[DE Deutsch] [translatable text] [howto help] [printable version] [Addenda]

Google
United KingdomUSJapanPolandIndiaChinaRussiaAustraliaIndonesia

Software Patents in the USA

Corporate patent lawyers and lawyers in general wield great influence in the United States. One Japanese book is titled "Litigating a Country to Death -- The United States of America". Like in Britain, the patent system ran out of control rather early in the US. In the 80s, this was partially reinterpreted as an american national "pro-patent" policy by which Japan and east-asian tiger states could be kept at bay. The US has been and is allowing patent lawyers to determine its policy in multilateral rounds such as WIPO as well as in bilateral negotiations. These patent lawyers have, without much regard for US national interest, been using the muscle of the US government in order to press other countries into allowing patentability of everything under the sun according to US standards. At WIPO, the US is pushing for a Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT) which rules out any limitation on subject matter and threatening to walk out if this is not achieved. Be it WIPO, WSIS or OECD, wherever unlimited patentability is not the target, the US delegation boycotts the work and instead relies on bilateral muscle-flexing. Jordan signed a bilateral agreement with the US in this sense in 2000. Japan was heavily lobbied and followed in every detail, even to extent of passing a law that obliges Japan to push for software and business method patents worldwide. US pressure has made itself felt in Europe, so that many, including French president Chirac, have spoken about a strategic need to resist the US pressure. Whether this US pressure is really based on US national interest may be doubted. But without doubt the USA is in the position of the early adopter of software patentability. While others were still not taking the (illegal) expansionism of their local patent offices seriously, software patents became -- very much against the will of most US software businesses -- firmly entrenched in the USA, leaving US companies no choice but to adapt. About 2/3 of the European (illegal) software patents are in US hands, and many at the US companies (and at some large european companies who are active in the US market) would like to be able to leverage their assets in Europe also.

Nader criticises US Patent Expansionism

->Wired 2003-03-11: Nader criticises US policy of exporting patent system
The US consumer protection activist Ralph Nader criticises the inflation of the US patent system and the policy of the US government of pushing this system on other countries. In particular Nader criticises the activities of the "US Trade Representative" in this respect.
->Letter to USTR Zoellick regarding WTO Patent discussions
This letter by Jamie Love of CPTech (Nader's organisation) criticises the activities of the US Trade Representative which are making medicines unaffordable in poor countries and thereby harming overall US foreign policy objectives and lowering the standing of the US in the international community. The letter also mentions that, while the US is making compulsory licensing difficult to implement for poor countries, it has itself not been hesitant to impose compulsory zero-fee licensing of Mexican and Canadian Software Patents, as seen from the "2001-09-26 Federal Register notice regarding United States v. 3D Systems Corporation and DTM Corporation".

USTR and US Activities for Software Patents in Europe

ustr01eu

Europe and Japan are also among the targets of the US Trade Representative (USTR), as the USTR website shows. It shows inter alia that the EU Commission's Software Patentability Directive Proposal was already supported by many US companies before its publication.

->2001 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers
In its annual report on its european activities, the US Trade Representative writes:
Most U.S. businesses also support European Commission efforts to launch a proposal for an EU software patent. However, internal Commission disagreement has blocked progress on this project.

The US Trade Representative (USTR) must have been very happy when on 2002-02-20 the CEC/BSA Software Patentability Proposal finally did come out. The USTR did not wait until 2001 before showing interest in this subject:

->US Trade Representative Report on Europe 1999
Under "Foreign Trade Barrier" the report reports encouragingly about extensions of patentability, taking for granted that such extensions are good for U.S. firms:
In addition, the [European] Commission believes ... that EU law on patentability of computer programs and software related inventions must be brought into line with the United States and Japan. ... On June 16, 1998, after years of debate, the European Council adopted a directive on legal protection of biotechnological inventions. ... The directive excludes plant and animal varieties from patentability and, although a positive development for U.S. firms, will not provide the same level of patent protection that is provided in the United States to biotechnological inventions.
->US Trade Representative Report on Europe 2000
Under the heading "Foreign Trade Barriers" the USTR states:
In addition, the [European] Commission believes ... that EU law on patentability of computer programs and software related inventions must be brought into line with the United States and Japan. ... A series of concrete measures to improve the framework for obtaining patent protection in the EU ... include ... a proposal for a Directive on patent protection of inventions related to computer programs.

Thus when the European Commission says that its software patentability directive proposal is designed to prevent "american excesses" and only "harmonise the existing laws", there are good reasons to be skeptical.

The USTR website documents well that the USTR has during all the years been well informed and that US enterprises have already supported the CEC directive proposal before its publication. US companies such as Microsoft explicitely welcome the Commission's proposal.

In summer 2003, when it became apparent that the European Parliament was no longer under complete control of the software patent lobby, the US Representation at the EU forwarded a document, apparently written by someone in the US Patent Office, to put pressure on the European Parliament. From this document it became apparent that the USTR supported the Commission's approach and considered it basically equivalent to the US rules for software and business method patents, with differences in wording accepted as a means of overcoming political resistance, as long as these differences remained only rhetorical.

->US Gov't Promoting Patent Extremism in the European Parliament
The "Mission of the United States of America to the European Union" in Brussels has sent a long paper "by the US", titled "U.S. Comments on the Draft European Parliament Amendments to the Proposed European Union Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions" to numerous members of the European Parliament. "The US" warns that Europe might fall afoul of the TRIPs treaty if it passes the proposed directive as amended by the Parliament. In particular, "the US" believes that conversion between patented file formats should generally not be allowed without a license, and therefore demands deletion of Art 6a. Moreover "the US" cites the same BSA studies and the same reasoning as found in the European Commission's directive proposal, and warns that any failure to wholeheartedly endorse patentablity of software in the directive might "adversely impact certain sectors of the economy", because "copyright does not protect the functionality of the software, which is of significant value to the owner", and that lack of clarity in the concept of "technical contribution" would lead to a continued need for negotiations with the US in WIPO and other fora. This warning comes shortly after a similar letter to MEPs from the UK Government. It is part of a US Government "Action Plan" to "promote international harmonisation of substantive patent law" in order to "strengthen the rights of American intellectual property holders by making it easier to obtain international protection for their inventions". This plan has been promoted aggressively by top officials of the US Patent Office in international fora such as WIPO, WSIS and OECD as well as through bilateral negotiations.

USTR and US Software Patent Activities outside Europe

The US trade representative (USTR) is promoting software patents around the globe.

On the USTR website we read:

->US-JP "Information-Technology Expert-Level Meeting" 2001-03-02 "Fact Sheet"
This memorandum of a meeting of US Trade Representatives with Japanese Colleagues states
Intellectual Property

Robust intellectual property protection is essential to the growth of e-commerce. The United States urged the Japanese Government to take a number of measures in this area, including

... protecting business method patents.

The US government also cares for the well-being, as far as software patents are concerned, of smaller countries:

->US-Jordan Memorandum of Understanding 2000-10-24 obliges Jordan to make software and business methods patentable
The Memorandum stipulates
5. Jordan shall take all steps necessary to clarify that the exclusion from patent protection of "mathematical methods" in Article 4B of Jordan's Patent Law does not include such "methods" as business methods or computer-related inventions.

IPR Watchlist of the US Trade Representative

->USTR - Press Release
Statement of the US Trade Representative accompanying the publication of the "Priority Watch List".
->USTR - Intellectual Property - 2003 Special 301 Report - Priority Watch List
List of countries which are causing special grief to the right-holders in the USA and require special monitoring and pressure by the US Trade Repressentative. This list contains the EU. The EU has a conflict with the US on the regime for geographical indications (such as "Budweiser", "Champagne") and its relation to trademarks. Moreover, according to the USTR, some EU member states are failing to implement the EU biotech patent directive, i.e. providing insufficient "protection" for gene patents. It is to be expected that the USTR will, in response to complaints from patent lawyer organisations such as AIPLA, list the European Parliament's vote against software patentability of 2003-09-24 on next year's list of griefs for which the EU deserves to be "watched" with priority.

see also USTR - Press Release and AIPLA 2003-10: Europarl Making Software Unpatentable!

->IIPA 2003/05: Copyright Industries Support the US Trade Representative
An association of 5 associations of information producing companies welcome the USTR efforts to monitor enforcement of copyright in foreign countries and request the addition of further countries to the "Priority Watch List". Associations such as IIPA seem to be major sources for the Watch Lists drawn up by the USTR.
->USTR 2004-01: South Korea elevated to Priority Watch List
The USTR reports failures of South Korean authorities to comply with their commitments to enforce digital copyright.

The US Trade Representative (USTR) and his Office

The US Trade Representative is a Counsellor, Negotiator and Spokesperson oth eh US president in trade related matters:

->USTR.gov
website of the US Trade Representative
->Role of the US Trade Representative (USTR)
website of the US Trade Representative

The USTR has a special staffed department (sector) for "intellectual property rights", among them patents:

->USTR IP Sector
The US Trade Representative has special staff to work on "Intellectual Property" issues, which includes patents.

In a report from 1997 on the USTR website we find as a policy statement of the US government that the "protection of intellectual property" must be made a high priority issue in all international fora:

->USTR 1997: Building American Prosperity in the 21st Century - U.S. Trade and Investment in the Asia Pacific Region
Under the heading "Impact of the Information Age ..." the following policy is formulated:
The United States must adopt policies and practices based on the following imperatives:

...

5. As vigorously as the United States would protect its most precious natural resources, America must have strong, reliable intellectual property protection and make this issue a high priority in all international trade fora.

Conclusion

The US has a national policy of promoting software and business method patents world wide and of encouraging and pushing other countries to emulate the US patent system. Upon closer look it may turn out that this policy does not represent any real national interest of the United States but rather a quasi-biological self-replication of organisations which have gained control of governmental sectors and find it reassuring when their structure is imitated elsewhere. The same self-replication phenomenon is already occurring internally in the EU, in Japan and probably even in Jordania and other countries which are adopting the US system of unlimited patentability. Yet the patent organisations are not able to exert the same level of influence in all countries. Their grip on the US government certainly gives them an extra force, and it is evident from abundant publications that this force has played an important role in forming and pushing the European Commission's software patentability directive proposal.

Annotated Links

->WiPO 2003/05/10: US threatens to walk out of WIPO if unlimited patentability is not accepted
Report, 7th Session, WIPO Standing Committee on Patent Law, Geneva, 6-10 May 2002, adopted 25 November 2002 as document SCP/7/8; see paragraphs 159-173, especially the exchange between the European and U.S. delegations at 170-171:
167. The Delegation of the United States of America also welcomed the reintroduction of the industrial applicability/utility requirement into the Treaty, since utility was an important requirement for the United States of America. The Delegation, however, was of the view that the industrial applicability standards in certain systems might require a claimed invention to have a technical character or technical effect. The Delegation was also concerned that such a provision might also be used to refuse the patenting of inventions that were considered to be private in nature. The Delegation saw no reason to limit patentability in such a manner; the criteria should be that the invention has utility, is novel and involves an inventive step. The Delegation expressed further concern that an "industrial applicability" standard could stifle the development of new areas of innovation, such as software, biotechnology, or other newly developing areas that could not be foreseen now and that might defy definition according to the current understanding of what is meant by "industrial".

171. The Delegation of the United States of America stated that it could support neither a "technical" requirement in the SPLT nor the importation of the very minimal standards of protection that were found in the TRIPS Agreement, nor an "industry" or "industrial-based" standard on the issue of industrial applicability or utility. The Delegation expressed the view that the inclusion of a "technical" or "industrial" requirement would result in the standards for protection for inventions throughout the world to slip backwards, eroding the level of protection for inventors and inventions everywhere. The Delegation was of the opinion that the end result of the discussions, if it were based in part on any of those elements, would not be acceptable to the United States of America, and accordingly, the Delegation might well have to reconsider its participation in those discussions. The Delegation stated that it had come to the negotiations in good faith in that many provisions in the draft SPLT would require fundamental changes to the United States patent system. However, the Delegation stated that its continued participation was contingent on similar good faith from all members of the Committee.

->Patentanwaltsverband gegen Technizitäts-Erfordernis in Art 27 TRIPs
FICPI, world association of patent lawyers, calls for removal of all means of restricting patentability by interpreting words such as "technical", "industrial", "inventions" from TRIPs and upcoming treaties such as SPLT. FICPI is allied with the US government on this point. One could also say that the US government has been hijacked by patent lawyers.

see also L’Accord sur les ADPIC et les brevets logiciels

->Kahin 2003/03: Information process patents in the U.S. and Europe: Policy avoidance and policy divergence
Brian Kahin, a researcher on information policy and former advisor of the Clinton administration on this subject, points that neither Europe nor the US have a policy on where the limits of patentability should be and that yet there are divergences, based on phase differences, at least in legal theory, in the progressive glide toward unlimited patentability, which is why
the U.S. Government is urging the rest of the world to do away with limits on patentable subject matter in a proposed World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaty on substantive patent law. In May, the U.S. threatened to walk out of negotiations if the treat does not mandate patents for all fields of activity, whether or not they fall within common notions of "technology".
->ACC BE
The American Chamber of Commerce participated in the European Commission's consultation by submitting this paper which supports the EU directive proposal and hails it for bringing Europe closer to the US model which it finds just fine.
->EU Committee of US Chamber of Commerce supports EU Software Patentability
A latecomer to the EU Commission's consultation exercise, in which many patent lawyers wearing the hat of large US companies participated and spoke in the same sense as this document.
->USPTO
Like that of other patent offices, thes USPTO website is full of self-serving propaganda, displays very little spirit of objectivity as far as the effects of patents are concerned.
->USPTO Action Plan 2003: Pursuit of Substantive Patent Law Harmonisation
Action: Promote harmonization in the framework of the World Intellectual Property Organization and its Standing Committee on the Law of Patents; resolve major issues in a broader context and pursue substantive harmonization goals that will strengthen the rights of American intellectual property holders by making it easier to obtain international protection for their invention and creations. Details: The details of this action paper are by their nature sensitive and confidential, and therefore not appropriate for publication.
->Chicago Tribune 2003/02/07: This headline is patented
Journalist David Streitfeld reports about abusive extensions of the patent system in the US and quotes USPTO president as saying that the USPTO is an "agency in crisis".
Two former heads of the patent office have described the agency as sitting "on the edge of an abyss."

James E. Rogan, the former Republican congressman from Glendale who became director of the patent office in December 2001, agrees with all but the most strident critics.

"This is an agency in crisis, and it's going to get worse if we don't change our dynamic," Rogan said. "It doesn't do me any good to pretend there's not a problem when there is."

Beyond the plight of an antiquated government bureaucracy overseeing a field that is undergoing explosive growth, there are deeper questions about the fundame ntal role of patents. ...

There's a point where patents impede innovation. It can cost more to check whether a software program infringes on previously patented programs than it cost to write the program in the first place.

->CPTech: US obliges Japan and Jordan to legalise business method patents
2001-03-02: a meeting between "United States and Japanese government officials" focused on "U.S. proposals to promote a more information-technology (IT" friendly regulatory environment in Japan). According to a US-side "fact sheet",
The United States urged the Japanese Government to take a number of measures in this area, including ... clarifying its laws to ensure that the personal use exception for copying is not abused in the digital environment; and protecting business method patents.

2000-10-24: Memorandum of Understanding on Issues Related to the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Under the Agreement Between the United States and Jordan on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area. The MoU contains the following provision:

Jordan shall take all steps necessary to clarify that the exclusion from patent protection of 'mathematical methods' in Article 4B of Jordan's Patent Law does not include such methods as business methods or computer-related inventions.
->A Framework for Global Electronic Commerce
Vice President Al Gore says in 1999 that E-Commerce needs Patents
->CEC & BSA 2002-02-20: proposal to make all useful ideas patentable
The explanatory memorandum of the directive proposal cites BSA studies which are unrelated to software patents but also appear in the reasoning of software patent advocacy papers transmitted by the US Representation in Brussels. The directive draft itself was at least partially written by an employee of BSA, a US-based organisation dominated by Microsoft.
->Vox Latina report on CEC/BSA Software Patentability Directive Proposal
The Vox Latina news service frequently takes up the subject of software patents partly because it is concerned with asserting latin/romanic culture against the perceived dominance of anglo-american culture.
->Oppenheimer proud of good relations with EU Commission
A well known american (patent) law office had the following statement on their web pages as of 2002/03/13:

Our practice has allowed us to build up close contacts with key officials in the European Commission's Competition Directorate-General, including the case-handlers who administer the files and the policy makers at all levels of the administration. This enables us to ensure that policy decisions in individual cases are not taken without our clients' concerns having been expressed and considered at the appropriate level.

Which is to be put in relation to another page of theirs:

The attorneys in our Brussels office provide clients with the most up-to-date information on the policies and regulations of the European Community with respect to intellectual property matters, including standardization of practices among the EU nations.

Well, no lie, if they're so close to EC executives...

These pages were later removed or moved to areas which are accessible only to clients. But you can find a lot of other pages on the current site which show that Oppenheimer's lawyers are still in regular close contact with the political scene in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe.

It is so far unclear to us whether Oppenheimer LLP, Oppenheimer Funds, A.M. Oppenheimer and others share more than the name. Some of these are highly active in telecommunications and i.a. largest foreign shareholder of Ericsson, owning 215 million B-shares. Oppenheimer is a famous jewish business dynasty originating in Germany. Robert S. Oppenheimer was a legendary jewish businessman and politician who, after a change in political power, fell victim to judicial murder in Wuerttemberg 300 years ago.

->CIA und Patentinflation
Cites the Church Commission's report on CIA activities to demonstrate that the CIA is active in covert opinion making on various issues believed to be "strategic".
->All French Parties/Candidates against Software Patents
Chirac is not the only French politician to worry about software patents being used as a strategic instrument against European technological independence
->US Jordan FTA narrowing grounds for compulsory licensing
further detailed explanations about the US Jordan FTA from James Love, project director of CPTech. Mainly concerned with the effects on pharma patents.
->Trade Madness
An FAQ-like explanation of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) policy, including its impact on patent policies.
->StopFTAA.org -- About the FTAA
a call for action against the US government's policy of pushing IP related policies into free trade agreements
->UK Gov't Promoting Patent Extremism in the European Parliament
The UK Government's Foreign Office is circulating a "briefing to UK MEPs", in which it instructs british members of the European Parliament to back Arlene McCarthy's position and vote (1) against any attempt to define what is technical or otherwise limit what is patentable (2) against Article 6a which allows converters to be written when standards are patented (3) for JURI Art 5 which forbids publication of descriptions of patented inventions on the Net. The intervention of the government comes at a moment where McCarthy has shown nervous reactions in view of dwindling support in her party group. The government statement can be attributed to the UK Patent Office and its policy working group, consisting mainly of patent lawyers from large corporations. This group has been determining the software patent policy of the UK and largely also of the EU during recent years.
->Interoperability and the Software Patents Directive: What Degree of Exemption is Needed
Art 6 of the proposed software patent directive pretends to impose a limit on patent enforcement to safeguard interoperability. Art 6a, which was inserted by the European Parliament and approved by all three concerned committees, actually does impose a gentle but real limit. It says that filters for conversion from one format to another may always be used, regardless of patents. Unfortunately even this limit has provoked a furious backlash from corporate patent lawyers, seconded by large IT associations and governments (whose patent policy is usually formulated by corporate patent lawyers). After the summer pause of 2003, Arlene McCarthy MEP proposed an amendment to Art 6a which would render Art 6a meaningless. The movement against Art 6a was joined by Wuermeling (EPP), Manders (ELDR) as well as the governments of UK and US. Yet explanations as to what is wrong with the Interoperability Privilege remain very vague. We explain the meaning of Art 6a and the different amendments under discussion.
->FTC 2002: Hearings on Anti-Competitive Effects of Patents
In the USA, recent trends toward extensive patentability and rigid IP enforcement laws have given rise to complaints about chilling effects on innovationn and competition. In particular, concerns were raised about standardisation being disrupted by patents. Some people proposed to mandate by law that that standards be freely available and that any relevant submarine patents be disclosed early. In spring of 2002 the Federal Trade Commission conducted an expert hearing on this subject. Representatives of standardisation bodies explained that the proposed legal requirements could backfire, because they would deter companies from participating in standardisation. Some economists and programmers asked for restrictions on what can be patented or how patents can be used. Representatives of the USPTO and patent lawyers argued that everything was just fine and competition law should not interfere with patent rights. FTC has published many testimonies and reports as PDF files on its website. We are presenting an overview of these texts and what can be learnt for them for the patentability discussion.
->FTC 2003 Report on Patents and Competition
The Federal Trade Commission FTC.gov, and independent agency within the US government, published this final report in 2003 after conducting extensive hearings on the effects of patents and other exclusivity rights on competition. FTC conducted the hearings due to what some hearing participants described as the "widespread animosity against patents in the software industry" and the impression that competition law in its current state is incapable of preventing anti-competitive effects in particular of patents in the software fields, but also of exclusion rights in general on various industries. The final report comes to the conclusion that the patent system stimulates competition and productivity in some fields (pharma is cited as an example), whereas it tends to harm both in others, especially where software and business methods are concerned. The report expresses doubts as to the wisdom of past court decisions to admit patentability in these areas and proposes a series of measures for repairing some of the damage.
->Jamie Love: Microsoft, US Gov't kill WIPO Opensource Meeting
At WIPO the US government, represented by its patent office, is obstructing all discussions about the efficiency of the patent system in promoting innovation. In 2003/08 the US representative asked that a WIPO movement on implications of opensource software for the IPR system should be cancelled, because "it is WIPO's job to uphold and extend property rights, not to restrict or waive them". See also the ensuing discussion.
->Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure -- The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights
Important USPTO paper of 1994/95
->IEEE Intellectual Property Committee
The Intellectual Property Committee's primary objective is to focus on intellectual property matters as they relate to the IEEE-USA membership (employed engineers, faculty, scientists, inventors, entrepreneurs, etc.), fast moving technology, technology transfer, and U.S. competitiveness.

IPC prepares testimony and position statements, drafts legislation, and delivers expert testimony before the U.S. Congress and the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

->OECD Paris 2003/08/28-29: Conference on IPR, Innovation and Economic Performance
At OECD in Paris 2003/08/28, the US government, representat by patent officials, asked the scientists and politicians assembled at the conference to refrain from discussing "so-called problems of the patent system". The US representative said: patents are basically good, the system has worked for 200 years, and any attempt to discuss its so-called problems will only be taken as a pretext by some third-world-ideologues to stir up artificial problems. In contrast, the EPO representatives at the conference seemed intelligent and enlightened, although (or because) they were not speaking in the name of any government.
->Robert M. Hunt: You can patent that?
Article by an economist about the effects of Software and Business method patents in the USA and their history, including statistics, shows the role of the Court of Appeal of the Federal Circuit (CAFC), installed in the 1980s, lowered all barriers to patentability and made increasingly difficult to have patents revoked.
->KONNO Hiroshi: The Karmarkar Patent and Software -- Is Math Patentable?
KONNO Hiroshi, an authority on industry-applied mathematics in Japan, reports about his decade-long fight against the introduction of math patents in Japan and about the role of the US in generating political pressure for this change.
->The UK Patent Family and Software Patents
The United Kingdom's patent matters are run nearly exclusively by the UK Patent Office which has been a relentless promoter of software patentability in Europe since the 1970s.
->Robert Hart 1997: The Case for Patent Protection for Computer Program-Related Inventions
One of the leading software patent evangelists at the European Commission cites the US example and misrepresents the decisions that led to software patentability in the US. This review gives an overview of the development in the US and illustrates how this has been (ab)used for patent advocacy in Brussels.
->Trilateral Project
Working group of the major patent offices and related government officials, influential in framing patent policies at a world level, which are often used as an argument to reinterpret and change national patent laws.
->(Software Patents - League for Programming Freedom)
major US opposition group against software patents
->Research on Innovation
A group of social scientists who have been studying the evolution of the patent system and writing critcical papers
->Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
A Washington think tank whose leading members occupy high posts in the GW Bush administration and which were advocating many of this administration's policies, including the war on Iraq, already in 1998 and earlier. The website provides interesting reading about a new american sense of mission and and imperial agenda. The patent movement has been able to take advantage of this agenda for its purposes, which are quite unrelated to the US interests as described on this website.

Questions, Things To Do, How you can Help

?!?Subscribe to the us project
see FFII Projects and Creating and Supporting Projects
?!?Provide addresses of people to write to
Edit the Wiki Extension of this page.
?!?Write to your political representatives in the US
Ask them to question the IPR evangelism activities of the US Trade Representative and the US Patent Office and in particular to
  1. stop promotion of software and business method patentability
  2. stop promotion of extensive interpretations of the TRIPs treaty
  3. stop promotion of US patentability criteria through the proposed SPLT treaty
  4. publish a statement which makes it clear that the US government has no objections against the European Parliament's amended software patent directive.
[ The UK Patent Family and Software Patents → Software Patents in the USA | Patent Inflation in Japan | Poland and Software Patents | Indonesia and Software Patents ]
Valid HTML 4.01!
http://swpat.ffii.de/gasnu/us/index.en.html
© 2005/01/06 (2004/08/24) Workgroup
english version 2004/12/03 by FFII