Most recent full copy of Directive on patentability of computer implemented inventions

Xavi Drudis Ferran xdrudis at
Wed Aug 13 21:50:43 UTC 2003

El Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:22:07PM +0100, Niall Douglas deia:
> What the MEPs seem to want is in short, succint terms, what 
> amendments should they call for? In my view, patenting the 
> implementation not idea could actually be a good idea and in the 
> worst case scenario, it won't make things really awfully worse.

What the MEPs want is 2 small amendments that please everyone. That 
is impossible. There are just too many holes in it. Yet it is 
their responsability to fix it. If it takes many amendments then 
that's it. I'm sorry, I didn't write the CEC proposal, so don't blame it. 
The FFII has some amendment proposals. This is not necessarily the 
only way to fix it, but it is very easy to fail in fixing it.
They have always the option of rejecting the directive, if fixing 
it is too much work.
> I appreciate your comments on patents plus all the FSF have written 
> about the matter. But it's all useless - you all speak of "software 
> patents" being bad full stop period. A MEP might know that and even 
> agree, but the EU is *mandated* to enforce software patents. 
> Therefore, you are fighting a war which cannot be won.

This is wrong, to say it politely. Who do you think is mandating 
anything to the EU but itself?. 

> Instead you should accept that the EU *shall* have software patents, 
> and this fight is all about making software patents as least damaging 
> as possible. Therefore you should be proposing alternative forms of 
> software patent ie; not Arlene McCarthy's proposal.

Software patents are as absurd as saying pi equals 5.6. There is 
nothing you can do to make them less harmful without making them 
worthless to applicants. But we discussed a bit about that some time 
ago, didn't we?.
> To differentiate, I use "US-style software patent" for anything which 
> patents the idea behind a program. These must be avoided at all 
> costs. I then propose a new and improved form of software patent 
> patenting the implementation, one a MEP can debate for in their 
> plenary session.

That's probably either meaningless, or more likely worthless for 
patent applicants. The only way for software patents to do that 
is to turn them in a more expensive and less lasting copyright. 

There's a bit about it lost somewhere in

> You all might be interested that the SME group in the EU parliament 
> is very worried about the proposed directive but their proposed 
> amendments aren't much use. Irish MEP Avril Doyle is on that 
> committee and I am liasing with her wrt to tabling amendments. If the 
> SME committee could come behind these amendments, they have a much 
> louder voice than any one MEP or party.

Since you don't mind commenting that on a public list, would you 
mind discussing the precise text of the amendments you would like?. 
Is the SME committee an EP committee ? I thought it was some other
group of MEPs. Anyway, are you aware that one MEP cannot table
amendments in plenary?.

Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis at

More information about the Discussion mailing list