Andrew Duff MEP and Software patents
--> [ Toine Manders | UK Libdems | UK Parties | UK Patent Family Software Patents ]
On 3rd June 2003, Duff Bio@wikipedia replys and FFII comments: UK Liberal Democrate MEP Andrew Duff sees software patents as an example of an overdosis of property rights which decrease rather than increase innovation and demands that they should be clearly excluded by the direcitve.
An quotes Duff's clear statement FFII Press Release from this letter.
But he voted (against his party's written policy in "Making IT Work - Policies for Information Technology" see UK Libdems) 100% in line with Toine Manders. Manders was the one who got ALDE to try to hurry up the Council at the very time that Germany and Poland's parliaments were pouring scorn on the proposal.
The likely reason must be Sharon Bowles, an European Patent Attorney who makes money on patenting communication technologies.
Alex said: The problem with Libdem appears to be that they believe that a bad directive would be better than none at all, and that trying to force anti-swpat amendments would force the Council to abandon the directive (thats Andrew Duffs reasoning anyway). Legislation for its own sake appears to contradict Liberal Democrat principles, and in Europe leaves the party open to Eurosceptic attacks.
Answer: The reason for this should be the WTO fear that Sharon Bowles fuels the letter at the end of this page where she says that Europe must adopt this directive, otherwise it is weak in WTO accusions from the US for further expanding patentablity in Europe and that thus, this directive would restrict patentabiltiy. Sharon Bowles is the "Senior Advisor" of a party colleague and likely all other Libdems and maybe even most of ELDR, including Toine Manders. - See the text on Sharon Bowles.
On Sepember 24, 2003, he does not vote for any roll-call vote for an important amendment, except that he votes against program claims:
Tom Chance met Andrew Duff in April 2004: 
He commented: There's a photo of Robert and I meeting Andrew Duff, one of the MEPs for the East of England. He's a Liberal Democrat, and seemed pretty much on our side.
On 2nd June 2004, a report on Duff quotes Duff with: I am convinced of the need for EU legislation in this area. Otherwise there will be an unstoppable drift towards the patenting of computer software, as there is in the USA. Many small and medium-sized firms in the East of England have told me of their concern that /patenting will restrict their ability to write new and better software without infringing/ the rules.
But then his letter continues using the words of the press release of Diana Wallis:
But, at the same time, SMEs will benefit if the proposed Directive succeeds in establishing clear ground rules.
A uniform approach across the EU will save companies time and money in protecting their /intellectual property in computer engineering and improve legal certainty./
Then he steps into the misled language of the press release of Diana Wallis: However, MEPs also voted to limit the scope of the legislation to affect new inventions only. The Parliament also revised the Commission's definitions of computer implemented /inventions to try to protect the legitimate interests of individual software writers/ and small firms.
Then the grace period thing: On a Liberal initiative, a grace period of six months is proposed to allow market testing before the filing of a patent application. Crucially, the Parliament supported amendments to ensure that patent law cannot override interoperability of systems.
A sign of hope: In this complex area of legislation the EU is right to act with caution.
A pro-patent view: It has been difficult to strike a balance between the need for license fees on the one hand and the imperative for competition on the other.
Then the low-point: The European software industry needs a better patent system than the out-dated one we have now if it is to be helped to remain creative.
Many thousands of jobs in the East of England would be affected by a heavy-handed approach to software patenting. Cambridge is Europe's biggest cluster of the software industry, so the issue is of European as well as local importance. This law will help the smart innovation for which our region is world renowned.
Again, patent priest phrases: I will be working to ensure that nothing will be patentable in the future that is not patentable now. Patents must only be available for things that make a technical contribution to a true invention. And any EU legislation must be compatible with our international agreements.
The draft proposal is now in the hands of the Council of Ministers who are certain to seek to modify the Parliament's position in the direction of the Commission's initial /proposal. Once the Council has adopted its common position the proposal will pass back/ to the Parliament for a second reading, before its final adoption, probably in September.
The assistant added outside of the letter:
My understanding of the current position in Brussels is that the proposals revised by the Council will go to the (new) Parliament for second reading. If the Parliament chooses to reinsert its amendments it is likely (though of course by no means certain) that the Commission will withdraw the proposal.
James wrote On 5 June 2004: Andrew Duff does at least at a philosophical level seem to appreciate some of the undesirability of software patenting -- he did genuinely seem concerned, enough to say he was going to add the issue to various points he was going to raise at a meeting he has scheduled soon with Lord Sainsbury.
He seemed to hold Lord Sainsbury in some regard, as somebody with some real judgement, genuinely his own man, not just a creature of his civil servants.
after an Event with Duff Peter Clay wrote on 10 Jun 2004:
- The Lib Dem, Andrew Duff, was rather equivocal about the whole thing. He said at one point that copyright protection meant that patents were unnecessary for software, but spoilt it by going on to talk about stronger
IP protection. We had the opportunity to re-educate him afterwards.
See also:
Analyis:
There are signs of heavvy lobbyism by patent priests:
We suspect that Sharon Bowles is important here. She is a prospective LibDem MEP and is a vice-president of the ELDR party bureau. She's a qualified European Patent Attorney running a professional partnership that she founded over 20 years ago. She specialises in writing, prosecuting and litigating patents on "semiconductor fabrication, communications technology, computer architecture, aeronautics, oil extraction and industrial fermentation".
His letter in June 2003 starts with: "Thank you for your letter concerning the Software Patentability Directive."
