X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <cocktails@freesurf.fr>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [80.67.164.41])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB5687C94D
	for <patents@aful.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:42:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from freesurf.fr (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9LKbEOm003150
	for <patents@aful.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:37:15 +0200
Message-ID: <41781DFA.3090104@freesurf.fr>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:37:14 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Jean-Marc_Le_Peuv=E9dic?= <cocktails@freesurf.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040116
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, fr-fr, ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "patents@aful.org" <patents@aful.org>
Subject: Answer from M. BRAIDY (Ministery of Industry) on swpats
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Validation-by: cocktails@freesurf.fr

Hello all!

I received today an answer to my letter sent on last May 11th.  It tells 
me the Mother of All Lies (that they don't want software patents), then 
goes on with the Harmonization Alibi, the Unprotected Software Lie, and 
finally reaffirms the first lie. Here is the full text (in French) and 
an english translation below.

I am going to ask him more questions. Was Philippe BRAIDY France's 
representant at COREPER too ?

    Best Regards,

       JM Le Peuvdic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monsieur,

J'ai pris connaissance avec la plus grande attention des diffrents 
aspects relatifs aux brevets pour des inventions fondes sur des 
logiciels que vous voquez dans votre courrier du 11 mai dernier.

Concernant la dlivrance de brevets par l'Organisation europenne des 
brevets (OEB) ou des offices nationaux de pays europens, des 
divergences de pratiques existent, en effet, lies principalement  des 
jurisprudences nationales indpendantes. Le principal impact de la 
directive europenne propose sur la brevetabilit des inventions mises 
en oeuvre par ordinateur sera d'unifier la jurisprudence affrente au 
niveau europen, la Cour de justice des Communauts europennes statuant 
en dernier recours.

Se des brevets contestables ont pu tre dlivrs, il convient de garder 
 l'esprit que la validit d'un brevet peut prcisment tre contest, 
soit pendant une priode limite via la procdure d'opposition, soit 
ultrieurement par voie judiciaire.

Les deux principaux textes qui influent sur les dcisions des offices de 
brevet en Europe sont, d'une part, la non-brevetabilit des programmes 
d'ordinateur en tant que tels, suivant les termes de la convention de 
Munich tablissant l'OEB et, d'autre part, l'accord sur les aspects des 
droits de proprit intellectuelle qui touchent au commerce par lequel 
tous les Etats-membres de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce s'engagent 
 permettre la protection par brevet des inventions dans les domaines 
technologiques, sans discrimination. L'objectif du projet de directive 
europenne, dans sa version approuve le 18 mai dernier par le Conseil 
europen et qui va ensuite tre soumise en deuxime lecture au Parlement 
europen, n'est pas d'ouvrir la voie au "brevet logiciel" tel qu'il a pu 
se dvelopper aux Etats-Unis mais, bien au contraire, de prciser les 
limites de la brevetabilit pour les inventions mises en oeuvre par 
ordinateur, sur une base restrictive raffirme.

En toute hypothse, les brevets dlivrs aux Etats-Unis et dont le dlai 
d'extension internationale est dpass, ne peuvent en aucun cas tre 
rendus rtroactivement valides en Europe.

Une harmonisation mondiale des rgles de brevetabilit serait videmment 
bienvenue, et des discussions sont engages  l'Organisation mondiale de 
la proprit intellectuelle en ce sens. Des diffrences significatives 
de pratique existent toutefois de part et d'autre de l'Atlantique, tant 
sur le champ de la brevetabilit que sur les critres de brevetabilit 
d'une invention, ce qui rendra les ngociations longues.

Concernant les moyens de protection d'une invention reposant sur 
l'utilisation d'un logiciel, le droit d'auteur est une protection contre 
la copie servile du logiciel, innovant ou pas, mais n'interdit pas la 
reconstitution de l'invention ; seul le brevet permet  un inventeur de 
protger pleinement ses droits vis--vis de comptiteurs. Moyennant une 
preuve d'antriorit, le secret est une voie partiellement alternative 
au brevet. Il revient  chaque acteur conomique de choisir sa stratgie 
au cas par cas, en fonction de ses objectifs.

Je retiens que les dbats du Conseil du 18 mai dernier ont permis,  ce 
stade, de mieux dfinir le champ de la brevetabilit et la notion de 
contribution technique. Comme le prvoit dj la Convention sur le 
brevet europen (CBE), le texte retenu par le Conseil prvoit sans 
ambigut que les mthodes, algorithmes, ides et programmes 
d'ordinateurs ne pourront tre brevets en dehors d'une application 
technique identifie. Comme la France le souhaitait, la directive fera 
l'objet d'une valuation au bout de trois ans, plus particulirement 
quant  son impact sur les PME et la communaut du logiciel libre.

En conclusion, je vous confirme que la volont des Etats-membres de 
l'Union europenne, et plus particulirement de la France, est que, en 
Europe, un logiciel en tant que tel continue  ne pouvoir constituer une 
invention technique brevetable : ne doit pouvoir tre brevetable qu'une 
solution technique innovante apporte  une problme technique, solution 
qui peut tre mise en oeuvre par des moyens matriels ou logiciels.

Ainsi qu'elle a tenu  le spcifier dans une dclaration consacre aux 
travaux du Conseil, la France restera trs attentive aux propositions du 
Parlement europen en deuxime lecture.

Je vous prie de croire, Monsieur,  l'assurance de ma considration 
distingue.



                                                                         
         Philippe BRAIDY

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir,

I got acquainted with the greatest attention with the various aspects 
related to patents on software implemented inventions, you mentioned in 
your letter dated May 11th.

Regarding the grant of patents by the EPO or the national patent offices 
of European countries, divergences of practice exist, indeed, maily 
linked to differing national jurisprudences. The main impact of the 
proposed European directive on the patentability of computed-implemented 
inventions will be to unify the related jurisprudence at the European 
level, the Court of Justice of the European Communities arbitrating as a 
last recourse.

If contestable patents have been granted, we should keep in mind that 
the validity of a patent can precisely be contested, either during a 
limited period via the opposition procedure, or later by court proceedings.

The two main texts governing the decision of patent offices in Europe 
are, on one hand, the exclusion from patentability of computer software 
as such, according to the terms of the Mnich Conventions which created 
the EPO and, on the other hand, the agreement on Trade Related aspects 
of Intellectual Property  through which all the member states of the 
World Trade Organization are engaged to allow patent protection for 
inventions in all fields of technology, without discrimination.  The 
objective of the projected European directive, in its version that was 
approved on May 18th by the European Council and which is going to be 
submitted to the European Parliament in second reading, is not to open 
the way to the "software patent" as it developed in the United States 
but to the contrary, to define real limits to patentability for 
computer-implemented inventions, on a reaffirmed restrictive basis.

Obviously, patents granted in the United States whose period of priority 
has expired cannot be rendered retroactively valid in Europe.

A worldwide harmonization of the rule for patentability would of course 
be welcome, and discussions in this direction are currently engaged at 
the World Intellectual Property Organization. However, significant 
differences in practice exists between each side of the Atlantic, both 
on the scope of patent law and on criteria for granting invention 
patents, and we expect long negociations.

Regarding means for protecting an invention based on the use of 
software, Copyright is a protection against servile copy of software, 
whether it is innovating or not, but does not forbid reconstitution of 
an invention ; only a patent allows an inventor to fully protect its 
rights against competitors. Given a proof of anteriority, secrecy is in 
part an alternate to patents. Each economic actor can choose its 
strategy on a case by case basis, according to its objectives.

I take note that the debate at the Council on May 18th have permitted, 
currently, to better define the field of patentability and the notion of 
technical contribution. Like the Convention on the European Patent, the 
Council version of the proposed directive says without ambiguity that 
methods, alogrithms, ideas and computer programs cannot be patented 
without an identified technical application.  Like France wanted, the 
effects of the directive will be evaluated after three years, with a 
closer look at its impact on SMEs and the Open Source software community.

As a conclusion, I confirm to you that the will of the European Union 
member states, and in particular the will of France, is that, in Europe, 
software as such continues no to be patentable subject matter : only an 
innovating technical solution to a technical problem can be patentable, 
the solution being implemented either in software or hardware.

Therefore, as it has wanted to testify in a declaration about the work 
of the Council, France will remain very attentive to proposals coming 
from the second reading at the European Parliament.

Best Regards,

                                                                         
               Philippe BRAIDY

