more misinformation from McCarthy

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

Where does this come from?

> Patentability of computerised inventions

This directive is about patentability of non-inventions, namely programs
for computers as the term was understood by EPO caselaw until 1986 and
partially until today, see

        http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/epo-t850022/
        http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/epo-t990094/

> The Legal Affairs Committee gave strong backing on Tuesday to proposed
> EU-wide rules for the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.

EU-wide rules already exist.

> The committee's first-reading report, drafted by Arlene McCARTHY (PES,
> UK), was adopted by 20 votes to 8 with 1 abstention.
> Computer-implemented inventions do not cover computer software programs as
> such, but only devices like mobile phones, intelligent household
> appliances, engine control devices, machine tools and computer program
> related inventions.

The latter is just an equivalent of "computer programs as such".

> While approving the general idea of patentability for computerised
> inventions, the committee adopted a range of amendments seeking to clarify
> and tighten up the wording of the Commission's proposed directive and at
> the same time strike a balance between MEPs' sharply differing views.
> The committee says that, in order to be patentable, a computerised
> invention should be one that could have an industrial application. It must
> also involve a technologically inventive step.

All this is just standard patent dogma.

> MEPs also argue that a computerised invention should not be regarded as
> making a technical contribution just because it involves the use of
> computer technology. In other words, patents must not be allowed for
> every simple computer program.

idem.

> The Commission is asked to produce a report at a future date on how the
> new directive has been taken into account by the European Patent Office
> and also to assess whether the European Patent Convention might have to
> be revised.  Other amendments seek to protect the interests of SMEs,
> saying the Commission must monitor the impact on these firms of the
> patentability of computerised inventions.

I.o.w. First kill, then hire the killer as detective.

I.e. the European Commission's patent lawyers are authorised to use more
public money for drafting misleading statements such as this one.

What McCarthy, Wuermeling and their followers actually did was to reject
all amendment proposals that tighten up the proposed directive and
introduce new ones which further loosen it.

For that purpose, they secluded themselves from all discussions and
produced a never-ending stream of lies.  Has lying in this style become
the standard behaviour of EU institutions?

See more details on

        http://swpat.ffii.org/
        http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/juri0617/

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
145,000 votes 400 firms against software patents     http://noepatents.org/