Re: [Patents] European Reuters vs Washington Post, another age?

["Jim Bessen" <jbessen@researchoninnovation.org>]

And here is a gem from the letter:
..."You could compare it with an old telephone exchange where all the parts
were patent-protected. Today the exchange is digital and run by a computer
programme, which under these rules could not be protected," Ericsson
spokesman Peter Olofsson said.

I thought patents were supposed to protect INNOVATIONS, not old technologies
for running telephone exchanges, even if those technologies have been ported
to computers. This is reminiscent of the AT&T executive in the US who, in
1907, stated their strategy for building a monopoly by obtaining "a thousand
and one little patents" necessary to run a telephone exchange. This was, in
his words, to "protect the business," not to promote innovation.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jacek Gancarson Eurofresh" <jacek.gancarson@eurofresh.se>
To: <patents@aful.org>; "Hartmut Pilch" <phm@a2e.de>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 7:25 AM
Subject: [Patents] European Reuters vs Washington Post, another age?


> >
>
http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp?type=technologyNews&locale=en
> _IN&storyID=3980010
> >
> > 11 Dec 2003 21:57 Europe's top tech firms oppose EU patent draft
> >
> > By Jan Strupczewski
> >
> > STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Europe's top five technology firms have warned the
> > EU in a joint letter that 15 billion euros ($18.25 billion) of their
> > annual R&D spending could be wasted if it implemented proposed changes
> > to its software patent law.
>
>
> I understand that European Reuters provides mostly news and not
> comprehensive analysis but it can be symptomatic how narrow perspective is
> presented in European Reuters news on Big 5 letter, compared to this
> Washington Post
> article:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54548-2003Dec10.html
>
> Not a single word is mentioned about the argumentation from FFII, so it
> simply sounds as suggestion: the parliament is a bad boy.
>
> Again: Legalisation of current patenting praxis may be not enough for
> securing steady technical development - a procedure of  ordering of the
> gifts through the internet has been patented by EPO. What this praxis has
> common with protection of European inventions?
>
> So current praxis is narrow-minded and not flexible enough to meet
> objectives of  massive software use in internet communication.
>
> Also Ericsson spokesman's statement on how luckily patented phones
> communicated in the past, does not consider the fact that technically
> communication by phones is different from the communication by the
Internet:
> End-user devices can and should be patented, but not the content of the
> talks, as it has become praxis in case of some Internet patents!!
>
> Doesn't the comparison of this two articles show that Americans reach
longer
> or going faster with making conclusions on a whole software patent debate
in
> Europe? (as in case of EU voting procedures;-)
>
> Regards
> Jacek Gancarson
> www.eu3d.com
>
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hartmut Pilch"
>
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:14 AM
> Subject: [Patents] Reuters taking up the 5CEO FUD
>
>
> >
>
http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp?type=technologyNews&locale=en
> _IN&storyID=3980010
> >
> > 11 Dec 2003 21:57 Europe's top tech firms oppose EU patent draft
> >
> > By Jan Strupczewski
> >
> > STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Europe's top five technology firms have warned the
> > EU in a joint letter that 15 billion euros ($18.25 billion) of their
> > annual R&D spending could be wasted if it implemented proposed changes
> > to its software patent law.
> >
> > The letter, which was sent last month but surfaced on Thursday, was
> > signed by the heads of telecoms and technology giants Nokia, Ericsson,
> > Siemens, Philips and Alcatel.
> >
> > The companies asked the European Commission to scrap changes introduced
> > to a new software patent draft by the EU parliament on September 24,
> > saying they deprived their products of patent protection.
> >
> > "The vote in parliament...has completely turned the commission's
> > original proposal around, removing effective patent protection for much
> > -- and in the case of telecommunications and consumer electronics
> > probably most -- of our R&D investment," they said in the letter, a copy
> > of which was obtained by Reuters.
> >
> > "This would have devastating consequences for our companies. It would be
> > open for all-comers to exploit the results of our expensive R&D
> > (research and development) programmes at no cost."
> >
> > They sent the letter, dated November 7, to the European Union's (EU)
> > Internal Market Commissioner Frits Bolkenstein and Information Society
> > Commissioner Erkki Liikanen.
> >
> > An Ericsson spokesman said on Thursday he was not aware of an answer
> > from the Commission yet. A spokesman for Commissioner Bolkenstein said
> > he was checking if the letter had been received.
> >
> > Under current European Union rules software cannot be patented but
> > inventions that use the software can. The new patent law drafted by the
> > EU Commission aims to turn that practice into law.
> >
> > But the EU parliament changed the draft, introducing amendments to
> > ensure patents are not used to block competing inventions.
> >
> > As a result, the patent protection on software-based products, like
> > modern telephone exchanges, had been weakened, the five companies
argued.
> >
> > "You could compare it with an old telephone exchange where all the parts
> > were patent-protected. Today the exchange is digital and run by a
> > computer programme, which under these rules could not be protected,"
> > Ericsson spokesman Peter Olofsson said.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>