More on the intensive lobbying that preceded the software patents vote last week (previous blog entries here, here and here).

Sifting through the piles of communications I received last week on the software patents directive, I found a pro-patent letter from Astron Clinica, a skin imaging company based in Cambridge. The plausibility of the letter's impassioned arguments in favour of intellectual property rights for philosophical and ethical reasons abruptly self-destructed in the very last ill-advised sentence, which read:

"Software patents are not a big versus small company issue, they are about investment, marketing and making money."

How not to lobby an MEP!

Following yesterday's vote on software patents, I've now had a total of 36 e-mails into my Leeds office from constituents expressing their delight at the way we voted in Parliament. I can't remember having ever received such a message of support about any single issue before - just as I can't remember ever having received so much lobbying from private individuals in advance of a vote.

A particularly enthusiastic e-mail made me smile:

"Dear Richard,

"What can I say? This is truly marvellous news - and with such a majority! I am so delighted I can't quite express myself properly! Thank you so very, very much for notifying me of the outcome and for voting against the software patent madness.

"Through having to face up to the threat that this proposal posed, I have gained a better insight into the political machinations of the European Parliament. More importantly, I have greater respect for the elected individuals that comprise the European Parliament, and also for the power of the individual in lobbying for change.

"What more can I say?"

Another constituent, who represents a Linux users' group in Scarborough, wrote to let me know that he'd blogged the result, and seemed to be quite enthusiastic about it:

Fantastically, awesomely, tearfully, happily, wonderfully, we appear to have won the software patents argument. I got this at 12:07 today from Richard Corbett… How absolutely fantastic is that! The people won over the corporation.

Shortly after 11am (UK time) today, we rejected a proposed law on the patenting of software by a huge majority. This proposal is now dead.

I've received more e-mails, letters and calls on the issue of software patents than on any other issue in recent times. I'm immensely grateful to the hundreds of constituents who have taken the time to explain their views to me.

Labour colleagues and I have taken on board their advice and rejected this proposal, so my thanks go out to constituents for their participation in good lawmaking.

More information here.

The European Parliament discusses tomorrow whether to amend or reject the proposed Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions, or 'software patents directive', as it's commonly known. (Lots more information, and a history of this directive, is here.)

For an issue which is so important to my constituents - I've had more lobbying messages on this in the past few months than on any other issue I can remember! - it got no mention at all on the BBC news this morning. To be fair, it does coincide with the G8 build-up and the Olympic bid, but you'd think they'd find space for a mention of such a crucial vote which will effectively determine the future of software development in Europe.

But the debate is certainly hotting up in Parliament, and I've noticed that two myths are circulating about this directive. They threaten to make it sound innocuous when in reality it's very far from innocuous.

Myth 1: This directive is just about "computer-implemented inventions" like washing machine programs and automatic braking systems. What harm can there be in that?

This is not so. Although the directive does cover washing machine programs and automatic braking systems, the draft before Parliament in fact also covers all kinds of computer-implemented inventions, including software designed for PC programs or for the internet.

The Council's current position defines "computer-implemented inventions" very broadly and very vaguely, but one thing that almost all commentators agree on is that it will open the door for software concepts to be patented. That is, under the current proposal, any software concept - an on-screen progress bar, an internet shopping trolley, a resizeable icon, anything - will be patentable and will therefore be protected by law as soon as a company applies for a patent. The only requirement will be that the software implements a "technical invention", which is a disturbingly vague phrase.

In fact, Parliament's original first-reading position redefined "computer-implemented inventions" much better. It specified that only programs which had a physical effect on the real world could be patented. That definition really does refer only to things like washing machines and brakes. It makes it clear that 'pure' software concepts - that is, programs and bits of programs which have no physical effect on the real world because they don't control a spin cycle or drive a car - are not patentable.

That first-reading position was welcomed by the anti-patent lobby because it outlined a very reasonable (albeit arbitrary) limit to patentability. But that position has been reversed by the Council's second-reading position.

Myth 2: The people who oppose software patents are just "open-source supporters", a bunch of pie-in-the-sky lobbyists with no connection to modern commercial reality.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Software patents are opposed by small software companies, businessmen and individual developers, as well as academics and the open-source community.

Small software companies and individual developers fear trampling by large corporations, who will be able to register vast numbers of patents and then defend them in court against their rivals, or use the threat of legal action as leverage against them. Small businesses and individuals will not have the legal or financial resources to fight back effectively, or to patent their own ideas.

Even if a given concept is not actually patented, small businesses will be very wary to use that concept in their own work because they won't be able to afford to check the patent situation. Software patents will therefore stifle creativity - as well as being painfully anti-competitive.

Only a small proportion of our constituency lobbying has come from "open-source supporters". These are people who believe that software concepts should be free in principle, so that amateurs and the software community can gradually improve and distribute them.