Re: [Patents] UK Liberal Democrats anti-patent IT policy ratified

[PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>]

> > > The party's IT policy at http://www.makeitpolicy.org.uk, which
> > > includes a paragraph opposing swpat, was ratified by party
> > > conference on Sunday 16
> >
> > I can only find a sentence in
> >
> >     http://www.makeitpolicy.org.uk/Motion.html
> >
> > calling for "supporting widespread innovation by resisting the wider
> > application of patents in this area".
> >
> > wider than than what?
> >
> > what is "this field" ?
>
> In pdf version of "Making IT Work- Policies for Information
> Technology, Policy Paper 54" I find these patent paragraphs:
>
> 2.2.5 We do not believe that the citizen as consumer will be well served
> if a wholesale failure in the copyright system leads to a drying up of
> creativity as the financial incentives disappear. But we also recognize
> that there are circumstances in which protection systems can have the
> contrary effect of stifling creativity against the public interest. We
> are especially concerned about the use of patents in the area of
> computer software in this respect.
>
> 2.2.6 There are usually many ways to achieve the same objective using
> computer code. The public benefits from the fact that different teams of
> programmers will work on solving problems and release their separate
> solutions as competitors in the market. The specific code each team has
> written is protected by copyright. Allowing a wide definition of
> inventiveness for patents in the field of software could lead to a
> reduction in this creative activity. This might be justifiable if there
> were evidence that the software industry as a whole were suffering
> because of an inability to secure revenue for research and development
> but there is no evidence that this is the case as the sector remains
> vibrant and growing.

One could of course again interpret the sibylline

 "allowing a wide definition of inventiveness for patents in the field of
  software"

to mean

  "patents in the field of software are ok, but the definition of
  inventive step should not be different from other fields"

Which would give us the current EPO practise
with masses of trivial and broad patents.

Since this can not be what the author intended, it would probably be more
appropriate to interpret the sibylline phrase as

  "the concept of patentable invention should not be so wide as to
   be applicable to the field of software ideas"

Which would give us exactly the doctrine of Art 52 EPC.

Sibylline phrases seem to be the standard in current party program
writing, also in other countries, concerning this issue.  And usually,
judging from the context, the intention is to avoid software patents.
Yet the phrase does not really oblige political decisionmakers to resist
the patent lobby, which will easily be able to clothe its own agenda in
wording that is compatible to the party program.

So whether such a party program has an effect depends entirely on the
vigilance of that party's members.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-12789608
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
140,000 signatures against software patents      http://www.noepatents.org/