Archgrove

Well, less than an hour after my email was sent, Peter had replied with a full letter. Whether created there and then, pulled from a filing cabinet, or written previously and just stuck in the post, it’s impressive. I think I’ll have to review my policy of using dead trees as my primary communication with politicians.

His response is interesting, and is the most moderate I’ve seen. He (and the rest of his Labour colleges) is taking what seems on paper to be a sensible position.

1. A US style software patenting system must not be created
2. Software products as such should not be patentable
3. Open source “must be allowed to flourish”
4. Any patents granted should not be used just to squeeze out small companies

These are admirable goals, and if they are all achieved, I think it will mitigate most of my fears (and the fears of most non-extremist anti-patent developers).

The one thing that concerns me is a statement saying that Labour is supporting an effort to create a defence fund to protect UK companies against litigation from dominant players. Whilst it seems a sensible idea on the surface, it raises the spectre that the directive will be ambiguous enough to allow such litigation to proceed past initial hearings.

He closes by claiming he will be following the progress of the directive closely. We who are opposed to the current directive must ensure we keep putting our position in front of the politicians – else they may be won over by the far better funded pro-patent lobby.