Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a great pleasure and honor for me to be able to speak to you here in the name of the European Software Industry about the dangers of software patentability. You may already know that more than 400 software companies and 128000 individuals support the Eurolinux Petition for a Software Patent Free Europe, addressed to the European Parliament. You can find the text of this petition in the documentation on your table. Let me quote: I am concerned by current plans to legalise software patents in Europe, considering their damaging effect on innovation and competition. I am concerned by the current track record of abuses from the European Patent Office, especially by their tendency to abuse their judicial power to extend the scope of patentability. I urge decisionmakers at all levels in Europe to enforce the Law, which clearly prohibits patenting pure computer programs, instead of changing it. End of quotes. Among the 128000 individuals who support this appeal there are thousands of top executives of all kinds of small, medium and large software and hardware companies and thousands of software developpers from companies such as SAP, Siemens and IBM. This petition is considered by web poll experts to be the largest of all online petitions so far. A manager of a large specialised petition website recently asked me: Why is your petition so successful? How can such an obscure subject attract so many people? The explanation is quite simple: Software Patents run counter to the basic ethical consensus of all programmers. Programmers are generally happy with software copyright. Just as people who write music or textbooks are happy with copyright. Ms McCarthy, your position paper on the software patentability directive certainly contains some clever rhetorical devices. For example you say: A vociferous section of public opinion believes that there should be no patentability of software at all. It seems to many that the opponents of software patents have not been able to show that software with a technical effect should cease to be patentable. End of citation. You do not say, but imply that the Eurolinux position is supported only by a vociferous few, while "many" think like the European Patent Office. Also, by confusing law with caselaw, you shift the burden of proof onto us. Then, our opportunity of shouldering this burden is restricted by arranging a hearing upon very short notice with very limited speaking time and an agenda of misleading questions, after a long period of silence. So you have found a clever method of political writing and maneuvering. Now you want to apply it. What would you do if we had a patent on this method? For instance a claim, reading: system and method for minoritising a majority of constituents, characterised by * characterising the majority by attributes which normally apply to minorities, such as "vociferous", and attributing one's one opinion to an undefined multitude of actors * placing a high burden of proof upon one's opponent * chanelling all discussions into forms where the opponent does not have an opportunity to shoulder the burden Such a patent would mean that you are excluded from a broad range of activities for 20 years. Okay, this patent claim may be invalid due to lack of novelty or lack of technical character - whatever that may mean. Anyway, you need to fight a lawsuit in order to invalidate it. In the eyes of a programmer, the typical software patent claims are even more general and more simple than this "minoritisation patent". And the typical software patent is just as untechnical as this "minoritisation patent", i.e. as unrelated to the art of harnessing the laws of nature. Imagine this "minoritisation patent" was valid, alongside with thousands of other patents on political strategems. What would you do? You cannot license them all. Join the political party with the largest patent portfolio and the strongest patent department? Give up your profession and become a patent salesman yourself? Or fight for your general freedom of action, for your freedom of speech and for your property in your copyrighted texts? That is exactly what is happening in the area of software patents. Everybody who knows what software is knows that software patents are just a silly idea which has become a silly reality. There are many studies of this reality. All of them say that software patents are harmful. Even those studies written by the patent lobby for the European Commission cannot avoid this conclusion. You can find summaries of many of these studies in our online documentation. The European Patent Office has already granted more than 30000 software patents against the letter and spirit of the written law. We have presented some of them in Appendix B and C as a "Horror Gallery of European Software Patents". However all 30000 are horror patents - without exception. They are either blocking software development and software interoperability, or they are used by large companies in order to artificially boost their stock market value or to evade taxes. In no case has any promoter of software patents ever been able to name a single example of a "good software patent". Ladies and Gentlemen, the European Software Industry is asking that its arguments be weighed on an equal footing with the arguments of the patent industry. We know that UNICE and EICTA, who are represented here, are also claiming to speak for the software industry while they are in fact opting for the patent industry. We have some of their members sitting here ready to testify that UNICE and EICTA do not have the support of their member base. On the other hand, some very large industry representation bodies are supporting our position instead. I may mention the German Chamber of Commerce, the Dutch IT Industry Association, the French, Danish and Spanish Associations of IT professionals, the German Monopoly Commission, the European Social Committee. Others have taken neutral positions. In the documentation on your table, you can find our detailed Call for Action, signed by a number of large associations and renowned comapnies. We ask the European Parliament to reject the directive and to work out a specification of deliverables and a series of conformance tests for a new directive as in Appendix A. Our proposals are also included in Appendix B. If you have any questions, feel free to ask us now or to come to our de-briefing session. And of course there will be the hearing on the 26th of November with more time to discuss the real issues. Thank you.