[Gllug] Re: EU Software Patent Legislation (urgent)

[Chris Bell]

Hello,
   Another reply received.



On Tue 08 Jun, Sarah Ludford (LON) wrote:
> 
> Dear Mr Bell,
> 
> Thank you for contacting me expressing your concerns about the European
> Commission's proposal for a Directive on the patentability of
> computer-implemented inventions.
> 
> The Liberal Democrats addressed this issue in the Liberal Democrat IT policy
> paper "Making IT Work" which was adopted at our Spring Conference in 2003.
> This made it clear that we are sceptical about the application of patents in
> the software field. We state that we would "support continued widespread
> innovation in software by resisting the wider application of patents in this
> area." The full policy paper may be of interest to you and can be read in
> the policy section of
> 
> our website at:
> http://www.libdems.org.uk/index.cfm/page.folders/section.policy/folder.policy_papers
> 
> This issue has remained high on the agenda of Richard Allan MP, the Liberal
> Democrat Information Technology Spokesman at Westminster, who has been
> campaigning actively for the Directive to be amended. He has raised this in
> correspondence and meetings with the relevant Ministers and liaised with us
> in the European Parliament and campaign groups.
> 
> Most recently, Richard lobbied Jacqui Smith MP as the Minister representing
> the UK at the Council of Ministers to seek to persuade her to reconsider the
> Government's support for a draft of the Directive which seems to us too
> pro-patent.
> 
> The European Parliament adopted its first reading on the draft Directive
> last September. The concerns of small firms and programmers were taken into
> account during our consideration of this proposed legislation.
> 
> MEPs recognised that, due to the tendency in the USA to allow the patenting
> of computer software, there is a pressing need for legal certainty in this
> area through introduction of EU legislation. Small and medium-sized
> enterprises in particular have been concerned that patenting will restrict
> their ability to write new and better software without infringing the rules.
> At the same time, SMEs will also benefit from the legal protection that will
> 
> be established by this Directive.
> 
> The European Parliament voted to strictly limit patents to new inventions
> only, rather than computer programs as such, in an effort to take a balanced
> view of the Commission's proposal. The Parliament's position would ensure
> that patents in the field of computer engineering will 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".
> 
> Equally importantly, the Parliament proposed tightening up the rules on what
> cannot be patented. So a computer-implemented invention shall not be
> regarded as making a 'technical contribution' merely because it involves the
> use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus - or because it
> improves efficiency in the use of resources within the data processing
> system.
> 
> After the adoption of the Parliament's first reading, the proposal passed to
> the Council for consideration. In its Common Position of 18 May, the Council
> accepted some of the Parliament's amendments including those regarding the
> conditions and exclusion of patentability. According to the Council's
> position, a computer program as such cannot constitute a patentable
> invention. The patentability definition is the same as proposed by the UK
> Liberal Democrats, (already stated above).
> 
> Since the proposed Directive comes under the co-decision procedure, both the
> Parliament and the Council have to agree on the final text. Thus the
> Parliament will have another opportunity, in a second reading, to examine,
> accept or amend the Council's proposal. It is expected that the text will
> not come back to the Parliament for the second reading until late 2004 or
> early 2005 because of the work to be done by the 'jurists-linguists', the
> specialist staff who get the translations and legal terminology right. At
> this point the legislation will be re-opened to amendments. If there is
> still no agreement between the Council and the European Parliament after the
> second reading, the proposal will go to a Conciliation procedure (face to
> face negotiations between the three EU institutions).
> 
> I will continue to follow this issue by liaising with my MEP colleagues on
> the relevant committee when MEPs return to the Parliament after the
> elections in June. You could also address your concerns to the British
> government whose ministers and representatives sit in the Council.
> 
> Thank you once again for contacting me about this matter.
> 
> Yours sincerely
> 
> Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP
> 
> Liberal Democrat MEP for London
> 



-- 
Chris Bell

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug