alexmacfie> They think they have nothing to lose.
<alexh> well, at least that much is true
<alexmacfie> status quo is indeed a slippery argument
<alexh> but it does seem to fly in the face of fact
<alexmacfie> status quo: theory or practice?
<alexmacfie> that's what makes it so slippery
<alexh> well, it's only true in theory after what basically amounts to revisionism
<alexh> it is obviously false in practice, of course ;)
<alexh> has anyone sent a letter to them directly attacking that point?
<alexmacfie> Question is do the ministers know they're peddling falsehoods? We know Hewitt is a puppet of the patent office but is she a willing one?
TimB (~Timothy@217.135.160.19) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<nickhill-mobile> I think a lot of this comes down to plain laziness
<Glyn_> Its the same stuff that Malcolm Harbour is peddling, they know that they know more about the subject than the other MPs and MEPS so people tend not to question them on it, especially when they say the other side (AKA us) is lying. When I tried to bring him up on that point he ignored the question.
<nickhill-mobile> It has to be made really obvious. THe result of the patent vote shows how many in power follow like sheep.
<Glyn_> We dont realy have time for a long argument with the dti because by the time they reply the vote will be appon us. If you can get face to face with some one who has not already made up their mind you can easily explain it to them.
<alexh> I think, to an extent, they are never going to have a personal view on this argument - they expect it to be formed for them by others
<alexh> Those that have invested time in personal research appear to fundamentally misunderstand what software is also
<alexh> Malcolm Harbour is a good example imo
<slef> AIUI, software is not specified UK law? Only "computer programs" are defined in the copyright act, as a type of literary work.
<alexh> No even strictly that, only partially
<nickhill-mobile> So we need to take a moral high ground to lead the policy. Look like the ones banging the drums
<alexmacfie> publicly embarrass the government...
<TimB> Good Idea
<Glyn_> MPs who are willing to arrange a face to face with the folks in charge would be great but I don't know if that's do able. Letters will be to slow. If we can do it with out them looking like they have climbed down from a position that would be much better.
<alexh> Well, getting a meeting with them / time to do a presentation is a much better idea obviously
<alexh> And their escape route is that they get their software patent directive
<alexh> They're already claiming it as a victory in the press
<Glyn_> Embarrassing might be hard to do and counter productive before the vote, after the vote if it goes against us then we have nothing to loose by embarrassing them.
<alexh> Well, that assumes that the directive still exists post-Council meeting
<alexh> There is a chance it may not afaik
<Glyn_> Yep if you saw the press briefings after the first vote at the EU all sides where claiming that they had won and the press where not clued up enough to know any different.
<alexh> alexmacfie: do you know if james is planning on joining us?
<alexmacfie> I don't
<alexmacfie> I rather assumed he would be
<alexh> I said serious discussion wouldn't start til 19:30, so he may have thought he was avoiding much q&a
<alexh> I don't suppose anyone has Hewitt/Timms as their constituency MP, do they?
<Glyn_> Any one else think they could ask their local mp to arange a meeting with Hewitt/Timms?
<nickhill-mobile> Hewitt: Leicester West Timms: East Ham
<alexmacfie> Bit far away :(
<alexmacfie> is it still worth organizing a conference?
<alexh> alexmacfie: I was wondering whether or not it would be possible to get something together a la PITCOM
<alexh> http://www.pitcom.org.uk/
<alexh> Idea being to invite lots of interested MPs/etc. who might have a chance at actually influencing opinion
<alexmacfie> What's the chance of getting one organized in 9 days?
<alexh> Fairly low, to be honest
nickhill-mobile is now known as nickhill
<alexh> It might be possible to get a small meeting together, assuming someone was willing to phone up a few key people and badger them
<alexmacfie> better chance to time it for 10 November
<alexmacfie> Has anyone heard from Richard Allan recently?
<alexh> Sheffield Hallam - no
<alexh> Oooo
<alexh> ding
<alexmacfie> ding?
<alexh> We could drag him to the RMS talk
<alexmacfie> That's true
<alexh> Or was that the reason you were asking?! ;)
<alexmacfie> no, it's because he's shown an interest in badgering the gvt from his party's benches
<alexmacfie> and I was wondering if he'd made any progress
<alexmacfie> I'll email him
<alexh> it appears he also has a blog
<alexmacfie> http://www.sheffieldhallam.org.uk/blog/
<alexh> Doesn't appear to have surgery dates, but he may well be 'at home' on the 25th
<alexh> He's also standing down next election, so presumably doesn't mind kicking up a fuss
<alexmacfie> Has a link to the blog of Labour MP Tom Watson... another who might have more of a clue than most?
<alexmacfie> W Bromwich E
<alexh> Tom 'The Yoof' Watson?
<alexh> I thought he was a fictional character made up by Private Eye
<Glyn_> http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/
<alexmacfie> Never heard of that and I am a regular Eye subscriber
<alexh> /teens.html - that is a piss take, surely?
<slef> a useful conference in 9 days would be difficult
<alexh> ah, it's changed since...
<alexmacfie> with the warning at the bottom, yes I think it is ;)
<alexmacfie> scroll further down
<alexh> yeah, I see it now ;)
<alexh> has anyone spoken to him about this topic before ?
<alexmacfie> anyone a constituent of his?
<Glyn_> Richard Alan is something of a geek (he runs RedHat 8.0 at home)
<alexh> There must be people at wolveslug or london.bm
<alexh> duh
<alexh> birmingham.pm even :D
* alexh goes to get coffee...
<alexh> heh, you can continue to talk without me ;)
jpm (noname@dial-62-64-172-131.access.uk.tiscali.com) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<jpm> hello all
<alexh> hi jpm
<alexmacfie> look who's here
<jpm> sorry to be late -- got the time wrong
<jpm> anybody logging ?
<alexmacfie> the clocks haven't gone back yet!
<jpm> alexm: thx for putting the page up
<alexh> jpm: yup
<jpm> alexh: any chance of sending it email ?
<jpm> so, where are we ?
<alexh> we're talking about the various MPs we can 0wn in our effort to put pressure on the ministers involved
<alexmacfie> Richard Allan, Labour MP Tom Watson who might have a clue
<alexmacfie> ... and the possibility of organizing a conference in such a short time
<slef> jono may be a good contact for wolveslug
<jpm> if the Oct 23 or Nov 11 meetings decide to re-open the Nov 2002 draft, there's a chance we may get more time
<alexh> jpm: how so?
<alexmacfie> but it puts the ball back in europarl's court
<alexmacfie> and then we have to make sure we have 328 MEPs for each amendment we like
<alexh> ah, you're talking about ditching all amendments?
<jpm> because they may then take more time to finalise a new Council draft
<Glyn_> Does not need to be a conferance, we just need to have the mps we convince arange a meeting with Hewitt/Timms so we can get some face to face.
<alexmacfie> conference would give more publicity to the issue... possibly
<alexh> they have up to six months to respond to Parl, don't they?
<alexh> Or am I thinking of the next stage after?
<jpm> alexh: I think the council may be able to take as long as it likes
<slef> jono at jonobacon.org
<jpm> but the UK is currently v keen to bulldoze thro' the Nov 2002 version
<jpm> Glyn: good thing about a conference is it's a peg for the media
<jpm> useful just before Nov 11
<alexh> wouldn't it be better for them to drop this one completely if nov2002 is their aim?
<jpm> so they know what to look for after the meeting
<jpm> alexh: ?
<alexh> Are they going to bother trying to push it through parliament?
<alexh> Wouldn't it be easier to route around parliament?
<alexmacfie> Yes I think they're bypassing parliament
<alexmacfie> just liek with eucd
<jpm> EU parliament
<alexmacfie> i se
<alexh> heh, sorry
<nickhill> In the longer term, we need to see a change int he activities of government so that public policy considerations are given more weight in patent policy matters. A page http://www.dti.gov.uk/patent_office/ gives information on the previous review of the patent office's policy role
* alexh will preface the word next time ;)
<jpm> they calculate that we won;t be able to get 328 MEPs behind each of our amendments at second reading
<alexh> nickhill: it appears that the European route is now the way this stuff will be done, witness EU IP enforcement directive
<jpm> especially if they play hardball
<alexh> they could well be right
<jpm> nickhill: nice letter back from Lord S
<jpm> they really took some time on you!
<nickhill> If people start looking at the role of the patent office, I think it scares them
<jpm> judge and jury in their own court
<alexmacfie> says ip is a "specialized area of law"... hehe
<alexh> alexmacfie: it definitely is specialised; it doesn't exist ;)
<jpm> but to change it, needs an issue to dramatise the problem. this is that issue.
<alexh> are you talking something Eolas-esque, or something else?
<nickhill> I feel they may back off somewhat if they think this casts them in the public eye. This is something new for the patent office.
<alexmacfie> The nearest UK equiv is the schools patent.. but that doesn't come to court until next feb
<alexmacfie> Bromcon
<alexh> yup
<jpm> how much do we think we can rip into the DTI gloss on the consultation ?
<alexh> I think their status quo conclusion is completely unsupportable
<jpm> that is currently their #1 line of defence
<nickhill> If the patent office were more int he public eye, then patent law would need to mould far more around public policy issues and less to specialised interests.
<jpm> nickhill: true. well, we need to get it there.
<nickhill> alexh: Yes. That can be blown away.
<alexmacfie> But that doesn't solve the problem of it not being accountable
<alexh> this is why their consulation exercise is strong through, it's seen as accountability - vox pops
<jpm> it is definitely a priority to produce our own pages assessing the consultation
<jpm> we need to get another assessment into the public
<jpm> rather than leaving them the stage
<nickhill> Regarding Status quo, any ideas on short paragraphs which can hit home?
<alexh> Perhaps we can get one of the business orgs to do their own?
<alexh> nickhill: get a graph of swpat applications? that would clearly show theory vs. actuality
<alexmacfie> that's the one at http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/conclusions.htm
<jpm> I think the best line of attack is the patents themselves
<jpm> to illustrate just what is being granted
<alexh> jpm: isn't that slightly trying to prove a negative though?
TimB has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
<jpm> alexh: how so ?
<alexh> well, you're trying to make the case all patents are bad by showing a select bad few
TimB (~Timothy@217.135.160.19) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<alexh> that doesn't disprove the existance of good patents
<jpm> the good patents I don't have a problem with
<alexmacfie> proving that theh "technical" hurdle ain't a hurdle at all
<jpm> But especially Vicom, Sohei, and Amazon Gift Ordering
<alexh> I'm talking about their definitions, not yours
<alexh> they may agree with you your examples are bad
<jpm> these really bring home how empty their "technical" restriction is
<alexmacfie> "status quo": they play on a misunderstanding of what that is...
<jpm> alexh: they can't: Vicom and Sohei *are* the case-law
<alexmacfie> jpm: any websites detailing those cases?
<jpm> but no problem
<alexh> Yes, but they will disagree with you what it means to exhibit a technical contribution
<Glyn_> They also say that those patents are not granted by the bill.
<jpm> alexh: did you see my page "what is technical" ?
<alexmacfie> one has to show that they are... like the FFII pages on amazon
<alexh> jpm: I think so
<jpm> Glyn: no, they admit bill would not change system
<alexh> And I seem to remember it being logically inconsistent
<jpm> I have that on tape from the UKPTO
<alexh> Are we talking about the mobile phone sourced one?
<Glyn_> Ok I should say that differntly the conservates say that those patents would not be valid under the bill.
<jpm> UKPTO focus group agreed unanimously they would be
<jpm> those are the experts' experts
<alexh> jpm: I think my worry is that they would retrospectively claim - for example - that Vicom should not have been granted, if you can successfully show it is bad
<alexh> Rather than admit their rules for acceptance are wrong
<jpm> The "what is technical" page of summaries from Beresford's book makes clear that they would be
<jpm> The point is, they admit they aren;'t going to change the 'status quo'
<jpm> vicom, sohei etc are the case law which are the status quo
<jpm> if we can get them to renounce vicom
<jpm> they'll need to write a new directive to do it
<jpm> (or accept the parl amendments)
<alexh> Yes, but my point is that they have to renounce Vicom while accepting the unamended directive allows it - is that possible?
<jpm> ... this is what I was trying to write for the bit of the web page I didn;t finish, why Vicom et al are so important
<jpm> the unamended directive allows it: no question
<jpm> can we get them to renounce Vicom ?
<jpm> that would overturn the base decision for 20 years of swpats
<jpm> that actually *is* what we are setting out to do
<jpm> all swpats since 1983 have been granted citing Vicom
<jpm> Vicom was the case that destroyed the EPO anti-swpat guidelines
<jpm> *that* is why it should be the key demand
quinophex (foobar@81.187.217.31) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<slef> I thought it was bromcom with a m?
<jpm> Background: Vicom was the one where they rearranged a calculation (A o (B o C)) as (A o B) o C
<alexmacfie> Of course it is ;)
<jpm> a convolution
<nickhill> In the broader picture, if we can create more opportunities for patent officers to publically defend themselves, their self justification will become increasingly absurd and thin. The status quo argument seems to be the only justification they have which they believe is universally acceptable.
<jpm> pure software, but granted because it was working on 'physical data'
<jpm> nickhill: status quo is their high ground
<alexh> going away from status quo is going to be difficult
<jpm> moving from status quo requires political 'courage' in yes minister speak
<nickhill> The status quo argument is flawed. If we can present the flaw in front of them, they will be forced to move to other ground
<jpm> But their consultation summary does argue that swpat is needed for big long-term software research projects
<alexh> the danger is that we present the amended directive as a big change, which re-inforces their determination to remove it
<jpm> ... something the small players don't do, so don't understand
<jpm> alexh: that is the presentational dilemma
<alexh> focussing on overturning case law is going to be *extremely* difficult to sell
<alexh> i'm not sure it's a winning tactic
<jpm> well, it's what we're trying to do
<alexmacfie> it might be if we can show the law was not made democratically... that patent office is a quango
<alexh> we are never going to remove the patent office from this argument to any significant measure in the time we have though
<jpm> alexmacfie: I don;t think that's realpolitik
<alexmacfie> i think of the way the trade unions were before Mrs T bashed them... a big vested interest
<alexh> and the risk is that we lose a very good directive
<jpm> Our strongest line (IMHO) is the economics
<alexmacfie> we need first of all for that to be recognized then for someone to actually take it on
<alexh> jpm: I agree
<jpm> alexh: first we have to win the directive
<jpm> but the point is: what is the difference between the parl text and McCarthy ?
<alexh> if we argue pro-directive on the basis of being anti-vicom, I think we lose by default
<jpm> answer: Vicom, sohei and amazon
<alexh> they're good examples of the difference, but the problem is that they're case law
<jpm> if we don't make the case, we can't convince anyone
<jpm> epo case law
<jpm> but this is the question
<alexh> Yes, but you can't make the case without losing 'status quo'
<jpm> just what should be patentable
<jpm> alexh: that is why we say that McCarthy would 'legitimise' the EPO's bad decisions
<jpm> which are dead against the EPC
<alexh> Sure, but you need an awful lot of buy-in to sustain the argument
<alexh> If you move to show that the original directive is bad because it enforces the status quo, we surely lose
<alexh> I can't see how that argument can be sustained
<alexh> (even if it's true)
<jpm> Deny that it is the *legitimate* status quo
<jpm> that has been the FFII line from the start
<alexmacfie> because it isn't always enforced as such
<jpm> and concentrate on the economics
<alexh> I agree with the economical arguments, I think those are easily made
<jpm> alexmacfie: afraid it is, in the UK anyway
<alexh> And I think if Vicom was a hypothetical example, it would be useful
<alexh> The problem (for me) is precisely using case law
<jpm> so we concentrate on whether Vicom-like patents are good
<jpm> and economically they're not
<alexh> Yes - I think it's easy to show they're bad
<jpm> alexh: it's high stakes, but it does at least make the issues clear
<alexh> But presenting the amended directive as very different to what we have now must fatally wound it
<jpm> which is what the other side habe been trying to blur
<jpm> alexh: not necessarily -- we're talking to different people :)
<alexmacfie> jpm: i was thinking of beyond the uk
<alexh> We need clear blue water between our directive and theirs, but it needs to be staked out in such a way it's not threatening to them
TimB has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
slashmoo has quit (infrared.oftc.net uranium.oftc.net)
jpm has quit (infrared.oftc.net uranium.oftc.net)
nickhill has quit (infrared.oftc.net uranium.oftc.net)
quinophex has quit (infrared.oftc.net uranium.oftc.net)
alexh has quit (infrared.oftc.net uranium.oftc.net)
Insti has quit (infrared.oftc.net uranium.oftc.net)
wolfbone has quit (infrared.oftc.net uranium.oftc.net)
Glyn_ has quit (infrared.oftc.net uranium.oftc.net)
<alexmacfie> ok
alexmacfie has left #uk-swpat-talk ((nil))
alexhu (~alex@217.158.120.153) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<alexhu> gah, my connection appears buggered :/
Insti (~Insti@cpc3-cmbg3-5-0-cust171.cmbg.cable.ntl.com) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
wolfbone (~wolfbone@host81-152-204-147.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
slashmoo (~slash@linguaphone.plus.com) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
slash (~slash@212.159.68.128) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
alexmacfie (alexmacfie@194.73.116.114) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<slash> hello again
<alexmacfie> something went wrong there...
<slash> um, yah :)
alexhu has quit (Quit: Client exiting)
* slash wonders about script kiddies
<wolfbone> I was the only one left apart from Insti - did I cause it?
<slash> probably - were you frobnicating at the time?
nickhill- (~nick@213.152.57.82) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<wolfbone> No saloominating
<slash> heh
<wolfbone> :)
<slash> given services appear to be down I suspect something fundamental went for it's dinner
<nickhill-> I lost connection on a server. I had to reconnect
<slash> nickhill-: everyone did
<alexmacfie> is everyone back yet?
<alexmacfie> i guess not :(
<nickhill-> Wann't obvious. Just no traffic
*NickServ* This nickname is registered and protected. If it is your
*NickServ* nick, type /msg NickServ IDENTIFY password. Otherwise,
*NickServ* please choose a different nick.
<nickhill-> ie no server timed out
<slash> nope, we lost jpm, Glyn_, quinophex, maybe others
<slash> ooo, services
<slash> I think they probably needed to bring up firewall rules quickly in defence for something
<alexmacfie> Should we put anything up for ./?
<slash> ./ ?
<alexmacfie> on lobbying MPs, a link to council.html
<alexmacfie> sorry /.
<slash> oh right
<slash> yeah, probably
<slash> it's clear the uk is something of a lynchpin
alexh (~slash@barney.alcoholicsunanimous.com) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<alexmacfie> probably should post anywhere vaguely related where one is able to post
quinophex (foobar@81.187.217.31) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
jpm (noname@dial-62-64-172-131.access.uk.tiscali.com) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<slash> oo, I think we're almost all back
<alexmacfie> BTW i've emailed Jono at Wolves LUG (on Tom Watson)
<slash> Cool
<jpm> back in 5 mins
<jpm> anything I need to think/say/do first ?
<slash> nafaik
jpm is now known as jpm_away
<alexmacfie> does anyone have trade union contacts?
<alexmacfie> some TUs elsewhere have come out against swpat
<slash> I know people have whinged about the TUs being a bit apathetic on some of these issues
<nickhill-> I gave a talk to a group of activists a couple of weeks ago. It was clear they were the type of people to camp outside the patent office greenham common style.
<slash> (thinking more about free software in general, rather than swpat)
<alexmacfie> an interesting thought nick :)
<alexmacfie> most likely amicus-msf would be of interest
<slash> What about the IT professional bodies - have they ever been approached? BCS etc.?
<alexmacfie> no match on patents at BCS website
<alexmacfie> they don't seem to want to know
<alexmacfie> i did talk to someone about it at BCS YPG meeting a while ago, i gave him my card by he never got back to me
<slash> I guess this is more proof that patents don't form part of the 'status quo' for ordinary IT professionals ;)
<jpm_away> there was the ex-president of the BCS who spoke at the UKPTO european conference a couple of years ago wasn;t there ?
<alexmacfie> how many ordinary it professionals think about it at all?
<alexmacfie> was he for or against?
<quinophex> most IT professionals are ignorant and would probably say they thought software patents were a good thing
<jpm_away> alexM: against swpat
<jpm_away> the only one at the conference
jpm_away is now known as jpm
<jpm> afair
<slash> that would be interesting
<alexmacfie> which woul dmean they don't understand what is being patented
<alexmacfie> and that that is a direct result of having swpat
<jpm> quin: the patents = innovation = growth thing is very ingrained
<slash> alexmacfie: I think that's the case for the politicians too
<quinophex> jpm: i know :(
<slash> marking out software as something 'different' is a hard argument to make
<jpm> that is why I think that one of our highest priorities is a better swpat horror gallery
<alexmacfie> and people get confused between patents and copyright
<jpm> with pictures
<jpm> that even Bolkestein can understand
<alexmacfie> you explain *why* it's different. i love RMS' point about if statements not rubbing against whiles :)
<slash> oh, it's definitely an argument which is logically sustainable, but it's still hard to make
<slash> actually, the SICP videos are quite good for this too - the section on complexity control
<alexmacfie> without resorting to slogans
<slash> well, without seeming academic
<jpm> slogans - 1 product = 1 patent good
<jpm> 100 patents = 1 product bad
<jpm> a prettty fair summary of the economic analysis
<alexmacfie> but even there one has to demonstrate why it's bad
<alexmacfie> not many people read economic analyses
<slash> economics is easier to grasp than philosophy though
<slef> We have some EU TU people who are AFFS members. Shall I send slash details?
<alexmacfie> any in the UK?
<jpm> that's I suppose why you have to make it concrete
<jpm> bring those landmines to life
<nickhill-> jpm: Do we have a slogan gallery?
<slef> I am also in contact with someone who seems to know about BCS things if we have no-one else as a starting point.
<jpm> nickhill: the Belgians may
<slash> exactly. resorting to academic arguments doesn't work, because physics is essentially maths but also a nicely patentable area in many respects
<slash> slef: please do - members, or officials? stewards?
<slef> alexmacfie: yes, in the UK
<alexmacfie> but in physics things don't always work exactly as the theory would have it... in logic the practical == the theory
<slef> slash: I'll check.
<alexmacfie> slef: email me info please
<jpm> alexM: you've been reading too much Xavi again...
<slash> alexmacfie: but then you get into the difficult to sustain area - why should software be different?
<jpm> slash: because the economics are different
<slash> that's a different argument
<jpm> because all patents are a trade off
<alexmacfie> i know the Xavi-isms are hard to explain to laymen
<jpm> and for swpat it foes the wrong way
<jpm> goes
<slash> I agree with that, the economics don't make sense
<alexmacfie> and there is another assumption... that patents are somehow natural
<slash> but that's not a counter to the 'software is special' argument
<slash> or, "is not special", I should say
<jpm> economics is the only reason to have patents in the first place
<alexmacfie> one could counter with "why should software be the same"?
<nickhill-> Software is incremental in nature. Small steps.
<nickhill-> If all those small steps are patented, no development.
<slash> alexmacfie: because it is technology, just like anything else. a software driven phone looks quite similar to a non-software driven phone
<slef> Actually, it appears that contact details are public and he's a fsfe-uk poster. http://www.labourstart.org/contact.shtml
<jpm> low barriers to entry ... software is cheap, as LAC would say
<alexmacfie> or rather it *looks* like technology because the device it runs on is technical
<alexmacfie> like saying music is technical because it's played thru a (technical) loudspeaker
<jpm> a cottage industry which patents would destroy, according to the US Natl Academy of Sciences
<slash> Yeah, but don't you see how this argument (although correct) is harder to explain?
<alexmacfie> i do
<alexmacfie> i find it very difficult to explain myself
<jpm> btw slash: how did your man get on with Malcolm Harbour ?
<slash> Well, as expected really
<slash> Both sides explained their points, Malcolm clung to 'technical contribution'
<slash> IIRC had many examples of patentable phone tech
<jpm> did he show Harbour the list of what the EPO consider patentable ?
<jpm> IIRC ??
<slash> If I Remeber Correctly, sorry ;)
<slef> of course, our man is not a phone tech expert, so that was particularly good tactics IMO
<slash> "He thinks that the current amendments are dangerous because they add complexity" was interesting
<jpm> Harbour had the details on the phone patents ?
<jpm> ... from Tim Frain of Nokia presumably
<jpm> slash: 'complexity' got into the tory standard line
<slash> yeah, I think he was parroting it
<alexmacfie> what do they mean by "complexity"?
<slash> We suggested that we setup a discussion forum for them to meet anti-swpat people, and the response was " he thought it was all down to the (Council of Minsters)? now and nothing much could be done about it"
<slash> alexmacfie: makes it more complex to get a software patent by pretending it's not?
<jpm> alexM: law might actually mean something (complex !), not just a rubber stamp :-)
<slash> Law does tend to strive for simplicity, not that it always achieves it
<alexmacfie> But simple laws can lead to complex problems.
<jpm> we did almost double the length of the main articles...
<jpm> ... but then now they might mean something
<slash> I think the problem would be that the potential outcomes of the law are more complex
<slash> More likely to have side-effects; need to spend more time rigorously thinking about it, etc.
<jpm> a complicated boundary takes more bits to describe than 100% all black
<slash> oh, I agree
<alexmacfie> it's not all-black tho', it's a lot of grey
<alexmacfie> for the sake of being simple a lot was left undefined
<jpm> but defined to be black by the EPO
<slash> that's how we got in this mess ;)
<jpm> anyhow...
<alexmacfie> grey is the new black ... sorry couldn't resist
<jpm> is there an agenda of issues we need to discuss ?
<slash> There was the issue of attempting to get a meeting at Parliament, or involving parliamentarians
<jpm> ... interesting as this philosophical digression might be...
<slash> ;)
<jpm> slash: that would be good
<alexmacfie> that was the main one
<jpm> would the select cttee on science and technology be the right ppl to talk to ?
<slash> We probably also need a timeline on a website with the key dates on it
<alexmacfie> but how easy is it to talk to MPs other than constituency
<jpm> I think there are a few things we need on the website
<jpm> alexM: get MPs to talk to MPs
<jpm> starting with the ones we know
<slash> jpm: I was thinking specifically of making sense of the 23Oct and 10Nov dates
<slash> If we can find people in East Ham/ Leicester West, that could be very useful
<alexmacfie> http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_and_technology_committee/science_and_technology_committee_members.cfm
<jpm> There's a page at FFII now on the Council, which would give some context for the 10 Nov
<slef> I used to work in the same uni as Ian Gibson, if we have no stronger in.
<slash> SciTech ctte seem a bit biotech focussed atm
<alexmacfie> [biotech has patent issues...]
<slef> IG was dean of UEA School of Biology
<slash> ;)
jpm2 (noname@dial-62-64-206-136.access.uk.tiscali.com) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<slash> jpm: FFII page almost seems self-contradictory atm
<jpm2> dialups.... huh
<jpm2> slash: why so ?
<slash> "unless UK government ministers can be convinced otherwise by October 23rd", "Unless Government ministers can be convinced by 10th November to overrule the UKPO"
<jpm2> I would make 10 Nov the deadline
<slash> Why? Because we need more time? :)
<jpm2> because Oct 23 is now too soon to do anything about
* slef notes his patch was discarded
<jpm2> slash: yes
<jpm2> slef: no, it'll go in
<slash> fair enough ;)
<alexmacfie> ok we need to decide on dates... i think the page needs refinement anyway
<alexmacfie> like being split up :)
<slash> Why was Oct 23 originally on there though? And why can we set it aside now?
<jpm2> Oct 23 is when the civil servants meet
<alexmacfie> i see... we don't exactly have much influence over civil servants
<jpm2> or rather the Patent Office experts from across Europe
<alexmacfie> but we know what they're going to think anyway
<jpm2> the "Working Party on Intellectual Property (Patents)" to be precise
<jpm2> alexM: not necessarily
<slash> Nov 10 is Council of Ministers?
<jpm2> slash: yes
<alexmacfie> jpm2: you mean there are turkeys out there who might vote for Xmas?
<jpm2> it's possible the other Europeans may be having more success
<jpm2> there are politicians who may even cook the turkeys
<jpm2> .. but possibly not New Labour ones
<jpm2> Our big goal is for them to decide to reopen the Nov 2002 text, and change it
<jpm2> but it would probably take them months
<jpm2> so they really probably don;t want to
<slash> other likely alternative being what?
<alexmacfie> they stick with Nov 2002 text
<alexmacfie> so it goes back to EP
<jpm2> and try to ram it through
<slash> hmm
jpm has quit (Ping timeout: 483 seconds)
jpm2 is now known as jpm
<slash> EP probably wouldn't get around to considering it til Spring then, I would think...
<slash> brinksmanship
<slash> I would think that extra time would now work in our favour rather than theirs, though
<jpm> alexM: presumably the original EC proposal is still the baseline for amendments ?
<alexmacfie> i think so... if that is what is sent back to EP
<jpm> so Council amendments need to get 328 in the EU parl too ?
<alexmacfie> eys
<alexmacfie> yes
<jpm> Nov 2002 != original EC
<jpm> In particular Program Claims would need 328 ?
<jpm> slash: extra time is ++good for us
<alexmacfie> i think so... I'm not so expert on the procedure
<jpm> st to check later
<alexmacfie> my understanding was any amendments need 328.
<jpm> anyway, so that is why letters which reach the dti before 23 Oct are especially good
<alexmacfie> jpm: is extra time so good? Other side can work on fake compromises
<jpm> & it's good to try to give writers a sense of urgency
<alexmacfie> indeed
<slash> When Parl reconsider the directive (assuming they get the chance), is the base the original EU, the EP amended or the Council amended?
<jpm> extra time is good because like all Open projects, we take time to get going, but then we snowball
<alexmacfie> slash: i think we'll have to ask on bxl :(
<jpm> slash: original EU (I think)
<jpm> with Council amendments automatically tabled
<slash> so they would revote on every amendment? that sounds crazy
<alexmacfie> does not seem evenly balanced :(
<jpm> and EP amendments tabled only if they get enough signatures
<slash> that can't be right
<alexmacfie> so revote only on the retabled amendments
<jpm> but I would need to read over the EP rules
<jpm> alexM: yes, I think
<alexmacfie> how many sigs are needed?
<alexmacfie> to table an amendment in 2nd reading
<jpm> EP can only retable previously accepted amendments
<jpm> alexM: I think same rules as 1st reading
<jpm> but not at all sure, need to check up on all of this
<alexmacfie> and anyway we need to get back to the immediate issue
<alexmacfie> how to get UK gvt to overrule patent office
<jpm> 1st question: how much more do we need to do, before we really snowball the letter campaign
<slash> I would think bringing some MPs onside could not hurt if possible
<alexmacfie> wse need to get a lot more publicity for the campaign
<jpm> letter campaign must get going soon
<alexmacfie> submit it to the usual websites
<jpm> alexM: when we're ready
<slash> Is it worth asking people to write letters not only opposing software patents, but attacking specific bits of pro-swpat illogic?
<jpm> we send the first sections as an FFII alert to the 30,000 email addresses we have on the petition
<slash> For example, getting business people to write that 'as far as I'm concerned, the status quo always has been...'
<jpm> slash: how close to okay is the text now on council.html
<jpm> ?
<jpm> does it need to give people more flexibility ?
<jpm> having mailshotted our supporters, we then try and slashdot the page as well
<slash> I'm thinking about having people mention some very specific arguments the other side has made
<alexmacfie> it should mention the status quo point
<slash> Directly countering the form letters
<alexmacfie> that is definite
<jpm> & *hope* we can instill a sufficient sense of urgency that some of them write
<alexmacfie> the hewitt.html page is an attempt at doing that
<wolfbone> slash: Adopt a bad patent / bad argument?
<slash> alexmacfie: exactly
<jpm> I hoped people reading the council.html page would automatically check the Hewitt page
<slash> wolfbone: yeah, something like that. It would be difficult to try and cover them all in one letter ;)
<wolfbone> heh
<alexmacfie> needs more prominence... page needs better design
<jpm> but it does ping the 'consultation' argument as something to specifically challenge
<slash> jpm: even just writing "You may want to consider countering these arguments in your letter" or something would cover it
<slash> It's currently a purely informative page, not something to be actioned, if you see what I mean
<jpm> slash: how about a section on points to include ?
<jpm> slash: even today's version ?
<slash> yeah, something like that, although I would avoid making it to prescriptive.
<slash> Today's Hewitt page?
<jpm> today;s council.html page
<jpm> tomorrows will have the english fixes from slef :grin:
<slash> It implies letters should counterpoint her view, not directly address it, to me.
<slash> Colour coding on Hewitt.html could be better too, btw
<jpm> Personally I think we could probably do a lot better than Hartmut's style sheet
<jpm> Is there something to be said for a Wiki, like the AEL site ?
<slash> Actually, I think it's because my browser is barfing on the styles, or something is overriding them
<slash> They are not red italic ;)
<slash> AEL site is okay, but the navigation is a bit unique
<jpm> slash: a bit .. organic
<slash> yeah, definitely
<jpm> red normal face, double blockquoted would IMO be better for the Hewitt reply
<slash> yeah
<jpm> but in terms of approach, you're saying the new council.html is still not direct enough ?
<slash> CSS needs to be fixed first though - does it work for you now?
<jpm> no idea.. just use the last Moz on Win95...
<jpm> was the css broken ?
<alexmacfie> style sheet can be changed easily
<slash> well, it's not having the intended effect here
<slash> I'll break it down and see what's causing it
<jpm> slash: the css or the text content of the page ?
<slash> I suspect it's the <!-- on the inline style
<slef> jpm2: sorry. I get used to being discarded.
<jpm> we need to turn the council.html into something that really works, and soon.
<slash> that would probably cause my browser to ignore it ;)
<jpm> slef: I wasn;t discarding you, I was just going to trust your instincts and make your changes
<slash> Resources + Hints'n'Tips should probably come after the call for action, rather than mixed in
<jpm> but Alex could only go with what he had
<slef> jpm: use current council.html as background and do a clean rewrite.
<alexmacfie> should be on a separate page really
<slash> They're only useful once you've decided to write the letter
<slef> jpm: I know, I know.
<slef> jpm: I was apologising for assuming otherwise.
<jpm> this *was* my rewrite...
<slash> Ditto finding out the address in a way...
<slash> Perhaps we could turn it into a flow, a bit like shopping on a website?
<slef> jpm: hrm, it looked similar in structure to the old one.
<slef> slash: hrm, won't we infringe on the amazon patents?
* slef runs
<jpm> slef: okay, well it was adapted then
<alexmacfie> we'd probably end up infringing on the SBC frames patents
<alexmacfie> [because if you have a flow you have to be able to go to a place]
<jpm> slash: the capsule summaries in "Resources" actually carry the weight of the argument as to why swpat is generally bad
<slash> if only the patent stopped people using frames...
<jpm> that's why the section is in there straight after the call to action
<alexmacfie> well there are other ways of doing similar thing
<jpm> so maybe s/Resources/Why swpat are bad/ ?
<slash> Yeah, that makes more sense
<slash> I would drop the faux Contents bits too, tbh
<jpm> the contents of the Further Information section ?
<jpm> I guess the page just got so long I felt it sort of needed st like that
<jpm> ie problem is 'page got so long'
<alexmacfie> which is why I want to split it :)
<jpm> but back to the Q: how near is it to usable ?
<slash> Not far, but I wonder if it can be simplified a fair bit
<jpm> ... not just by changing the css into a smaller font ?
<jpm> (like eg the default Times the browser comes with ?)
<jpm> But so: what needs to be done to it ?
<slash> Actually, a smaller font would probably help, I wouldn't make it serif though
<jpm> Or, if you were to do a full clean rewrite, what would go in ?
<slash> Re-ordering some of it would probably make a big difference, thinking about it
<alexmacfie> Most of it is in Times
<slash> Not here it's not ;)
<jpm> alexM: oh well, there goes that fix then....
<alexmacfie> Only headings and Hewitt are in verdana
<slef> jpm: well, what is the most important thing?
<alexmacfie> actually most of it is no font specified, so it would go with default
<slef> jpm: "Write to your MP or the software industry gets it"?
<jpm> okay slef, go on...
<slash> I would have four sections: "Write a letter!", "Reasons/Resources", "Hints/Tips", "Correct Addressing"...
<alexmacfie> put that as a big banner on the front and a link to council
* jpm is too mild and polite to write good agitprop
<jpm> slash: I thought the point about writing to MPs, not ministers was important and should go up-page
<slef> jpm: 1mo, seeking image
<jpm> but otoh, slef's one-column flier has so much more impact
<slash> I would guess if you've bothered to write a letter you could bother to find out how to write on the envelope
<alexmacfie> MPs need to know the counter-arguments as well, so they can quiz the ministers
<jpm> AlexM: MPs never read the thing, they;re just the postbox
<jpm> okay they possibly do, but I doubt they lose much sleep
<slef> damnit... can't find a hand gun pic under a RF licence
<slef> anyway
<alexmacfie> hand gun?
<slash> that might not be a great idea with the current focus on gun crime, I don't know...
<slef> alexmacfie: I'd put it on the page with a caption of "Software patents will force all developers to play Russian Roulette" or similar
<slef> slash: heh. suggest alternatives, but we need a pic hook
<slash> hehe - Derren Brown, software developer...
<quinophex> hehe
<alexmacfie> slef: good general idea, landmines might be another
<slef> as well as mandatory boring pics of software development to get the press interested
<alexmacfie> along the same lines
<slef> alexmacfie: that hooks onto the RMS quote, doesn't it?
<alexmacfie> indeed
<slash> Hang on - who are we aiming this at?
<quinophex> slef: i have guns here and a half decent digicam :)
<alexmacfie> people minded to take action against swpat
<jpm> 30,000 petition signees
<jpm> and anyone we can pull in from slashdot
<slef> just in UK?
<slash> Sorry, what demographic are we aiming at? Geeks? Business people?
<alexmacfie> yes just in UK
<slef> alexmacfie: I like it
<slash> I think someone will have to have some kind of interest in swpat to write a cogent argument
<alexmacfie> anyone strongly against swpat. Could be geeks, could be pointy-headed bosses or economists
<wolfbone> academics too
<slef> headline "Write to your MP or the software industry gets it"
<alexmacfie> hence we have quote from RMS and Laura Creighton, and links to economists letters
<jpm> the minister might even get shown it
<slash> But if we're aiming at Joe, we probably need to vastly simplify the arguments and not require research, because the goal is then volume, surely?
<alexmacfie> OK Laura's not a pointy-headed boss but she's a businesswoman
<slef> subhead "UK minister likely to vote to annul Parliament decision"
<alexmacfie> sounds good slef
<jpm> slash: those links were the best expositions I could think of
<jpm> the SME statement is esp good
* chriscroome just got in, will try to read logs later...
<jpm> and the parliament speeches are pretty easy to understand
<slef> lead para "The European Parliament voted to restrict software patenting, but the UK government are expected to vote to annul that democractic decision in the Council of Ministers. We need to convince them otherwise before they meet on 10th November."
<jpm> Good stuff slef
<slash> I don't think anyone who is going to bother to write a letter is going to do research to the degree of reading speeches though
<slash> That seems a high barrier to entry
<jpm> they were only 2 minutes each
<alexmacfie> they can help people get their own arguments straight
<slef> subhead "What is the UK position?"
<slash> they could, if people read through all thirty six of them
<jpm> I did highlight the six I though were most use
<jpm> & I thought these were the key resources to cite
<quinophex> joe public is ultra lazy though
<alexmacfie> probably they need to be isolated. we skim thru them and get the choice quotes out.
<alexmacfie> Rather than let the reader search
<alexmacfie> quiophex: u are so right...
<slash> we obviously need to go a step beyond form letters, which immediately means most people will drop out
<slef> "UK ministers are thought to support the UK Patent Office's amendments that would promote software patenting and are based on a November 2002 draft, instead of the September 2003 European Parliament version."
<jpm> quin: but if we write a form letter, that;s all they;ll send, and the MPs will just bin it
<slash> But, we need to pick up as many stayers beyond that as possible
<quinophex> jpm: well is having form letters sent better or worse than having no letters sent?
<jpm> slef: thought ? bollox -- they say they do. in black and white in the Hewitt and Sainsbury letters
<slash> quinophex: probably makes no difference
<quinophex> amnesty international provide sample sound bites and ask people to work them into a real letter, that seems to work quite well, cold we do somethng similar?
<jpm> quin: a few good letters *may* be better than a mountain of form letters
<quinophex> i don't think that we will even get a mountain of form letters though tbh :-/
<slash> I think the idea is to obviously structure things as much as possible without it being a form letter
<jpm> quin: that was kind of my intention with the 'points we need to make' section...
<slef> "Replies from ministers often claim that the UKPO consultation 3 years ago produced results which were "broadly in favour" of this position. In fact, views of software professionals were overwhelmingly against software patents, but numerically outweighed by the responses of patent professionals and others."
nickhill (~nick@213.152.57.80) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<slef> jpm: apologies. edit to fit, based on your greater knowledge.
<jpm> they weren't even numerically outweighed
<jpm> slef: sorry, go on
<slef> ditto, but link numbers and sources from the page as evidence
<jpm> slef: as I said, I don;t really have a sharp enough touch for writing material
<jpm> so you go on
<alexmacfie> it was the "economic majority" type argument
<slef> jpm: I don't know all the facts accurately, so need editing by people who do.
<slef> alexmacfie: we can quote DTI figures about the importance and size of SME sector back at that.
<alexmacfie> those who wer epro-patent supposedly spoke for "the industry" rather than being free sw types
<alexmacfie> supposedly
<slef> subhead "Are software patents good for software developers?"
<alexmacfie> "software industry versus patent industry" fit that in somewhere
<slash> I wouldn't refer to the patent industry necessarily
<slash> They're lawyers, people understand that
<alexmacfie> You have a point, it does sound like one has an agenda (think of people who talk of the "race relations industry")
<slash> I also wouldn't discuss whether or not swpat is good; I would tell the reader directly why they are bad
<slash> Well, if we're aiming at average people this is not language they would understand
<slash> It's a form of jargon, almost
<quinophex> not almost, it is
<jpm> back in a bit
<slash> Also, there's a difference between presenting the argument, and presenting resources
jpm is now known as jpm_away
<slash> I would say anyone writing a letter is going to be fairly convinced of the argument already
<alexmacfie> But they don't necessarily know how to express it.
<slef> "No. One of the most interesting articles for anyone who believes that it would be good is "e-Patents and financial investing" by Laura Creighton, software venture capitalist, published in Vrijschrift.org. It explains how software patents can damage the industry and cites many other references.
<slash> alexmacfie: hence my point about presenting resources, not arguments
<slash> Technically, we're not arguing with these people that swpat is bad
<slef> "We also suggest that people read this open letter by leading economists and the rationale of this petition by leading computer and software scientists.
<slash> We're actually arguing that their original directive isn't strictly defined enough
<slash> Everyone is supposed to agree that software patents per se are bad
<slef> slash: head off FAQs; don't use latin
<slash> sorry??
<slef> provide resources without saying "Here is a long list of references. We want to be an academic journal. We are too clever and dull for you to read this."
<slef> I'm explaining the aim I'm going for
<slash> I don't understand your last three sentances.
<slef> subhead "How to contact your MP"
<slef> #include Do/Don't list that seemed pretty good
<slef> #include how to find the address
<alexmacfie> perhaps group Do's and Don't's together
<slef> key points should be merged into there without repeating the previous text
<slef> slash: that's nice dear. Anything in particular?
<slef> probably should note the success of the EP campaign somewhere too
<alexmacfie> has links to FFII press release
<alexmacfie> oh no that's on the index page
jpm_away has quit (Quit: Leaving)
jpm_away (noname@62.64.206.136) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<alexmacfie> back so soon :)
* slash is going soon
<slash> some of us have work to do ;)
<alexmacfie> I have to eat! [I'm in the office, no food]
<slash> heh
<quinophex> hehe
<alexmacfie> OK so I'll come up with something based on the ideas herein
<quinophex> is anyone logging this?
<slash> yup
<slash> I think we have to remember, though, that anti-swpat arguments are not actually going to make much difference
<slash> The focus has to be on supporting the amendments within the directive
<alexmacfie> sounds like the text should be rearranged and the front be made more user-friendly with some nice slogans
jpm_away is now known as jpm
<alexmacfie> but I'm no graphic designer, so can't make pictures
<slash> pictures are easy
<jpm> the key amendments though are the ones on scope of patentability
<jpm> -- defining what is and what is not technical
<jpm> to argue for those is to argue against swpat
<alexmacfie> should there be an analysis of the amendments or can we just point to already-existing ffii material?
<slash> jpm: I wasn't talking about actually discussing the amendments, but ensuring that the argument was that the directive was only good with the amendments
<slash> no, don't analyse the amendments
<slash> dull dull dull
<jpm> no, not the ffii material
<alexmacfie> If people are going to argue effectiveluy for *our* directive they prob need to understand how it's different from the original
<jpm> far too dense
<slash> exactly
<slash> Focus on the differences: that the original has too loose definitions, and that simple things make technical contributions
<slash> The practical difference is much more interesting than the wording
<jpm> this is what I was trying to get to in my points to make para
<slash> Arguing against software patents is probably going to be seen as a straw man argument
nickhill has quit (Ping timeout: 483 seconds)
<jpm> but swpats are what these amendments are about
<jpm> real, concrete swpats
<jpm> like Vicom and the Jpeg patent, for algorithms
<alexmacfie> the ones swpat supporters say they're against
<slash> If we say the original allows swpat, and then proceed to argue against swpat, the argument will be dismissed because politicians are likely to believe the rhetorical that the original only allows technical patents
<slash> That's what I mean by it being a straw man argument
<jpm> so we hit them with the UKPTO transcript
<jpm> this directive codifies current practice
<jpm> even the minutes said that
<slash> I'm not denying that, but that's not going to come into play in a letter writing campaign
<jpm> the point is to cut through this fog
<jpm> and get to brass tacks
<jpm> which patents does the Nov 2002 allow
<slash> I don't think Vicom is your brass tacks though, I'm afraid
<jpm> and which does the EP allow
<jpm> but Vicom is exactly the sort of bad swpat
<jpm> that is what the debate means
<slash> You know that, I know that, but I'm not sure they can be convinced
<jpm> who ?
<slash> You're trying to ensure the minister believes the original directive is bad because it allows Vicom, yes?
<jpm> Sainsbury and Bolkestein ?
<slash> We're putting pressure on the Government to look at this issue critically, surely?
<jpm> I think that is what we should try to launch a lot of letters to convince him, yes
<jpm> that the original directive is bad because it allows Vicom
<jpm> that for me is the absolute heart of what we are trying to do
<slash> That's pushing every possible boulder uphill though
<jpm> I don;t see any other way to get it there
<jpm> unless we go to the heart of the debate, we get lost in the smoke and deceptions
<slash> We have to address the key issues of data processing, interoperability and technical contribution
<slash> Arguments against patents in those areas stand on their feet
<jpm> no, those issues are marginal
<jpm> not worth writing about
<slash> They are key in the difference in the directives though
<jpm> the key difference is in the definition of technical
<jpm> which excludes patents like vicom
<alexmacfie> but the minister will bring up the issue of technical contribution... as McCarthy did in Labour MEPs form letter
<jpm> interoperability is a side issue
<alexmacfie> so that at least will have to be addressed
<slash> Well, just address technical contribution then
<jpm> the ministers won;t buy it, but the commission does
<alexmacfie> data processing is something that can be held up as something as inherently "non-technical" I think a reasonable person can see that point without difficult
<alexmacfie> y
<slash> exactly
<jpm> the easiest way to address technical contribution is with examples of what is technical ac the EPO
nickhill (~nick@213.152.57.80) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<slash> arguing against Vicom means you're taking a radical position
<jpm> actually for most people "data processing" = "big iron 1960s IBM mainfames" = totally technical
<alexmacfie> and we're back there onto old (for us) arguments :(
<jpm> arguing for the "law of physics" amendment is taking a radical position
<alexmacfie> people are easily blinded by science
<slash> I daresay it is, certainly in terms of UK law
<alexmacfie> but it passed
<alexmacfie> in the european parliamebt
<jpm> it's just that;s what the words 'dp' mean
<slash> Wouldn't fly over here though, I think we'd agree
<alexmacfie> only because no parliamentarian has ever had the chance to debate these issues here
<jpm> With different language, or more precise definitions, it might
<jpm> the key -- I still think -- is to push the economic case that pure software patents are bad
<jpm> pure software patents means things like Vicom
<slash> That doesn't support the directive versus the original though
<jpm> which is what the EP text rules out.
<jpm> and the Nov 2002 text doesn't.
<slash> but they _believe_ the original rules it out too
<alexmacfie> practical effects are certainly easier to argue than theory of why software is unpatentable
<jpm> no, they *really don;t
<alexmacfie> slash: who's "they"?
<slash> UKPTO & associates
<jpm> the UKPTO don't, their advisers don't
<slash> pure swpat they do
<slash> Not Vicom, obviously
<alexmacfie> they know exactly what they're doing... pretending it doesn't when they want something that does
<jpm> if anybody else does, they are staking out an *incredibly* weak position
<jpm> this is why we have to talk specific patents rather than words
<slash> Sure, but once you move away from 'status quo' you lose the argument
<jpm> and *fight* for the definition of the term "pure software"
<jpm> slash: then we have no argument
<slash> Absolutely not, I'm just talking about stating it differently
<jpm> our argument does not depend on 'status quo'
<slash> No, but that is the basis on which it will be judged
<jpm> because the minister knows full well that the EP text is not the status quo
<jpm> if we argue for status quo to the minister, we argue against the EP text.
<slash> I thought you said the UKPTO thought it codified current practice?
<slash> Or are you talking about the amended directive?
<jpm> the McCarthy report codifies current practice
<jpm> the EP text radically alters it
<alexmacfie> ok I need to go as I'm tired and hungry
<jpm> that is why we have to make a radical case
<jpm> smoke and deception is not going to work against UKPTO civil servants
<slash> I think we have to outline it has a practical case, because it's easy to show the McCarthy report doesn't achieve the stated aims
<jpm> which aims ?
<slash> That pure software not be patentable
<jpm> what is "pure software" ?
<slash> Exactly - that is the difference
<jpm> that which has no "technical effect"
<alexmacfie> now we're going round in circles...
<jpm> ie a non-functional poem in perl
<jpm> that is all the McCarthy report is intended to exclude
<jpm> to expose that, we have to talk about real patents
<jpm> and fess up, that Vicom is the issue
<jpm> and trust our supporters to back us on fundamentals, not "status quo"
<slash> and you think they will go away from 'sq' (as supported by their consultation), the practice of the last 20 years, the Vicom case as it went before EPO, etc?
<slash> Rather than just take the arguments as supporting material that the amended directive is undesirable?
<jpm> that is the case we are trying to prove
<jpm> that is what we persuaded the EP
<jpm> I just can't see any other way
<slash> hmm
<slash> My position is more along the lines of: I don't care whether we prove it or not; the amended directive is the goal
<jpm> our case is that these software patents are bad news, and should not be granted
<jpm> but the minister knows what the amended directive means, in terms of a radical change
<alexmacfie> are you sure the minister has a clue what it means?
<jpm> if he doesn't, you can bet the UKPTO are telling him
<jpm> "this will invalideate 80% of C.I.I. patents...."
<jpm> "overturn decades of UK practice..."
<jpm> we're getting that back already in his letters
<jpm> that is why we have to make the case for the change
<jpm> not pretend there is no change
<slash> jpm: forgetting about Vicom, I agree we have to convince them that it would invalidate cii patents
<slash> After all, that was the point of the exercise
<slash> Even from their perspective
<jpm> well no
alexmacfie has quit (infrared.oftc.net keid.oftc.net)
Insti has quit (infrared.oftc.net keid.oftc.net)
wolfbone has quit (infrared.oftc.net keid.oftc.net)
<jpm> they aren;t intending to invalidate *any* patents
<jpm> still here ?
<slash> no, but they realise the situation isn't clear, and I can't believe that they would think that they could bring in something new which all patents would neatly fall in
<slash> yep ;)
<jpm> -- and the McCarthy directive wouldn;t
<slash> Invalidation is a side-effect, not an intention
alexmacfie (alexmacfie@194.73.116.114) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
Insti (~Insti@cpc3-cmbg3-5-0-cust171.cmbg.cable.ntl.com) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
wolfbone (~wolfbone@host81-152-204-147.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<slash> back ;)
<slash> I would have thought even McCarthy would invalidate some
<jpm> but the McCarthy report literally codifies the current EPO rulebook
<slash> There must be some sufficiently badly written
<slash> I didn't think it was quite that weak, is it?
<slash> I thought it was *slightly* stronger?
<jpm> nope
<jpm> no definition of technical
<alexmacfie> or of industrial
<jpm> & just requires a technical effect beyond normal running on a computer
<jpm> -- just like the EPO guidelines
<slash> I thought it had some extra exclusion or something
<jpm> less memory, more speed, better user interface etc etc etc all technical
* slash searching for the specific thing he's thinking of...
<jpm> you're thinking of McCarthy's article 4a
<jpm> technical effect beyond the normal operation of the computer
<jpm> it's actually *weaker* than current UK law, becuase it codifies the EPO doctrine that all CIIs ipso facto have "technical character"
<jpm> (the UK has thrown out as non-technical CIIs which support "methods for performing mental acts"
<jpm> The whole *purpose* of the McCarthy report from the UKPTO perspective is to legitimise the current EPO policy
<jpm> The only person who believes otherwise is the chump McCarthy herself
<alexmacfie> so you think she's misguided not evil?
<slash> no-one is evil
<jpm> I like to try to think the best of people :-)
<alexmacfie> sure...
<alexmacfie> "see" y'all later, send me log, whoever's logging :)
jpm2 (noname@dial-62-64-214-128.access.uk.tiscali.com) has joined #uk-swpat-talk
<jpm2> boing
<slash> <alexmacfie> "see" y'all later, send me log, whoever's logging :)
alexmacfie has left #uk-swpat-talk ((nil))
<jpm2> me too please :)
<slash> hehe
<jpm2> I should be going
<nickhill-> Me too
<jpm2> how are things being left ?
<nickhill-> Send me a log. Thx
<jpm2> Who's going to write the page to launch 2000 MP letters ?
<slash> We need to finish the council page & also decide now whether or not to try and get a meeting with Ministers
<jpm2> of course we should try to meet them
<slash> I'll pull stuff out of the logs & post to ffii-uk tomorrow I guess
nickhill has quit (Quit: Client exiting)
<jpm2> like Richard Allan said, "high powered delegation" that went to see him is what we need
<slash> I should invite him to the RMS talk
<jpm2> for sure
<jpm2> it;s in his back yard
<slash> exactly
<slash> Do we know who the previous delegation were yet?
<jpm2> um... no
<slash> Or how they got in?! ;)
<slash> Bizarre
<jpm2> or why he thinks they came from us ?
<jpm2> alex cox perhaps ???
<slash> Because we're the people who hounded McCarthy
<slash> Alan Cox surely ;)
<slash> Might have been
<slash> Not sure if he's communicable atm tho :(
<jpm2> try telsa
<slash> I know he is very much off message
<jpm2> off message ?
<jpm2> off mailing lists, yes
<slash> He's unsubscribed from the thousands of lists he's on
<slash> ;)
<slash> he used to be everywhere
<jpm2> MBAs are more than a little demanding
<slash> er, yes, indeed
<jpm2> but Telsa is interested in swpat herself
<jpm2> so she might know if Alan had gone to London
jpm has quit (Ping timeout: 483 seconds)
<slash> I have seen him at the Dti before
<slash> hmmm
<slash> anyway, to bed I think :/
<jpm2> I should go
<slash> :)
<jpm2> yup.
<slash> continue on the list
<slash> maybe alex can turn mods off :o)
<jpm2> back to the call I interrupted an hour ago saying back in 15 mins
<jpm2> she didn;t believe me...
<slash> hehe
<jpm2> so who's writing the page ?
<jpm2> slef ?
<jpm2> yourself ?
<slash> anyone
<jpm2> alexM ?
<slash> what's our deadline?
<jpm2> anyone == noone
<jpm2> about 2 weeks ago
<slash> anyone ==collaboration ;)
<slash> Let's say it needs to be done by this time tomorrow, then
<jpm2> ready for a mailshot and slashdotting on thursday then...
<slef> well, you have my suggested structure in the irc log, pretty much
<slef> but it seems that I don't understand the argument terribly well
<slash> We need to include something about the points to cover though
<jpm2> ? how come slef
<slef> which I blame entirely on how confused I am by the existing material
<slash> it is ridiculously complicated
<jpm2> soz....
<jpm2> but true
<slef> slash: that either needs to be in the do/don't or in the rationale IMO
<slash> Rationale
<slef> jpm2: not just council.html but swpat.ffii.org et al too
<jpm2> we need FAR better support material
<slash> The aim should be at least partly to rebut the nonsense they're sending out
<slef> no, you need far better structure
<jpm2> swpat.ffii.org is horrific
<slash> there is a vast amount of data on there though
<slef> I get lost on both swpat.ffii and AEL
<slash> i wouldn't want to be the person restructuring it ;)
<slef> but I don't really know what's there, as I've not been tracking it properly
<jpm2> only Hartmut knows
<jpm2> but that is why we've done so badly so far in this country
<slash> right, I'm really gone now.
<slash> see you all
<jpm2> we desperately need a solid pull-together of the most important points
<jpm2> council.html was my attempt, as far as it went
<jpm2> but not good enough
<slef> there seems to be some confusion over exactly what we are calling for
<slef> and the reasons for it
<slef> council.html is mostly "why swpat is bad"
<slef> and not enough "why the EP result is good"
<slef> It also shares swpat.ffii's wordiness.
* slef notices the length of the swpat.ffii opening sentence
* jpm2 puts off his phone call for anothe 15 mins
* slef compares to the German
<jpm2> sorry to be so wordy
<slef> sok... it's common, but both web and fliers don't flow nicely with it
<jpm2> & to write sentances that run on and on and on
<jpm2> yup
<slef> In some places, it's considered good style
<jpm2> I find it tricky to get the argument over otherwise
<slef> For the flier, the main thing I did was chop out what seemed less important. After that, I try to remove sub-clauses as much as possible.
<jpm2> Oh the 1st version was totally unfocussed
<slef> English speakers generally cope well with 3 clauses per sentence max
<jpm2> what you did on the flyer was superb
<slef> thanks... the material I was working from was pretty good, I think
<slef> let me just look for any concise notes I have
<jpm2> Otoh, I was looking at "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", and the sentences go on for ever, but are *incredibly* easy to follow
* jpm2 fears he isn't a Gibbon
<slef> Depends if they are longitudinal
<jpm2> ook
<slef> would you believe, I only passed GCSE English with difficulty? ;-)
<jpm2> nope.
<slef> I really like linguistics, though.
<jpm2> As regards "why the EP result is good"
<jpm2> the most important answer to me, by far, is because it rules out swpat, and swpat is bad
<jpm2> hence the construction of the page
<slef> others here seem to disagree slightly on that?
<jpm2> & then I was going to add in a bit to say *how* the EP text rules out swpat when the Nov 2002 text doesn't
<jpm2> I don;t think we can win this by smoke and mirrors
<slef> points from these notes that you might like to consider:
<jpm2> but then I've been repeating that like a stuck record...
<jpm2> ok: points...
<slef> The first paragraph should contain all the key elements of the story. You have seconds to make an impact. A good test is to imagine whether the reader can immediately draw a picture from your words.
<slef> If in doubt, keep it straight and simple.
<jpm2> yes.
<slef> Later paragraphs should expand the story, offer a quote, pointers to relevant background and a call to action.
<slef> Check that the article contains the 6Ws
<jpm2> the first para is the point of the pyramid that journalists talk about
<jpm2> who what whom when where how ?
<jpm2> why
<slef> Always check facts, then check them again. Never assume. Never take anything for granted. Mistakes in basic facts destroy credibility.
<slef> Yes, but also the same reason as executive summaries are normally at the start.
<slef> And yes, those 6
<jpm2> this is useful. hope somebody's still logging.
<slef> Write for the reader first, you second. What is of interest to the reader? Who are you talking to?
<jpm2> hmmm... I suppose with that page first of all I was trying to put my thoughts in order... or at least, just down in text
<slef> Don't make it sound like an advert, or use jargon, because many readers will stop reading. Always expand unusual acronyms the first time you use them.
<slef> Hrm. I think that's all the useful parts from that folder.
<jpm2> good folder... what was it ?
<slef> News media session from my scholarship course.
chriscroome has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
<slef> http://www.frugalmarketing.com/breakthroughcopywriting.shtml may be interesting too
<slef> http://www.frugalmarketing.com/copywriting101-10tips.shtml too, but they're both marketing-driven
<jpm2> ... which is what we're trying to do...
<slef> In a way, I guess. I'm normally a little wary of US marketing sites, but 3 years editing a zine makes you tired of "YES! You too can have a perfectly shaven monkey!" submissions
<slef> Hrm, not finding much else
* slef checks bookmarks
<jpm2> So how come you didn't put the boot into my text this afternoon, rather than spending so long subbing it ?
<slef> I didn't know what was wanted.
<slef> As a reference page, it's pretty good. Lots of info, lots of explanation, lots of links.
<jpm2> but not a call to arms
<slef> Most of the structure makes sense for that purpose. Just some bits seemed contorted.
<slef> If we want a call to arms, we need to be pointer and briefer. We probably need both pages, rather than try to make either the other.
<slef> pointier
<jpm2> I really do have to go
<slef> ok, ttfn...
<jpm2> Do you think, between the team, we can get a text sorted by tomorrow ?
<jpm2> Or two texts even ?
<slef> nfi... I'm booked during the day
<slef> erm, "No Firm Idea"
<jpm2> Things don;t seem very ... organised
<slef> ;-)
<jpm2> lol
<jpm2> teah right
<jpm2> yeah right
<slef> I don't know who's in charge of this. alexm? alexh?
<slef> you?
<jpm2> ... nfi ?
<slef> heh
<jpm2> it's alexm's site...
<jpm2> or at least that one is
<jpm2> but we need to be moving things along a lot quicker
<jpm2> ...
<jpm2> actually, basic organisation and roles is what we probably should have discussed tonight
<jpm2> at the moment we're not playing as a team at all
<slef> I admit, I was being a passenger as I didn't look at what the plan for this was.
<jpm2> I missed the first hour completely
<jpm2> so I don;t know if alexm or alexh set down any sort of agenda
<jpm2> but we're not getting the best out of people
<jpm2> or making it easy to contribute
* slef reads http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/fsfe-uk/2003-10/msg00047.html
<slef> Do you want me to dump this log somewhere so you can see the first hour?

Automatic markup by logcolour.scm