Which companies are against art 2a and 4.3a?

[Flemming Bjerke <Flem@Bjerke.dk>]

The struggle against software patents in Denmark has a remarkable trait: The 
proponents of swpat are relatively silent. The Danish patentoffice are 
Industryminister are the main exceptions who reiterate a litany similar to 
EU-commission. Else we hear little. We know that the danish general industry 
organisation (DI) and the Danish IT and Electronics industry organisation and 
others are proponents of softwarepatents. But, we know little about which 
companies are pro softwarepatents (if they care!) - except of course the 
usual suspects (Microsoft, IBM, etc.). We know that some relative large 
Danish software developers are against softwarepatents. Nevertheless, a 
majority of the parliament still support softwarepatents. But, why? We have 
strong arguments in our favour.

This brings me to my question: Which companies are against the EU-parliaments 
art 2b and 4.3a? 

".... The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the 
digital 
representation of information belongs to a technical field. The processing, 
handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, 
even where technical devices are employed for such purposes."

"In determining whether a given computer-implemented invention makes a 
technical contribution, the following test shall be used: whether it 
constitutes a new teaching on cause-effect relations in the use of 
controllable forces of natures .... "

I suspect most of the electronics industry are against this formulation, 
because they process information. E.g. producers of television and mobile 
telephones. So, they join the forces with Microsoft and IBM. 

If I should try to see it from their point of view, I must admit that it is 
unclear if any use of software within electronic companies are patentable at 
all. Perhaps they even fear that their EPO-patents will become non-valid.

Perhaps this fear are used by the hardliners in the EU-commissoin to not 
formulate a "compromise" that is more radical than the original purpose. I 
order to have their proposal passed, they utilise that there is no 
compromises available (from the point of view of the electronics industry). 

Perhaps, it would be easier to avoid the radical pro softwarepatents 
decision, 
if there was a real compromise proposal, which did not deprived the 
electronics industry, but deprived the multinational software companies of 
their software patents. 

These considerations is NOT meant as a proposal about that the resistance to 
softwarepatenting should sell out and adopt a halfway pro-software-patents 
positon. For now, I just try to analyse and understand the situation better. 

I should like to hear your opinion on these considerations.


Flemming Bjerke