swpat propaganda article in The European Voice

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

Is there an URL for this?

> Parliament braced for split over software patent plans.
>
> By Peter Chapman.
>
> 21 May 2003
> European Voice

> MEPS are set to clash next week on complex computer software patent
> proposals that could affect the future of the EU's multi-billion euro
> hi-tech sector.  Arlene McCarthy, rapporteur on the issue for the
> European Parliament's legal affairs committee, which votes on the
> proposals on 22 May, broadly supports proposals to harmonize the system
> for patent applications unveiled last year by Frits Bolkestein, the
> internal market commissioner.

> But some MEPs, including allies of Daniel Cohn-Bendit, co-leader of the
> Greens/European Free Alliance group, are expected to try to hit the
> delete button on the proposals, which they claim would lead to an
> expensive rise in software patents.

The Greens "claim", while Bolkestein (see below) and McCarthy say the
truth about harmonisation, legal voids etc.

> Bolkestein wants the EU to fill a legal void which has arisen because
> computer software developers in some member states can patent their
> inventions, while their counterparts in others face uncertainty.

...

> Bolkestein believes that software pioneers should be allowed a patent if
> it meets tough criteria to ensure computer-implemented inventions offer
> genuinely new technical solutions.

Which "tough criteria" ?

> But, crucially, he distanced himself from the much-criticised US system,
> which has seen an explosion of patenting of business methods, many of
> which are viewed by Brussels experts as unworthy of protection and an
> assault on free competition.

Why is this "crucial" ?

> Programs failing to underpin a technical invention or software that
> merely looks attractive or contains new programming ideas would be
> ineligible for a patent under the Bolkestein-McCarthy formula.

How would they be?
This is pure propaganda.

> McCarthy, a UK Socialist MEP, said that the current legal uncertainty
> was a "brake on growth in the industry".  At the same time she warned
> that, without an EU directive, the Munich-based EPO would be under
> pressure to grant more patents to less deserving cases.

Pressure from Art 52 EPC ?

> Cohn-Bendit and `open source software' campaigners held a public meeting

Cohn-Bendit and "open source campaigner"?
No SMEs, not associations who "represent ..." as claimed for UNICE etc
below?

> last week followed by a street party outside the European Parliament in
> Brussels, displaying banners denouncing the threat to personal freedom
> posed by patents.

Threat to personal freedom only, not to the "multi-billion dollar
industry"?

> In a statement, the Greens warned that patents favour huge US-based
> companies such as Bill Gates' Microsoft, with its lavish legal
> departments, at the expense of smaller firms that create most of the
> innovations in the IT field. They said greater patenting would also
> jeopardize the development of open-source software such as the Linux
> operating system, which is currently freely available to programmers to
> develop.

> A coalition of IT companies and business groups including GrowthPlus, a
> group of 500 of Europe's fastest growing firms, along with bosses lobby
> UNICE and EICTA, which represents IT, telecoms and consumer electronics
> firms, insist that amendments in McCarthy's report would guarantee
> freedom for open source developers. They argue that the European
> Commission would be obliged to safeguard small firms and the open source
> software community against unforeseen negative effects.

Who argues this?
It is clear that is argued only by patent lawyers who have hijacked these
organisations without a debate involving engineers, SMEs other groups.

> But the GrowthPlus group said it wanted another change concerning the
> way patent claims can be made under the new regime.

> Under the law, claims for breaches in another member state would be
> admissible only if someone actually uses a program to operate a piece of
> hardware or apparatus.  This would make it hard to pursue claims against
> suppliers helping to cause the patent infringement and create a
> "cross-border anomaly and distortion in the single market".

Again a direct quote of another lame attempt to argue for restriction of
freedom of publication under the name of "harmonisation".

The article is very revealing of EU-level public opinion making.

The "European Voice"

        http://www.european-voice.com

is read a lot in the Europarl.  It is lying around everywhere.  Its money
of course comes from advertisers, not from readers.

A similar business model is pursued by

        http://www.euractiv.com/

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-12789608
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
145,000 votes 400 firms against software patents     http://noepatents.org/