Err.. just read your blog and I AM ASTONISHED!!! So it's not just about software patents!!!

Can you give me permission to

a> put this on my blog and ask others to copy it on their blog too b> email this to as many ppl as possible in my friends circle

btw since this is not just a tech related issue, why not send LETTERS to the Editors of various magazines regarding the issue and also give a URL in ther Letter. Hopefully more ppl will know abt this and then someone will ask the folks @ Legislature to wake up ???

What say?

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:21:07 +0530, Ankit Malik ankitmalik@gmail.com wrote:

IMHO and AFAIK there won't be much use by spreading this word among us, since we already know. Whom we have to tell is the GOVERNMENT AND THE 'IDIOTS' WHO WORK AT PARLIAMENT :( .

For this we need

...

mass demonstrations near Parliament and etc etc [am i taking it too far ???] general awareness [not just among the linux techies ;-)] speeches @ public forums [not just GNU forums]

...

good treatment of RMS when he comes to deliver his goodies in India :(

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 21:55:29 +0530, Praveen A pravi.a@gmail.com wrote:

...

In our campus we are campaigning against the patents rule change and its effects effcts on society. Today we had a talk by Dr. K. P Aravindan of KSSP (Kerala Sastra Sahithya Parishad) about ptents. I'll write about it later in my blog. Meanwhile I've posted a notice that was there in the notice boards of our college in my blog.

Read and participate in the discussions there

http://www.livejournal.com/users/pravi/11432.html

I'll post other notices soon.

Praveen A

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 07:01:36 +0530, Ramanraj K ramanraj.k@gmail.com wrote:

...

A snip from "The Profits That Kill" available online at http://www.adduonline.com/articles/bunting.htm :

<quote> Put baldly, patents are killing people. But that's not all. Intellectual property protection has become a tool to make permanent the growing inequality of the global economy... </quote>

Kuldip Nayar has written an article titled "UPA, come out from the cold: It must get back to first principles if it is to be faithful to its mandate" which is available online at http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=65640

Please post any links, articles, views or opinions that could help in voicing our concern against the proposed drastic amendments to the Patents Act.

Thanks, Ramanraj.

---

Fsf-friends mailing list Fsf-friends@mm.gnu.org.in http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends

-- "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels." A proud GNU user http://www.gnu.org http://www.edathanattukara.com My Weblog at http://www.livejournal.com/users/pravi Visit me at http://www.pravi.tk Rediscover the web ! Get firefox at http://www.getfirefox.com Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

---

Fsf-friends mailing list Fsf-friends@mm.gnu.org.in http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends

-- _______________________

Ankit Malik http://scribbler.tk

Vijay Kumar wrote:

Ramanraj K ramanraj.k@gmail.com writes:

...

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=65640

Please post any links, articles, views or opinions that could help in voicing our concern against the proposed drastic amendments to the Patents Act.

Are we not too late?

Our response to the ordinance is enclosed below. It is now clear that the Patents (Amendment) Bill, 2005, to replace the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance, 2004 (No. 7 of 2004) promulgated on 26.12.2994, would be taken up during the first part of the Budget Session, 2005, and the same would be placed before a Standing Committee for further discussion upon the Bill. Please feel free to comment on the representation prepared earlier, so that we may send in better demands to the Standing Committee. Please confine this thread to the amendments proposed to Section 3(k) *only*, which is of immediate interest to the FSF India. The others amendments are more serious and will surely ruin life, but they have to be dealt with separately.

Thanks, Ramanraj. __

**

Representation made by the Free Software Foundation of India to the Government of India to immediately withdraw THE PATENTS (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2004 (Ordinance No. 7 of 2004) with regard to amendments made to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970

Introduction:

The Free Software Foundation of India is a non-profit organisation promoting the development, awareness, and use of free software in India. We are very concerned about the recent amendments made to the Patents Act, 1970, by the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance, 2004, amending the provisions with regard to computer programs as follows:

"3. In section 3 of the principal Act, (a) in clause (d), for the words new use , the words mere new use shall be substituted; (b) for clause (k), the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:

(k) a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware;

(ka) a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms;" Allowing patents over any kind of computation seriously harm and hamper the creativity, productivity and freedom of all, particularly software developers while writing code. Many organisations, including the Free Software Foundation have been campaigning against software patents the world over. We are shocked and surprised that amendments to the Patents Act, 1970, with regard to computer programs, should have been introduced so suddenty in India, by a Presidential Ordinance, without any public debate or prior announcement at all. We hope this memorandum would restore the status quo as quickly as possible, for all the following reasons: 1. Amendment is ambigious and capable of easy abuse and misinterpretation: Though under the amended clause (k), computer programs per se continue to be not patentable, the exceptions made thereto are not clear. All computer programs work in combination with hardware, and all computer programs have technical application to industry, particularly to the software industry. A literal interpretation of the amendment with regard to computer programs is dangerously misleading, creating the impression as though any computer program is patentable. However, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry has made a statement to the following effect at http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=6074

"In IT, the trend is to have software in combination with or embedded in hardware such as in computers or cell phones or a variety of other gadgets. Software as such has no patent protection (the protection available is by way of copyright); but the changing technological environment has made it necessary to provide for patents when software has technical applications in industry in combination with hardware. This has been a demand of NASSCOM."

There are significant differences between the statement made by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and what the ordinance actually says, and the intentions are not apparent from the wordings used in the amendment. However, even assuming that the provisions of the Patents Act have been amended to enable and make provision for only embedded software, which is a very vague term, it would make in roads into the freedoms and liberties required by software developers to peacefully continue with their work and services. Any special provisions providing for patentability of computing or computer programs under the category "embedded software" is needless, and bad because:

(a) The classification of computer programs into embedded software and others is very superficial. The key advantage in using computer programs is that logic can be re-written without re-wiring or physically modifying hardware. Invariably, it is easy to re-write, copy, improve, and modify computer programs, and it is quite possible to extend the life and productivity of hardware devices that are manufactured using scarce non-renewable resources, merely by modifying the computer program. People can, and often do, install new software on embedded computers particularly when the source code is available or to improve usability of hardware. (b) The classification is arbitrary and opposed to principles of equality, and the very objects of the Patents Act. Let us take an illustration, for example a computer program named `foo'. It is clear that foo is not patentable per se, under the amended clause (k). But then, foo, in its technical application to industry is made patentable. The classification, based on mere usage, making foo an invention only in "its technical application to industry", has no rational nexus to the object of the Patents Act, and plainly violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. One of the avowed objects of the Patents Act is "to ensure more effectively that patent rights are not worked to the detriment of the consumer or to the prejudice of trade or the industrial development of the country". Introducing patents for any kind of computer programs is detrimental and opposed to the objects of the Act. The question how software patents are detrimental and harmful is elaborately analysed and discussed at http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/industry-at-risk.html

2. Amendment is opposed to Article 39(c) of the Constitution of India:

The Directive Principles enshrined in the Constitution of India, under Chapter IV. Article 39 reads as follows:

"39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State.- The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing- (a) that the citizen, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;

(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;

(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;"

The software industry largely earns revenue by providing custom services, and by introducing patents for embedded software, the software service providers would be hampered by needless claims, litigation and other un-productive disputes that cannot be easily resolved. Patents for embedded software would lead to increasing concentration of wealth and means of production to common detriment. It is well known that Bill Gates of Microsoft is the richest man in the world, and the patent regmime would only go to promote the riches of the richest. We have no hesitation in saying that the needless hair splitting of computer programs into embedded/non-embedded will only entangle the Indian Software Industry in litigation, obstructing progress to common detriment.

Other harmful consequences of the amendment:

The amendment would disturb the peace prevailing in the software field, and may raise contentitious disputes between various hardware manufacturers, software developers and entities, resulting in loss of peace in the first place, coupled with loss of revenue and other damages. It would undermine the peace of mind required by software developers to write robust code, robbing and sapping energy away to indulge in meaningless patent searches and other needless exercises, that are totally not suitable for the software industry. The amendment would only increase the cost of developing software, and take away all the advantages that India has enjoyed so far in the embedded software field.

Conclusion:

Rabindranath Tagore, in his Gitanjali, wrote:

"`Prisoner, tell me, who was it that wrought this unbreakable chain?'

`It was I,' said the prisoner, `who forged this chain very carefully. I thought my invisible power would hold the world captive leaving me in a freedom undisturbed. Thus night and day I worked at the chain with huge fires and cruel hard strokes. When at last the work was done and the links were complete and unbreakable, I found that it held me in its grip." It is trite to observe that the amendments imposed will without doubt chain and cripple the software industry in India, pushing the industry into the dark dungeons of doubt, confusion and chaos. It is very strange that NASSCOM should have invited the amendment, without taking into consideration the serious harm and danger patents for embedded software pose. We strongly urge the Government of India to immediately change its sudden reversal in policy, and withdraw the above Ordinance, as soon as possible, reverting to the more mature, and time tested policies and patent law in force before January 1, 2005, removing the hurdles on the way for the smooth continuance of our growth, progress and prosperity.

Therefore, FSF India requests the Government of India to immediately withdraw THE PATENTS (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2004 (Ordinance .No 7 of 2004) under Article 123(2)(b), with regard to amendments made to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.

======================================================================