FI via the EDRi list.
Teresa
-------- Original Message --------
I hope somebody uses their spam-tool to the max... >:-/
V.
http://campaignforcreativity.org/camp4creativity/action_brussels.htm
After three years of exhaustive discussions, the majority of the 25 EU governments have (almost) reached agreement on a common position on the Directive on the continued patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions.
This common postition will soon be formally approved and sent to the European Parliament so that the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) can give their opinion.
It is important that the MEPs know that you support the position of the national governments and that they receive copies of the Campaign’s position paper on the Directive.
The members of the Parliament are divided into three main political groups: The Christian Democrats/Conservatives; the Socialists and the Liberal and Democratic Alliance. There are also a number of smaller political groups including the Greens and nationalists. Members from across the political spectrum support the Campaign for Creativity’s objectives.
We want to make sure that they all know that there are a huge number of us in the creative industries that support the Directive and want to see it passed in a form that will protect, encourage and reward innovation in the IT sector.
You can do this by either seeking a meeting with the MEPs, writing a letter to them or using our site to send an email. Meetings are the most effective way of demonstrating your support, but sending a letter or an email is also effective.
We have prepared a draft email for you to send (it will take less than a minute we promise). Start be selecting an option below:
* send an email to all targeted MEPs * send an email to Christian Democrat / Conservative MEPs only * send an email to Socialist MEPs only * send an email to Liberal MEPs only
You can also write your own letter and attach a copy of our position paper on the Directive which you can read and print off by clicking here.
Please take a few minutes to send an email to either all the relevant MEPs, or those who represent your political views most closely.
http://campaignforcreativity.org/camp4creativity/ Campaign for Creativity Position Paper on the Directive on the continued patentability of computer implemented inventions.
The draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions
Summary The Campaign for Creativity supports the continued patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
We therefore support the Political Agreement reached by the Council in May 2004. This Council position confirms the existing practice of the European Patent Office, which has served European inventors and consumers well. The Council’s Political Agreement incorporates nearly half of the amendments proposed by the previous Parliament in its first reading, while avoiding the most harmful amendments, which would damage innovation in one of Europe’s most dynamic sectors.
Some claim that patents are unnecessary and that copyright would suffice. In fact copyright protects the actual code in which software is written, but patentability protects the function, or action caused by the software. This functionality cannot be protected by copyright. Only patents can do that.
We urge the Parliament to support the Council’s Political Agreement in the second Reading on the Directive. Please reject any new amendments and remove those that damage the future of Europe’s innovators.
The directive is good for Europe’s competitiveness.
Points to note
The Directive applies to a wide range of industries
The Directive applies to a vast range of industries, in many of which Europe leads the world. Telephones, domestic appliances, aircraft, cars: Europe’s leading position in these industries has been built on patents, abolishing or restricting patents will damage or abolish this lead.
Computer Implemented Inventions are already patentable Computer implemented inventions are currently patentable. The currents system works very well. It stimulates competition, innovation and creativity and ensures that consumers have a wide range of products to choose from. There is no need to change the current approach. There is no evidence from our European experience that the system is failing or that damage is being caused.
The draft Directive does not extend patentability
In the first reading, opponents of the Directive lead many MEPs to believe that the Directive would expand patentability and that this would represent a problem in future. Neither of these views is correct and neither can be supported by evidence. The Commission was quite explicit about its desire to simply clarify and codify existing practice. We support this objective.
The Directive will encourage innovators A number of the amendments proposed by MEPs in the previous Parliament would alter the current system and tightly restrict the patentability of computer implemented inventions. Such restrictions would send a powerful signal to innovators in Europe – it would indicate that they should take their talent to the United States or other places where their inventions would be protected.
The Directive will strengthen SMEs Small and medium sized companies would be particularly damaged by a weakening of patent laws in the Union. Often under-resourced and small, these fledgling companies need all the protection they can get. A brilliant invention with weak or no legal protection is likely to be stolen by larger or more established competitors.
A positive position from the Parliament would encourage, reassure and protect SMEs.
The Directive would stimulate investment
Investment would become easier as investors would know that the innovation they are supporting would continue to be protected and that the law supported the inventor.
The Directive reinforces the Charter of Fundamental Rights
Article 17 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights states that intellectual property will be protected. We urge the Parliament not to compromise this important right.
The Directive would support the principles of patentability Inventions are patentable so long as they meet the four basic criteria of patentability: Industrial application (i.e. they can be used), technical character, that the invention is new and that an inventive step has been made. An invention therefore, even if implemented by a computer, is and should continue to be, patentable.
Patent law must continue to be technologically neutral. This is a principle that European law has long upheld and must be upheld. There is no justification whatsoever for different standards to apply to different sectors – inventors working in the information technology sector should not be discriminated against. It would be unfair and unjustifiable.
Weakening the Directive would damage Europe’s international competitiveness Abolishing patentability would put Europe in the unique position of being the only advanced economy in the world where computer implemented inventions could not be patented. Our competitors in the United States, Japan, China, India and other places will continue to protect their innovators. European companies will be uniquely exposed, vulnerable and likely to have their best inventions stolen.
Please reject unfair and incoherent amendments The previous Parliament introduced some amendments that are frankly unfair and even incoherent. They discriminate against innovators in the technology sector and would create great legal uncertainty,
An example of this “technological discrimination” from the first Reading is the amendment which states: “processing, handling and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes” (amended Article 2b).
Another amendment states “data processing is not considered to be a field of technology within the meaning of patent law”.
Finally in Article 3a of the previous Parliament’s position, it states “innovations in the field of data processing are not considered to be inventions within the meaning of patent law”.
The previous Parliament’s Article 6a would make it impossible for companies that develop new solutions to data communications to patent their inventions and would make many of the current patents worthless.
Why is Parliament proposing these seemingly arbitrary and discriminatory amendments? Why are inventions in these areas not to be protected in future?
The absence of a rational, fact-based and coherent logic underpinning certain of the proposed amendments is confusing and a source of worry for innovators. It means that small and medium sized companies will be unsure as to whether their inventions are and will continue to be protected; forces them to seek ongoing and expensive legal advice; creates a disincentive for investment; and damages confidence.
Conclusion
Innovation is occurring at an unprecedented rate. Europe is in the forefront of many technologies, our information technologies industry consists of thousands of innovative, dynamic and highly competitive companies producing thousands of products that make all of our lives easier and more rewarding.
We sincerely urge the Council and Parliament to embrace the Political Agreement agreed in May this year. It is a reasonable compromise and deserves support.
Contrary to what opponents of the directive would want you to believe, the directive as intended by Council and Commission does not stifle freedom, in fact it does the opposite.
This is not a Left – Right issue. It’s not, and must not become, a battle between the institutions. It is about ensuring that innovators have the freedom to choose to use patents to protect their intellectual effort. _______________________________________________ edri-ip mailing list edri-ip@mailman.edri.org http://mailman.edri.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/edri-ip