reply from Elspeth Attwooll MEP on Software Patents

In addition to one at: http://kwiki.ffii.org/?LtrAtwooll040604En
here is reply I received from Elspeth Attwooll MEP which seems to be 
taking on board 'weakness' of existing draft more than above.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	EU directives relating to software: your opinions and voting 
intentions
Date: 	Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:30:54 +0200
From: 	Elspeth Attwooll <[email protected]>
To: 	<[email protected]>



Dear Micah
Thank you for your email regarding my personal position and that of the 
Liberal Democrat party on the proposed EU Directive on the patentability 
of computer-implemented inventions. On my understanding, the purpose of 
the Directive is to regulate the patenting of things like mobile phones, 
robots etc “driven†by a computer code and to limit the activities of 
the EU Patent Office, which seemed to be moving toward allowing the 
patenting of software as such.
You correctly note that the Liberal Democrat party has made it clear 
that we would "support continued widespread innovation in software by 
resisting the wider application of patents in this area." The LibDems 
are in favour of increased legal certainty in the EU. We believe that a 
balance needs to be struck between the needs of small business on the 
one hand, to protect their inventions - and big business, on the other, 
from patenting everything to the exclusion of competitors. This has 
guided our approach to the legislation during its passage through the 
European Parliament.
The European Parliament voted its first reading on the proposal in 
September 2003 where amendments were adopted to strictly limit patents 
to new inventions only. The Parliament's position would harmonise 
current practice in the European Patents Office, and ensure that patents 
in the field of computer engineering would be issued on the same basis 
in all EU Member States. Specifically, the UK Liberal Democrats 
supported an amendment to the definition, so that "In order to be 
patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be susceptible of 
industrial application and new and involve an inventive step. In order 
to involve an inventive step, a computer-implemented invention must make 
a technical contribution". The principle was accepted by the Council of 
Ministers when it adopted its common position on 18 May, but the wording 
has been watered down by them. The Council also ignored some 80% of 
Parliament’s amendments, mostly concerned to prevent the patenting of 
software as such.
Personally, whilst I was not present to vote in September, I would have 
supported the Parliament’s overall position as all but a handful of 
British MEPs did. As such I will clearly take part in the Parliament’s 
discussions over which amendments it may wish to re-table, or indeed 
strengthen, at second reading. I think that the lack of a definition of 
what constitutes a “technical contribution†does seem to be a weakness 
in the current text and ought to be clarified by MEPs at second reading. 
As I have already said to a number of other experts (including from the 
academic world) who have been in contact with me it would thus be useful 
to be able to work constructively with you to find a wording that could 
protect innovation. If you have views on this, I would be delighted to 
receive them if I am re-elected.
I hope that this information is of use and that it might persuade you to 
vote Liberal Democrat in the forthcoming election.
Yours sincerely,
Elspeth Attwooll MEP
 >>> Micah <micah-2OsJi7fB6u9HTQclIs5VblaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> 06/05/04 03:40 >>>
Dear Elspeth Attwooll MEP,
[...]
//