\documentclass[a4paper]{letter}
\begin{document}
\address{Ed Avis\\
	 18A, Francis Avenue\\
	 Feltham\\
         TW13 4EB\\
	 \textit{ed@membled.com}}
\signature{Ed Avis}

\telephone{07793~858~928}

\begin{letter}{Alan Keen MP\\
	       House of Commons\\
	       London\\
               SW1A 0AA}
	       
\opening{Dear Alan Keen,}

I am writing about the forthcoming meeting of EU ministers on November
10th and the proposed Directive on the patentability of
computer-implemented inventions.  Please forward my concerns to the
minister for e-commerce, Stephen Timms MP.

I work as a computer programmer in the financial services industry.
As part of my job I build and maintain systems using a large number of
different software products, some of them free software such as Linux,
some of them proprietary software such as Windows, and a large part
software that I and my colleagues write in-house.  An extension of the
patent system in Europe to allow patenting of computer programs would
affect all three and be detrimental to all organizations who use
software.

If the writer of a computer program had to check for infringement of
thousands of software patents, then development of both free and
proprietary software would be impeded.  For example, a file format
used by a spreadsheet program might be patented (perhaps in some
relatively trivial detail) and it would be impossible to create a
compatible program that could read the same files.  This would shut
all but one seller out of the market, so reducing choice and pushing
up prices for anyone who needs to read those files.

Just as important is the legal security to write an original computer
program---not copying anyone else's work---without inadvertently
infringing on many patents which you didn't even know about.  This is
particularly true given the triviality of many patent applications
relating to computer software.  This is important for individual
programmers and for companies developing software in-house, as well as
for those who want to write a program and then sell it.

In my workplace we are replacing some existing systems (for settlement
and accounting of securities trading) with new ones written from
scratch by ourselves.  This would not be possible if we had to contend
with patents on basic business methods which have been used for
decades.  Yet patent offices have tended to grant patents on business
methods in the guise of patents on computer programs.  Since in
today's world all businesses use computers, allowing patents on
computer programs is allowing patents on anything.

Among computer professionals there is no desire to see the patent
system extended to software.  Programs are already protected against
plagiarism by copyright; software patents do not serve to protect the
hard work of a programmer (which is in writing a program and testing
it) but they do serve as legal landmines which all developers, large
and small.  The only defence is usually to countersue with other,
equally trivial software patents.

Economic studies have shown no benefit from extending the patent
system to software.  Patent offices are keen for any change in the law
that would increase their powers, but the issue is too important to be
left to patent offices.  Rather than letting the UK Patent Office
decide the issue, one should consider what's in the interest of all
software users and programmers in this country.

The European Parliament in September produced a draft of the Directive
which sets strict limits on the definition of `technical' so that pure
software patents will be excluded.  I urge that the meeting of
ministers next month should accept the amendments made by the
Parliament, and not revert to the November 2002 draft which would set
no real limits on patentability.

Please pass my concerns on to the minister.

\closing{Yours faithfully,}
\end{letter}
\end{document}