[belinda.don@scottishtories.org.uk: EU Software Patent Directive]

[Jama Poulsen <jama@debianlinux.net>]

Attached the complete reply from MEP Struan Stevenson.

  "I and my UK Conservative colleagues support the general line that
  the Commission has taken which builds on and clarifies the existing
  patent law across the European Union and makes it clear that only software
  which forms part of a technological process will be patentable.  This will
  allow patents to be provided for genuine technical inventions and stimulate
  European economic development in areas of economic strength like mobile
  telephony, digital television and computer controlled machine tools to
  name just a few possibilities.  Contrary to the impression given in your
  letter and some misguided lobbying within the Parliament there is no
  intention what so ever to allow generic patenting of software in Europe."

It seems we need to do more to convince MEP's there's no factual and
statistically relevant research document to backup the 'economic growth'
claim, if some people claim there is, let them show it to the public. On the
contrary, there are claims by economists that software patents do stifle
innovation and restrain economic growth within a country
(http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/mirror/impact/index.en.html).

Also, if the EP were to accept the current directive, it should be aware that
it is both technically (the exact directive/law wording) and practically (law
execution by patent offices) almost impossible to prevent software patents 
being
granted for which there's no amount of significant patent validity controversy
(http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/index.en.html) and social injustice (high
financial costs, relatively long patent period wrt the software field product
cycles, _exceptional_ freedom restraints for software on top of traditional
copyright laws).

Is someone registering the standpoint of the 626 MEP's regarding the software
patent directive?

Is there a page which lists most of the ill-founded, but common, pro software
patent arguments ('patent law harmonisation', 'economic growth', 'innovation
protection', etc.) together with a short list of counter arguments (with
references)?

regards,

Jama Poulsen
http://debianlinux.net
http://vemail.org

PS: I hope we organise a big freedom celebrating party in Brussels when this
software patent dragon is defeated (if ever), so we can return to our Shire.

--- Begin Message ---

• From: Belinda Don <belinda.don@scottishtories.org.uk>
• To: "'jama@debianlinux.net'" <jama@debianlinux.net>
• Subject: EU Software Patent Directive
• Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:41:03 +0100
• Envelope-to: jama@debianlinux.net

Dear Jama

 

Thank you for your email regarding the upcoming Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (software patents) currently under discussion in the European Parliament.  The European Commission published the draft Directive in February of last year as it become increasingly clear that European law on patenting software needed to be clarified.  The aim of the Directive is to set out and defend the status quo in Europe following changes to the patent system in the USA and also planned for Japan.  There is a clear intention across the EU Member States to see that Europe does not follow the USA and Japan in allowing widespread patent availability for software and business methods.  Copyright will remain the principal method of protecting intellectual property in these cases.  I and my UK Conservative colleagues support the general line that the Commission has taken which builds on and clarifies the existing patent law across the European Union and makes it clear that only software which forms part of a technological process will be patentable.  This will allow patents to be provided for genuine technical inventions and stimulate European economic development in areas of economic strength like mobile telephony, digital television and computer controlled machine tools to name just a few possibilities.  Contrary to the impression given in your letter and some misguided lobbying within the Parliament there is no intention what so ever to allow generic patenting of software in Europe.

 

I believe that the radical change of making the patent system more permissive or more restrictive is unjustified. The legal thresholds for granting software patents in the USA and Japan are set too low and recent court cases in the USA have led to patents being granted for computer-implemented service activities. In Europe, the granting of patents has always required a technical effect.  I agree with the European Commission and the UK Government that the American approach will not stimulate innovation in Europe.  Change through a more restrictive approach to the patenting of generic software, algorithms and business methods creates more problems than it resolves. It would question the validity of existing patents and discourage innovation, leading to greater uncertainty in the technology market.  Such an approach would also conflict with national laws in the Member States; international treaties including TRIPS, and existing practice in Europe.

 

The proposed Directive would set a fair test for software (deciding whether it has a technical effect) before authorising a patent.  Any technical invention in a field outside software can be patented so it does not make sense for technical inventions, which happen to use computers to be excluded from the system.  The Parliament is proposing amendments to clarify the text while ensuring that its principles are supported.  Codification of the existing position will also avoid raising complicated issues of the validity of existing patents across Europe or allowing current unpatentable technologies to claim new patents.  This will allow European businesses the chance to develop ideas with certainty as to their legal position.  It will also reduce the pressure from companies holding permissive American software patents who wish to gain an extension of their patent rights in Europe.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

STRUAN STEVENSON MEP

 

--- End Message ---

Attachment: pgp8rCjBCeShe.pgp
Description: PGP signature