[gileschichestermep-j9T/[email protected]

Hi all,

I received this the other day. I've now received it from two Tory MPs, so it
appears to be the standard party line. Looks like they're going for the
Council version without amendments.

I've already sent him a reply, but if anybody has links to handy locations
for countering their arguments, it'd be much appreciated.

----- Forwarded message from Giles Chichester <gileschichestermep-j9T/[email protected]> -----

From: Giles Chichester <gileschichestermep-j9T/[email protected]>
To: Paul Walker <[email protected]>
Subject: Software patents
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:45:20 +0100
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000

Thank you for your email of 23rd May regarding the European Union Directive
on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (software patents).
The European Commission published the draft Directive in February of last
year as it become increasingly clear that European law on patenting software
needed to be clarified. The aim of the Directive is to set out and defend
the status quo in Europe following changes to the patent system in the USA
and also planned for Japan. There is a clear intention across the EU Member
States to see that Europe does not follow the USA and Japan in allowing
widespread patent availability for software and business methods. Copyright
will remain the principal method of protecting intellectual property in
these cases. Conservative MEPs in the European Parliament supported the
general line that the Commission took. This builds on and clarifies the
existing patent law across the European Union and makes it clear that only
software which forms part of a technological process will be patentable.
This will allow patents to be provided for genuine technical inventions and
stimulate European economic development in areas of economic strength like
mobile telephony, digital television and computer controlled machine tools
to name just a few possibilities. Such an approach would be compatible with
national patent laws in the Member States and international treaties
including TRIPS.

The Directive originally proposed by the Commission set a fair test for
software (deciding whether it has a technical effect) before authorising a
patent. Under their proposal, any technical invention in a field outside
software could have been patented and it did not make sense for technical
inventions, which happened to use computers to be excluded from the system.
Conservatives supported the Commission's proposal because we believe that
codification of the existing position would also have avoided raising
complicated issues of the validity of existing patents across Europe or
allowing current unpatentable technologies to claim new patents. This would
have allowed European businesses the chance to develop ideas with certainty
as to their legal position. It would also have reduced the pressure from
companies holding permissive American software patents that wished to gain
an extension of their patent rights in Europe. We did, however, support a
number of amendments to clarify the text and ensure that generic software
patents were specifically excluded.

The European Parliament voted on the Commission's proposal at the end of
last year. It approved the principle of a clarifying directive by a
substantial majority, thus moving the proposal to its next stage of
negotiations between the EU Member Governments (Council) and the European
Commission. The political objectives of providing the EU with a patent
regime that explicitly excluded software and business processing was clearly
established. However the Parliament also approved a wide range of amendments
to the proposal, with the laudable intention of ensuring that patents would
only be available for inventions incorporating software as party of a
technical contribution. However many of these amendments would render the
Directive completely unworkable and greatly restrict the scope of the
original proposal. It is important to recognise that this Directive is
intended to clarify the existing EU patents regime, and is not, of itself a
free-standing piece of legislation. Many of the amendments would introduce
new concepts into the law covering all patents and also extend patent
restrictions to new ranges of products where innovations can quite
justifiably, be protected at the moment.

The Directive has now moved to the Council where the Governments of the
Member States are amending it. Their negotiations are confidential but they
are expected to propose a text close to the position which the European
Commission bought forward originally and similar to the pragmatic approach
which Conservatives support. We will continue to press the Commission and
Council to produce a revised proposal that will achieve its political
objectives, be fully compatible with existing patent law, and provide a
clearly understood regime for inventions. In the next Parliament, we will
not hesitate to propose further amendments that will safeguard Europe's
approach to generic software patents.

Yours sincerely,

Giles Chichester MEP


----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Paul

     Few things are more dangerous than a hobbit with low blood sugar...