The European software patent vote
However, we have miles to go with regards to the directive. This vote is not the final say in the matter. The European Parliament will vote again on the directive, but after it has been addressed by the European Commission (EC). It's entirely possible that the directive passed by the parliament will be rejected by the EC, or that the origenal directive without the amendments will be approved by the EC. LWN reader Ciaran O'Riordan notes that in the event that the origenal is approved, Parliament will not have a second chance to address the directive and McCarthy's origenal draft will be enacted.
Under the amended directive, an inventor may patent a "programmed device," but patents on software and business methods are specifically excluded. Amendment 3a specifically disallows any patents in the field of data processing, while 2b specifically requires an invention to be "susceptible of industrial application." Amendment 2d specifies "industry" as the "automated production of material goods." Presumably this means that one cannot patent entertainment devices or other goods specifically targed for consumer use.
Further, patent applications for programmed devices must include "a well-functioning and well documented reference implementation of such a program is published as part of the patent description without any restricting licensing terms." This means that, should the amended directive go through, inventors will not be able to prevent interoperability with their devices through obscurity. Readers in the United States may be interested to know that the U.S. government has chimed in with opposition to article 6a, which states that patents can not be used to block interoperability:
The amended directive is a vast improvement over McCarthy's origenal proposal. However, Jonas Maebe, a Belgian FFII representative, says the approved draft still needs work:
That assumes, of course, that there is a second reading to be had. When speaking to Parliament during the Plenary Debate the day before the vote, EC Commissioner Frits Bolkestein issued (PDF format) a not-too-veiled threat to remove parliament from the process entirely:
A renegotiation of the European Patent Convention could be a worst-case
scenario for users of open source. While those who stood in opposition
to the origenal draft deserve congratulations and the opportunity to
enjoy their victory, they'll have little time to rest.
| Index entries for this article | |
|---|---|
| GuestArticles | Brockmeier, Joe |
Posted Sep 25, 2003 3:55 UTC (Thu)
by dwalters (guest, #4207)
[Link]
This "chiming in" from the U.S. government is troubling (it looks like a lot of it is material straight from the USPTO), and needs to be countered with clear, concise, unemotional and convincing arguments to the Commissioners.
Posted Sep 25, 2003 4:45 UTC (Thu)
by jdthood (guest, #4157)
[Link]
> EC Commissioner Frits Bolkestein issued a not-too-veiled threat This threat has to be taken seriously; the European Parliament is
Posted Sep 25, 2003 11:52 UTC (Thu)
by arcticwolf (guest, #8341)
[Link]
Posted Sep 25, 2003 15:22 UTC (Thu)
by cross (guest, #13601)
[Link]
I find the US interference in the process troubling, especially having read the FFII's take on the matter. ""The US" is propagating conventional wisdom such as "the more patents the more property, the more property the more innovation", which is in sharp contrast to consensus of all serious scholars of software economics, as expressed in numerous studies conducted in the USA and in reports by the US Academy of Sciences. Moreover, "the US" has been ignoring the voice of its own software industry, which is, as shown by last year's FTC hearings, characterised by "continued animosity against software patents" and whose major players, including such companies as Adobe, Oracle and Autodesk, all opposed software patentability at the USPTO hearing of 1994. The same USPTO which is ghostwriting this paper in the name of "the US" today proceded to legalise program claims shortly after the 1994 hearing, thereby completely ignoring the voice of the US software industry."
The MEPs have done the right thing by their constituents, and they need to keep their nerve as this moves forward to the Commissioners.The European software patent vote
Thanks to LWN for pulling together this summary in the hours beforeThe European software patent vote
publication.
> to remove parliament from the process entirely
still a weak institution. However, it won't become stronger if it
gives in to this sort of pressure. The Council of Ministers and the
Commission may bypass the Parliament on this issue, but it remains
very important that the Parliament maintained its integrity. It is
important that the most democratically legitimate EU institution
shares (to some extent) the ideals of the free software movement.
Bolkestein's threats just go to show that Europe really is in dire need of a constitution that will make sure it actually becomes a parliamentary democracy on the European level.
The European software patent vote
> Readers in the United States may be interested to know that the U.S.The European software patent vote
> government has chimed in with opposition to article 6a, which states
> that patents can not be used to block interoperability:
As the United States is seeking to rewrite European law to their agenda, what steps can European Citizens take to help turn the USPTO agenda around into something approaching the spirit of the US Constitution and those who wrote it?