After everyone’s actually listening, the producer comes out to explain how everything works and declares who’s questions were chosen – these people are then shuffled to the front row. Then the panel arrives, a test question is asked to make sure all the microphones work, and the show begins – they broadcast the news live into the room, and as soon as it ends, the panel and ambient microphones become live and the broadcast begins – all very simple really, and discreetly low tech.

It’s worth noting that if you don’t ask a question the most you can contribute is heckles or applause – the ambient mikes can’t pickup audience responses. Because my views on this week’s news are fairly commonplace, I didn’t bother to submit a question but rather strategically positioned myself at the back so I could observe the slice of the population that attended, and their reactions to the questions and answers. Alas, the demographic was exactly as I’d feared – the mean age must have been well over 60, and 95% conservative.

The height of the evening came when the woman who’d asked a reasonable question about increasing local resources before building new houses to solve the current house price crisis (whereby anyone who doesn’t already own a house can’t possibly afford one) got her right of reply. Her comments ran to the tone that “anyone without a house should just move north where the houses are cheaper” are so infuriatingly elitist and selfish that I almost ran down the aisle to cease the mike. Playing in local politics around here is such an exercise in frustration, it’s little wonder no few under 40 actually bother.

Regardless, it was a worthwhile slice of local political opinion, and my thanks go to the BBC for continuing to run this sort of program (in the face of “Celebrity Brothers Love XFactor live”).

Noting that ammendment 71 was total rejection, this pretty much says it all. Thanks to an FFII member on Freenodes #bxl-ffii for the capture. I should also thank the FFII in general, who co-ordinated most of the lobbying against this directive.

It’s not the best result, because we would have preferred the directive to pass, but amended to disallow software patents. Hence, the current sub optimal law stands, and software patents will almost certainly be back on the agenda within the next five years. However, it’s insurmountably better than the directive passing unamended.

Dozens of emails, letters and phone calls later, we can finally bask in the glow of a victory in this battle. The war to ensure patent law remains fair and equitable for all businesses goes on.

• Lib Dems – No replies at all, other than a small card saying my concerns were “noted” From Baroness Nicholson
• Conservative – Two replies saying I should contacted just one Conservative, and one reply from said MEP saying he was fully in support of software patents. A rebutal letter has received no response in over a month.
• Labour – One reply, saying they support it in theory, but have concerned. Repeated attempts to converse by email have resulted in no replies
• Green, UKIP – Rapid replies, strongly against software patents
• Independents – No replies

So far, it seems the “big 3″ parties are only capable of sending back form letters, with no independent thought at all. Trying to actually talk to them about the issue seems to fail entirely. It’s no small wonder no average citizen is interested in politics – the politicians aren’t! My current plan is to organise some telephone calls to both Labour and Conservative to force them to actually listen and respond.

Sharon Bowles replaces him in the European Parliment, and my letters and emails have been sent to her. I await with bated breath the first real Liberal Democrat reply!

I was unaware that Conservative HQ was on another planet; if he can show me in 10% of small IT companies in favour of this legislation I would be amazed. I’ve been forced to put LaTeX to toner again, and send this response.

“Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne MEP acknowledges with thanks receipt of your letter of 8 April 2005 the contents of which have been noted”

I feel this response was well worth waiting 3 weeks for, and really gets to the heart of the matter. Oh, wait…

The position summary: They fully support the current bill, thought all the amendments by the parliament would make it unworkable, and they will all vote in support of it. The rest of the mail reiterates the standard garbage about how it will “not increase patentability” and “is needed for clarification”. I will be responding with a proper rebuttal at some point in the next few days, but until then, it seems the Conservative party in both the UK and EU is so out of touch with reality as to be entirely pointless.

What exactly was the point in electing 3 South East MEPs from them again?

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.