Letters to MEP’s

Warning: realpath() [function.realpath]: SAFE MODE Restriction in effect. The script whose uid is 689 is not allowed to access /tmp owned by uid 0 in /var/www/mekanix.dk/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 2058

This is a translation of the letter I’ve sent to the danish MEP’s which can be found here: http://www.mekanix.dk/index.php?p=92

my appologies for poor translation and typos.

---

Dear

I’m writing to you because you will soon have to vote on the foodpatentdirective which threatens my livelihood. I’m a bachelor of nutrition and health and teach cooking, develop recipes and help and guide people with health and obesity issues. If the foodpatentdirective is passed it would create a minefield of patents in the areas of our foodculture and healtheducation.

I can no longer make layer cakes because Arla Foods have patent (EP01042009) on “… a method to add air into dairyproducts and through that process increase the volume of said dairyproduct”, in other words whipped cream.

Christmasrecipes on porkroast with crisp rind I’m not allowed to make either, because Danish Crown have patent (EP-24122010) on “… a method to expose animalskin to high temperatures and thereby giving them a crisp surface”.

Neither can a tell obese clients to substitute sugar with raisins on their oatmeal because Kelloggs patent (EP-01042001) on “… a method to substitute refined sugar with dried fruits” prohibit me to do so.

It sounds absurd and luckily it is; there is no foodpatentdirective. But it may come soon enough. In july you will have to vote on the softwarepatentdirective, and if passed it would not just set new limits on what can be patented, but change the main principles behind patents.

The softwarepatentdirective is the reason I’m writing to you. I will not tell you what to vote or get into hairy technical details. I will just in 3 points tell you what effects the softwarepatentdirective have and have had on me as an odinary citizen.

I’ve felt the consequenses of the softwarepatentdirective even before it have been formally passed. I’ve lost a job. Suhr’s University College had a plan to change the software that handles their inter- and intranetpages. Their current software is owned by IBM to whom they pay expensive licenses fees. Furthermore no many people know how to work this system, so qualified personel is difficult find and expensive to hire.

The plan was to replace the IBM owned software with Mambo[1], a free and Open Source Software. And I would be a part of the process in moving the inter- and intranetpages from the IBM-system to Mambo. But after the Danish minister Bendt Bendtsen defied his mandate and thereby let the Counsil of ministers pass the softwarepatentdirective, the principal for Suhr’s University College had to drop the plans. To continue he would have to hire a patentlawyer, pay licensefees for used softwarepatents and thus the calculated savings would soon be gone. On top of that there would be a continual threat from companies demanding licensefees on softwarepatens they claim to own. And Suhr’s University College would have no other options than to pay, because the legal cost of disputing bogus claims would severely break their very tight budget.

Suhr’s University College lost the opportunity to make considerable savings and I lost a job.

This story is a clear illustration of the practical problems with the softwarepatentdirective for small- and mediumsized enterprises (SME) and freelancers like me. It threatens our livelihood because we dont have the nessecary financial and legal ressources to be a player in a softwaremarked governed by softwarepatents. A new swedish survey from the Economic School at Gothenburg University[2] showed that the vast majority of the swedish SME’s aren’t prepared for a marked governed by softwarepatents. And there is no reason to believe that Danish SME’s are any more prepared.

On a more philosofical plane the softwarepatentdirective is a break from the main principles behind patents. Patents are an incentive for companies to use ressources on research and development. It is NOT an incentive for companies to make claims on existing or evolutionary ideas; ideas and knowledge that are trivial and thus have no inventive steps.

This haven’t stopped the European Patentoffice (EPO) to – against rules – to grant patents on many trivial ideas on software[3]. And it is this practis the softwarepatentdirective will legitimate.

In a larger perspective the softwarepatentdirective is a continuation of an unfortunate trend to materialise the immaterial. Longer terms for copyright, restrictive copyrightlaws, patents on ideas and thoughts etc. I feels like there is a movements toward a notion that all knowledge, culture, ideas and thoughts can and must be owned by somebody. We are heading toward a society where our cultural heritage and way of thinking are fenced by barbed wire.

On the political plane the softwarepatentdirective cast a heavy shadow over the entire EU-project. I’ve been following the softwarepatentdirective from day one, where the Commissions proposal turned out to written by Business Software Alliance (BSA)[4].

Since then I have been following how the democratic process through all institutions have been shortcircuited. I have seen how the Commission blatantly ignore the decisions by the EU-parliament. I have seen how the chairmanship have tried to sneak the decision into the Counsil of Minister of Fishery and Agriculture. I have heard and read summaries of the embarrassing Counsils of Ministers, where decisions have been manipulated and rushed through. I’ve seen ministers defy their mandate. I’ve seen how multinational companies can force their will through the system in spite of massive resistance and protests from the bottom from NGO’s and the people. And when I look at other issues like environment and consumerprotection I see the same picture. Big multinational companies have the final say in EU on the expense of the EU-citizens needs and wishes.

So I’m not surprised that the french and dutch citizens voted no on the treaty. As a wholehearted european I would have voted no too. EU has quite frankly lost its legitimacy as a popular and democratic project.

My hope now is that EU’s only popular elected body, the EU-parliament, will do the right thing and put an end to this cirkus.

With kind regards

[1]http://www.mamboserver.com
[2]http://www.ffii.se/erik/Patent-Petterson-Sandblom.pdf
[3]http://ole.tange.dk/swpat/#videoshop
[4]http://petition.eurolinux.org/pr/pr17.html?LANG=en