Positions

eubsa-jinvi

JURI 2003/04-6 Amendments: Real and Fake Limits on Patentability:

Members of the European Parliament's Commission on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (JURI) submitted amendments to the European Commission's software patent directive proposal. While some MEPs are asking to bring the directive in line with Art 52 EPC so as to clearly restate that programs for computers are not patentable inventions, another group of MEPs is endorsing the EPO's recent practice of unlimited patentability, shrouded in more or less euphemistic wordings. Among the latter, some propose to make programs directly claimable, so as to ensure that software patents are not only granted but achieve maximal blocking effects. This latter group obtained a 2/3 majority, with some exceptions. We document in tabular form what was at stake, what various parties recommended, and what JURI finally voted for on 2003/06/17.

Europarl 2003/09 Software Patent Directive Amendments: Real vs Fake Limits:

The European Parliament is scheduled to decide about the Software Patent Directive on September 23rd. The directive as proposed by the European Commission demolishes the basic structure of the current law (Art 52 of the European Patent Convention) and replaces it by the Trilateral Standard worked out by US, European and Japanese Patent Offices in 2000, according to which all "computer-implemented" problem solutions are patentable inventions. Some members of the Parliament have proposed amendments which aim to uphold the stricter invention concept of the European Patent Convention, whereas others push for unlimited patentability according to the Trilateral Standard, albeit in a restrictive rhetorical clothing. We attempt a comparative analysis of all proposed amendments, so as to help decisionmakers recognise whether they are voting for real or fake limits on patentability.

Rocard/CULT 2002-12-09: Data Processing is Not a Field of Technology:

The chairman of the European Parliament's Cultural Affairs Commission (CULT), Michel Rocard, proposes amendments to the Software Patentability Directive which are intended to exclude patents on program logic and limit patentability to the field of engineering with forces of nature. Rocard aptly speaks the TRIPs idiom of the European Commission. Rocard's amendments constitute the first counter-proposal of an official EU institution where the content actually corresponds to the packaging. It is less ambitious than the FFII counter-proposal and leaves more loopholes. If enacted, it would preserve the systematics of the current law (Art 52 EPC) and thereby oblige the patent offices to achieve those very aims which hard-pressed patent politicians in Brussels, London, Berlin and elsewhere always say are theirs.

Plooij/ITRE Counter-Proposal: Publication and Interoperation do not Infringe:

The European Parliament's industry committee (ITRE) is working on a counter-proposal for the CEC/BSA software directive proposal, based on a draft by its rapporteur Elly Plooij Van Gorsel, a dutch liberal Member of the European Parliament (MEP). Plooij's first draft states that patents are not needed for protecting the interests of software creators and proposes to assure that programs can at least be freely distributed without any fear of patent liabilities. Moreover, any use of a patented method for the purpose of interoperability (compliance with de facto standards) is not considered to be an infringement. The proposal is strong on defininig these limits but stops short of correcting CEC/BSA misconceptions about "computer-implemented invention", "technical contribution" etc, thus leaving it undecided whether Amazon One-Click and the like are patentable inventions or not. Current law says they are not, but the European Patent Office (EPO) says they are, and the European Commission wants to bring the law in line with the EPO's position. The ITRE counter-proposal solves only part of the problem, but fellow MEPs in ITRE have tabled amendments. Some of these are designed to complete the solution, others to dismantle it.

McCarthy 2003-02-19: Amended Software Patent Directive Proposal:

Arlene McCarthy, British Labor MEP appointed by the European Parliament's Committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (JURI) to report on the European Commission's Software Patentability Directive Proposal (CEC/BSA Proposal), suggests that the European Parliament should enact the CEC/BSA version with additional safeguards to align Europe on the US practise and make sure that there can be no limit on patentability. McCarthy reiterates the CEC/BSA software patent advocacy and misrepresents the wide-spread criticism without citing any of it. Even economic and legal expertises ordered by the European Parliament and other critical opinions of EU institutions are not taken into account. McCarthy's economic argumentation consists of tautologies and unfounded assertions, such as that companies like Ericsson and Alcatel need software patents to finance their R&D, that SMEs need european software patents in order to compete in the USA, that patents are needed to keep developping countries at bay. McCarthy uses the term "computer-implemented inventions" as a synonym for "software innovations". These "by their very nature belong to a field of technology". McCarthy insists that "irreconcilable conflicts" with the EPO must be avoided. McCarthy says she wants to "set clear limits as to what is patentable" -- and that she wants to avoid the "sterile discussions" about "technical effects" and "exclusions from patentability". Yet her proposal stays confined to such discussions. McCarthy demands that all useful ideas, including algorithms and business methods, must be patentable as "computer-implemented inventions". McCarthy proposes to recognise the EPO as Europe's supreme patent legislator and to make decisions of a few influential people at the EPO irreversible and binding for all of Europe.

Arlene McCarthy 2003/09/01: "The Myths - The Truth":

In response to the wave of protests against the proposed software patent directive COM(2002)92 2002/0047 in late August 2003, the European Parliament's rapporteur for this directive, Arlene McCarthy MEP, has published a "Factsheet" which attempts to explain that she has been a victim of a "misinformation campaign" and is in reality championning the protesters' cause. We republish the paper with comments here.

UK Gov't Promoting Patent Extremism in the European Parliament:

The UK Government's Foreign Office is circulating a "briefing to UK MEPs", in which it instructs british members of the European Parliament to back Arlene McCarthy's position and vote (1) against any attempt to define what is technical or otherwise limit what is patentable (2) against Article 6a which allows converters to be written when standards are patented (3) for JURI Art 5 which forbids publication of descriptions of patented inventions on the Net. The intervention of the government comes at a moment where McCarthy has shown nervous reactions in view of dwindling support in her party group. The government statement can be attributed to the UK Patent Office and its policy working group, consisting mainly of patent lawyers from large corporations. This group has been determining the software patent policy of the UK and largely also of the EU during recent years.

US Gov't Promoting Patent Extremism in the European Parliament:

The "Mission of the United States of America to the European Union" in Brussels has sent a long paper "by the US", titled "U.S. Comments on the Draft European Parliament Amendments to the Proposed European Union Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions" to numerous members of the European Parliament. "The US" warns that Europe might fall afoul of the TRIPs treaty if it passes the proposed directive as amended by the Parliament. In particular, "the US" believes that conversion between patented file formats should generally not be allowed without a license, and therefore demands deletion of Art 6a. Moreover "the US" cites the same BSA studies and the same reasoning as found in the European Commission's directive proposal, and warns that any failure to wholeheartedly endorse patentablity of software in the directive might "adversely impact certain sectors of the economy", because "copyright does not protect the functionality of the software, which is of significant value to the owner", and that lack of clarity in the concept of "technical contribution" would lead to a continued need for negotiations with the US in WIPO and other fora. This warning comes shortly after a similar letter to MEPs from the UK Government. It is part of a US Government "Action Plan" to "promote international harmonisation of substantive patent law" in order to "strengthen the rights of American intellectual property holders by making it easier to obtain international protection for their inventions". This plan has been promoted aggressively by top officials of the US Patent Office in international fora such as WIPO, WSIS and OECD as well as through bilateral negotiations.

Wuermeling Promoting Fake Limits on Patentability:

The shadow rapporteur of the European People's Party, Dr. Joachim Wuermeling from Bavaria, has come under pressure. An international group of 32 EPP members, headed by Piia-Noora Kauppi from Finland, has submitted their own amendment proposals which effectively exclude software and business method patents from patentability and safeguard basic freedoms of competition, publication etc. Many EPP colleagues have started studying them on their own, without relying on their shadow rapporteur. At the same time, a demonstration is taking place in Munich today in protest of Wuermeling's policies. To this Wuermeling has reacted with a PR and a set of amendments. Both pay lipservice to the concerns of "open source companies and small developpers", but, upon close reading, only consist of redundant rhetoric which confirms the Trilateral Standard of the US, Japanese and European Patent Office of 2000, under which algorithms and business methods such as Amazon One Click Shopping are without doubt patentable subject matter. More important than these PRs and articles is the question of whether Wuermeling will support Kauppi's amendments in his voting list next week. These actually implement the goals to which Wuermling is paying lipservice.

McCarthy 2003/05/03: Software Patent Directive Proposal FAQ:

Arlene McCarthy, member of the European Parliament and rapporteur of the Legal Affairs Commission (JURI) on the Software Patentability Directive Proposal explains her point of view in a FAQ manner. She asked us to distribute this document to the participants of a conference which we organised in Brussels. In a nutshell, she says that

Software patents, as granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) at present, are needed for various reasons, e.g. protecting Europe against competition from Asia, allowing European SMEs to compete in the US, etc
The EPO is granting software patents but not patents on non-technical algorithms and business methods.
The current proposal is designed to ensure that the EPO's practise is followed throughout Europe in a uniform manner and that a drift toward patenting of "non-technical algorithms and business methods" is halted.

We debug McCarthy's questions and answers one by one. It seems that many of McCarthy's proclaimed objectives could be achieved only by voting in favor of a series of CULT, ITRE and JURI amendment proposals which unfortunately have not enjoyed the support of the rapporteur.

McCarthy 2003/06/12: Letter to the Guardian:

Arlene McCarthy, Member of the European Parliament for UK labour and rapporteur of the JURI committeee for the software patent directive proposal, has for the first time directly answered arguments from critics in a letter to the british newspaper The Guardian. Yet the basic questions, e.g. what should be patentable and how McCarthy's proposals achieve this, remain unanswered. McCarthy reiterates demagogic statements of whose untruth she is well-informed and even resorts to lies in the strictest sense of the term, such as saying that she introduced a provision to allow decompilation. McCarthy moreover attacks the GNU General Public License in an apparent effort to shift focus to unrelated subjects and incite flamewars with the free software community. We analyse McCarthy's fallacies and the political context of her letter.

MEP Arlene McCarthy 2002-06-19: Report on the CEC/BSA Directive Proposal:

In a democratic Europe, one would expect the legislative power, such as the European Parliament, to critically monitor the activities of the executive and judicial powers, such as the European Commission (CEC) and the European Patent Office (EPO), and to correct their shortcomings. The british Labor MEP Arlene McCarthy, as a rapporteur to the European Parliament's Committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Markt on the proposed software patentability directive COM(02) 92, however merely reaffirms the beliefs of the patent lawyers who have been dominating the dossier at the CEC and the EPO. McCarthy's report disregards the opinions of virtually all respected programmers and economists and fails to correctly identify the controversial issues. Yet at the end McCarthy asks a few questions which provide us with a certain hope that eventually a more open debate can be brought about. Please read our answers below.

McCarthy et al 2003/02/27 demanding "strong sanctions":

On 2003/03/27, MEP Arlene McCarthy published an appeal which calls for signatures to a letter that links copyright infringement to terrorism and calls for strong sanctions against "any infringement of intellectual property".

ESC 2002-09: Europe should reconfirm Non-Patentability of Software!:

The Economic and Social Council of the European Union, a consultative organ of experts from various fields, criticises the European Patent Office's software caselaw and the European Commission's proposal for a software patentability directive and asks the European Parliament to reject the proposal and instead ask for a reconfirmation of the non-patentability of software. This study met strong resistance from a group of supporters of the European Patent Office, but was in the end passed with a 2/3 majority.

Monopoly Commission 2002-07-08 report warns against software patents and CEC directive proposal:

The German Monopoly Commission, a consultative state organ loosely associated with the Federal Cartel Office and the Ministry of Economics, has published its 14th main report (Hauptbericht) about the state of concentration in the German Economy. This report warns that software patents stifle innovation and competition, points out that the practise of the European Patent Office is "incompatible with Art 52 EPC" and asks the German government to resist the European Commission's current attempts at legalising software patents.

DG IV Bakels 2002-06-19: The Patentability of Computer Programs:

A study on software patentability which was commissioned by the European Parliament's Research Directorate as a reference for deliberations about the European Commission's proposal to make all useful ideas patentable. Unlike most other studies commissioned by EU institutions, this one does not seek to hide the problems with software patents and takes a refreshingly undogmatic look. Bakels finds that the proposed directive fails on all its proposed goals (clarification, harmonisation etc) and contains numerous inconsistencies. Concerning the impact of software patents, Bakels finds that "it is crucial to change the long-standing tradition of patents being granted for relatively simple inventions". Yet Bakels offers no hints as to how this long-standing problem can be solved and does not properly assess how some other possible filters such as concreteness and physical substance (technical character) or "invention character" (laid out in Art 52 EPC) relate to it.

German Chamber of Commerce 2002/04/20, 10/04: against Software Patents and CEC Proposal:

Press release of the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce, which was sent via OTS to the press organs on 2002-10-04. In this short text and a preceding longer paper, attorney Doris Möller explains that software patents are undesirable and criticises the European Commission's Directive Proposal for failing to exclude software from patentability.

EUK/BSA Richtlinienvorschlag Logikpatente: Anmerkung von Roman Sedlmaier 2002/03:

Ein Münchener Rechtsanwalt zeigt Widersprüche im Richtlinienvorschlag der Europäischen Kommission zur Patentierbarkeit computer-implementierter Organisations- und Rechenregeln auf. Der Begriff der "Erfindung" in doppeldeutiger Weise gebraucht, die Prüfung des Vorliegens einer Erfindung werde systemwidrig mit der Frage der Erfindungshöhe vermengt. Indem die EU-Kommission zugleich eine "ganzheitliche Betrachtung" und deren Gegenteil, nämlich eine "Fokussierung auf einen technischen Beitrag", vorschreibe, verlange sie von einem Richter unmögliches. Durch diese und andere Ungereimtheiten schaffe der Vorschlag vor allem neue Unklarheiten und verfehle seine vorgegebenen Ziele. Sofern in Computerprogrammen Erfindungen gesehen werden, sei das Verbot von Programmanspüchen gemäß EU-Vorschlag angesichts Art 27 TRIPs wirkungslos. Wenn, wie von der EUK behauptet, der Begriff der Technischen Erfindung ständig im Hinblick auf Weiterentwicklungen der Technik im Fluss bleiben müsse, so könne es letztlich gar keine sinnvolle RiLi zu diesem Thema geben. Eine einheitliche Rechtsprechung lasse sich unter diesen Umständen nur durch Einrichtung eines höchsten europäischen Patentgerichtes erreichen. Ein Großteil der Patentjuristen, die sich mit dem EU-Vorschlag beschäftigt haben (z.B. BGH-Richter), seufzen hinter vorgehaltener Hand über die Widersprüchlichkeit und mangelnde handwerkliche Qualität des EUK/BSA-Entwurfs. Dem jungen Anwalt Sedlmaier kommt die Rolle zu, das unsägliche zu sagen, und die Patentanwaltskammer bietet ihm hierfür im März 2002 sogar eine Tribüne, die ihm Beachtung bis in die zuständigen patentjuristischen Abteilungen der Bundesregierung hinein sichert. Kollegen in Regierung und Verbänden fühlen sich dadurch ermutigt, aus der Reihe zu tanzen oder eine Abwartehaltung einzunehmen.

Unice/Eicta/ICC etc 2003/05/22: "Joint Statement of the Industry" for Software Patents:

In a "Joint Statement of the Industry", directed to the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), the presidents of various industry associations, including Graham Taylor from the "Open Forum Europe" as a representative of the Linux/Opensource world, asks the legislators to ensure

that computer programs are treated as patentable inventions and
programs are directly claimable, so that programmers can be sued for publishing a program.

Moreover, as means of "protecting opensource software", the signatories ask the European Parliament to ensure that

whenever an interface is patented, interoperable software may not be published or used without a license
business methods are patentable "only" to the extent that a computer or some other device is involved
the European Commission shall publish more papers (obituaries?) about the effects of patents on SMEs.

This statement was sent to many MEPs, together with accompanying letters from the patent arms of national industry associations. Traditionally industry associations have left patent politics completely to corporate patent lawyers, who typically form each association's "industrial property committee". This committee's papers are usually signed by the president of the association without further consultation of other committees. Gentle doublespeak with an ungentle insider meaning, as explained above, is also part of the game. What is unusual about the current letter is that an apparent "opensource community leader" was enlisted for the maneuver.

IV-net.at 2003/04/24: Letter to Austrian EuroMPs:

Stephan Maras, speaker for the Industrial Property Commission of the Austrian Industry Association IV-net.at, demands in the name of machine engineering and electronics companies that not only programmed industrial processes but also pure data processing programs must be directly patentable and claimable as texts. MEP Malcolm Harbour (UK, PPE/Conservatives) will table an amendment which allows text claims. Moreover Maras asserts that copyright is suitable only for poems, whereas in the case of computer programs it is easy to circumvent -- mere translation from C to Perl is enough. Maras sent this statement to Austrian MEPs together with a "Joint Statement of Industry" from major european associations which argues in the same sense.

BDI 2002-04-15 zum EUK/BSA-Entwurf: die Industrie will keine Patentierungsmöglichkeiten einbüßen:

Hiermit nimmt der Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI) zu dem knapp 2 Monate zuvor von der Europäischen Kommission vorgelegten Entwurf einer Richtlinie über die Patentierbarkeit computer-implementierter Organisations- und Rechenregeln Stellung. Der BDI sollte satzungsgemäß die Meinung seiner Mitgliedsverbände bündeln. In der Stellungnahme ist von deren durchaus uneinheitlicher Meinungsbildung jedoch überhaupt nicht die Rede. Es werden auch nicht Interessen von Unternehmen artikuliert. Stattdessen finden sich nur Maximalforderungen der Patentbranche wieder, die mit abstrakten Begriffen über abstrakte Begriffe in einem esoterischen Jargon des Europäischen Patentamtes sprechen und dabei häufig noch über die eigenen Abstraktionen stolpern. So werden z.B. Formulierungen der Kommission, die auf eine möglichst weite Patentierbarkeit zielen, als Einschränkungen der Patentierbarkeit verstanden und bekämpft. Das einzige Interesse der Industrie besteht laut BDI-Papier darin, keinerlei Möglichkeiten der Patenterlangung und -durchsetzung zu verlieren. Die Sicht der von Patentdickichten belasteten und bedrohten Unternehmen kommt ebenso wenig zur Sprache wie die (unter Patentjuristen allgemein unbekannte) volkswirtschaftliche Kritik am Patentwesen und seiner Ausdehnung.

CEC & BSA trying to impose unlimited patentability on Sweden:

In a statement submitted to the Swedish Ministry of Justice on behalf of SSLUG, a group of 6100 programmers and users of free software in the area around Copenhagen and Malmö, Erik Josefsson shows how an influential group at the European Commission and the European Patent Office has eroded the standards of patentability and is trying to impose a regime of patentability on all achievements of the human mind that can help to solve some practical problem. This influential group has also, by overstretching the competence of the EPO's Technical Boards of Appeal, illegally overruled the Swedish courts and damaged the Swedish constitutional order. Even in their most recent decisions in the mid-nineties, the Swedish courts did not agree with the EPO's illegal practice, but now the European Commission is set to force this practice on Sweden by means of "european harmonisation". It was the duty of the EPO to abide by a role of "cold harmonisation" in the first place: act as a conservative follower and summarizer of national caselaw rather than as an innovative trendsetter pursuing its own agenda. Josefsson cites ample examples of patents granted by the EPO and rejected by Swedish courts.

Alliance of 2,000,000 SMEs against Software Patents and EU Directive:

An alliance representing a total of 2,000,000 small and medium-sized businesses in Europe says that software patents are harmful for SMEs and that in particular the software patent directive proposal as amended by the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Commission is a grave risk for innovation, productivity and employment in Europe.

Linus Torvals & Alan Cox 2003/09/22: Letter to the European Parliament:

explains dangers of software patents and chances of the European Parliament to save Europe from these dangers this week, recommends that MEPs should support the voting recommendations of FFII.

CEU/DKPTO 2002/09/23..: Software Patentability Directive Amendment Proposal:

The Council of the European Union (CEU) proposes to rewrite some articles of the CEC/BSA proposal of 2002/02/20 in order to take into account various criticisms made by national delegations to the Council's Intellectual Property Working Party, a workgroup consisting of delegates from national patent administrations. This counter-proposal was worked out by the delegates from Denmark, i.e. from the Danish Patent Office (DKPTO), which are presiding over the workgroup during the second half of 2002. The paper is the subject of decision at the Working Party's session on 2002/10/03 in Brussels. We present the paper in tabular comparison with the original CEC/BSA proposal of 2002/02/20. It becomes evident that the DKPTO proposal, while strengthening the rhetorical emphasis on the "technical contribution", creates additional ambiguities and in effect further widens the scope of patentability.

France 2002-03-01: EU Commission Directive Proposal Unacceptable:

The french government has crticised the CEC/BSA Software Patentability Directive Proposal at the European Internal Market Council's meeting of 2002-02-28, in which commissioner Bolkestein explained this proposal to the patent policy representatives of the European Union's member states. France expressed dismay about the proposal's apparent failure to outline a clear limit on patentability, to critically assess the economic effects of the EPO's recent practise, to take serious research into account and to provide a valid rationale in view of european public policy targets such as those laid down in the e.Europe plan. Industry minister Christian Pierret immediately published this position in a press release.

Noël Mamère 2002-20-28: Let's just delete the "As Such" clause!:

The Presidency Candidate of the French Green Party joins the Socialist Party and his fellow contender Jean-Pierre Chevènement in general rejection of software patents and specifically criticises the software patentability directive proposal of the European Commission of 2002-02-20, demands a return to a strict adherence to the EPC and a removal of the much-abused "as such" clause from the EPC and its French equivalent, asks the French government to act firmly based on the principles agreed upon recently by the Socialist Party, says that asserting the law against an illegal patent court practise is of highest political priority because constitutional freedoms are touched and the prosperity of the software industry in Europe is under threat.

Dutch Labor Party 2002-02-20: Criticism of EU Software Patentability Proposal:

Dutch Labor Party criticises that the European Commission's draft in no way fulfills the Dutch Parliament's demands for strict patentability standards and on the contrary is cause of concern and necessitates a lot of sharp questions, which the government should ask Bolkestein. The PVdA position is based on the recommendations of a joint work group of the largest software industry association FENIT.nl and the Opensource Association VOSN.nl

Tauss 2002-03-12: Germany must say No to CEC/BSA Proposal and EPO Practise:

Jörg Tauss, president of the New Media Commission of the German Federal Parliament and in charge of Media and Education in the Social Democratic Party (SPD)'s Parliamentary Fraction, has written a letter to his party colleague and minister of justice Prof. Herta Däubler-Gmelin. Tauss asks Ms Däubler-Gmelin to opppose this proposal as resolutely as she opposed the planned modification of Art 52 EPC in november 2000. This proposal, Tauss says, merely enshrines a highly questionable practise of the European Patent Office (EPO). There is indeed a need for legislating at the EU level on the limits of patentability, Tauss says, but the EPO practise is the problem, not the solution. Software patents seem harmful for innovation, incompatible with Europe's strategic interests, dangerous for open source software, less than helpful for proprietary software companies including such bing players as SAP, serving mainly the interests of a few american monopolists behind BSA. The minister should not be fooled by false assertions about the TRIPS treaty. The TRIPS treaty is a reason to embrace the strict definition of technical invention (teaching about physical causalities), according to which software does not constitute or belong to a "field of technology". Tauss founds his explanations on an expert hearing which he together with colleagues from all parties in the parliament conducted in June 2001. It seems that he represents a consensus position shared at least by most of the members of the parliamentary subcommission on the New Media. This is confirmed by all publicly known statements given by other MPs so far. The German Government should take a position similar to that of France and of the German Ministry of Economics (BMWi), Tauss says. The latter has not been published yet, but it is known that there is widespread skepticism about software patents in the BMWi.

Bundestag 2002-05-14: CDU/CSU Enquete about Software Patents:

Nachdem die Bundesregierung lange Zeit geschwiegen und auch die öffentliche Anfrage ihres Medienexperten MdB Jörg Tauss nicht beantwortet hat, fragt die unionschristliche Opposition unter Federführung ihres Medienexperten MdB Dr. Martin Mayer die Bundesregierung, ob der Brüsseler Richtlinienvorschlag ihrer Meinung nach der Förderung von Innovation und Forschung dienlich und hinreichend klar gefasst ist. Wie schon anlässlich seiner Anfrage vom Herbst 2000 gelingt es Mayer, im wesentlichen klare Gedanken zu fassen. Allerdings weist der Text auch Unzulänglichkeiten auf, die wir in dieser Rezension aufzeigen.

DE Green Party: CEC patentability proposal harmful:

While the german government has not found a clear position on software patents and has been named as an ally by patent lobby circles in Brussels, the delegates for economic and media policy of the parliamentary group of the Green Party, junior ally of the Social Democrats in the governing coalition, has published a declaration which unambiguously rejects the Brussels draft. It says inter alias

The directive draft of the European Commission is heading for the wrong direction. Software patents impede innovation, free software developpers, Open Source and SMEs. ... The Commission has, without giving due consideration to the economic studies which were presented to it, published a premature law proposal.

In principle, the Green Party welcomes the opportunity to clarify the legal situation:

We have in thepast witnessed a silent erosion of the legal provisions against patenting software. Therefore we must now again clarify that software is not patentable. Continued legal insecurity is damaging to enterprises.

Software development does not fall into the category of inventing but rather of skillful development of large works, just as the term suggests. It makes no sense to extend a legal instrument designed for technical inventions into the area of software, which is what the EU Commission's proposal actually does.

Tauss 2003/06/27: Brief an sozialdemokratische Europarlamentarier:

MdB Jörg Tauss macht die Kollegen in der SPD-Fraktion darauf aufmerksam, dass der mit Unterstützung von Rothley u.a. verabschiedete JURI-Beschluss große Gefahren birgt und erheblicher Nachbesserungen im Plenum bedarf, die Zeit erfordern.

EPO 2002-06-21: report to SACEPO on CEC/BSA proposal:

The European Patent Office (EPO) presents a preliminary position on the proposal for a European Directive on the patentability of software innovations and asks its Standing Advisory Committee (SACEPO), a council consisting mainly of corporate patent lawyers, for expression of opinions. The EPO paper refers to the Eurolinux campaign as a "fundamentalist" position promoted by a "strong lobby". It points out that the CEC/BSA proposal is largely but not completely based on EPO positions and names some points where further clarification would be helpful. It also explains the state of deliberations in the Council Working Group and the European Parliament and discloses that the EPO has a seat on the "council working party on intellectual property" as a delegate of the European Commission. The Eurolinux Alliance wonders why it cannot have a seat on this "working party" and on SACEPO.

ESC 2002-09: Europe should reconfirm Non-Patentability of Software!:

Monopoly Commission 2002-07-08 report warns against software patents and CEC directive proposal:

DG IV Bakels 2002-06-19: The Patentability of Computer Programs:

German Chamber of Commerce 2002/04/20, 10/04: against Software Patents and CEC Proposal:

EUK/BSA Richtlinienvorschlag Logikpatente: Anmerkung von Roman Sedlmaier 2002/03:

Unice/Eicta/ICC etc 2003/05/22: "Joint Statement of the Industry" for Software Patents:

that computer programs are treated as patentable inventions and
programs are directly claimable, so that programmers can be sued for publishing a program.

Moreover, as means of "protecting opensource software", the signatories ask the European Parliament to ensure that

whenever an interface is patented, interoperable software may not be published or used without a license
business methods are patentable "only" to the extent that a computer or some other device is involved
the European Commission shall publish more papers (obituaries?) about the effects of patents on SMEs.

IV-net.at 2003/04/24: Letter to Austrian EuroMPs:

BDI 2002-04-15 zum EUK/BSA-Entwurf: die Industrie will keine Patentierungsmöglichkeiten einbüßen:

CEC & BSA trying to impose unlimited patentability on Sweden:

Alliance of 2,000,000 SMEs against Software Patents and EU Directive:

Linus Torvals & Alan Cox 2003/09/22: Letter to the European Parliament:

explains dangers of software patents and chances of the European Parliament to save Europe from these dangers this week, recommends that MEPs should support the voting recommendations of FFII.

30 Scientists 2003/05: Petition against Software Patent Directive:

30 famous computer scientists sharply criticise the European Commission's proposal to legalise software patents in Europe.

Economists 2003/08: Software Patent Directive based on Faulty Reasoning:

A group of economists who study patent questions criticise the rationale with which Arlene McCarthy MEP and the European Commission's Internal Market Directorate their proposals for a European Directive "on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions".

noticias de actualidad economia laboral sindicatos convenios de CCOO federacion de servicios financieros y administrativos Comfia

Public letter by Spain's largest Trade Union asking for rejection of directive

Des acteurs de l'édition électronique en France s'opposent aux brevets logiciels

Letter by a group of well known french software creators opposing software patents and the proposed directive.

Libération - Rebonds : Dominique Foray: Le brevet, un corset pour le logiciel

French economist Dominique Foray explains why software patents are bad for software development and criticises the directive for its faulty economic reasoning.

Heise News-Ticker: 1&1 will EU-Richtlinie zur Softwarepatentierung verhindern

reports about a public letter by the German Internet Service Provider 1&1 against the proposed directive

Computerworld Polska - Walka trwa

Jozef Halbersztadt in Poolish journal about the directive

Magix: Patent-Altlasten gefährden Mittelstand in Europa

Magix, a medium-size german software company, is worried that the directive will legalise a lot of lethal patents.

taz 11.9.03: Peter Muehlbauer: Lizenz zum Gelddrucken

Report in german newspaper

ITworld.com - E.U. software patent opponents turn up lobbying

McCarthy's private journalist Paul Meller extensively interviews McCarthy with criticism of the tactics of the software patent opponents, however acknowledges that they have increasingly won the mainstream and "may be getting their act together" now.

08-09-2003 Decision about Software-Patents postponed

SME Union reports:

The EU-Directive about software-patents which was proposed by Commissioner Bolkestein was not discussed by the European Parliament, like it was scheduled in the plenary session of last week. Due to enormous oppositions and objections from representatives of small and medium sized enterprises, the European Greens and the Social Democrats, the discussion about the report of commentator McCarthy, which was already accepted by the legal committee, was scheduled to the next plenary session from 22 to 26 September.

Supporters of the EU-Directive bring forward that legal security will increase and a unification of the presently different legal positions in several member states will arise. The objectors, on the other hand, fear an enormous aggravation for the European medium sized enterprises. The design of new software would be limited. As the EU-Directive is similar to regulations in the United States of America big enterprises would try to avoid the competition.

summary of newspaper coverage regarding SME aspects

from SME Union website, see also

Summary by SME Union of British Study on SMEs from 2001

Original of this study

see Tang, Adams, Paré 2000: Patent Protection of Computer Programs

futurezone.ORF.at: Echerer und Berger

Interview of FutureZone with Austrian MEPs from Greens and PSE, both of whom see the directive very critically.

vnunet.com Small developers fear EU software patents

vnunet.com EU software patents vote delayed again


Software Patents > Reviews > CEC/BSA 02-02-20 > Positions
CEC/BSA 02-02-20	Positions	JURI 2003/04	ESC 2002/09	CEU/DKPTO 2002/09	30 Scientists

CEC & BSA 2002-02-20: proposal to make all useful ideas patentable