Question: So, is software patentable or not...

[Seth Johnson]

There are signs that the letter writing campaign has had the effect of
getting some Ministers to stand up to their Patent Office reps.  The
Commission folks (and UK PTO) who conceived the hare-brained notion of the
"clarification of practice" that would clarify nothing while ratifying the
EPO's bogus practice, wanted a fast track approach, on the theory that many
amendments would not survive a second reading in the EU Parliament.  But
some national Ministers want to examine the amendments in detail.

Seth Johnson

Bernhard Kaindl wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote:
> 
> > Yes, it is a loaded question, but what is the general consensus towards
> > the final wording of the patent law and whether software is effectively
> > disqualified.
> >
> > I also noted that some of the wording in the law may effectively make
> > algorithms also not patentable -- such as the MP3 algorithm.  Is this
> > way off base, or has Franhaufer just lost their source of income?
> 
> No, they have lost nothing, nothing is finally decided yet. We are at
> a point in an EU law making process which is called co-decision procedure
> which could go on for quite some time and involve quite some steps before
> a final decision is reached.
> 
> The most exact descripton I've read so far is the Co-decision Guide of
> the Council: http://ue.eu.int/codec/en/EN.pdf
> 
> It's found on the codecision info/status page of the council:
> http://ue.eu.int/codec/en/
> 
> Which I linked from a greater info page on the law procedure:
> http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/EULawMakingProcess
> -> It also contains shorter explanations but they are less correct.
> 
> Right now, we've just passed the 1st reading in the European parliament
> in this process. It was an important step but nothing which is not
> reversible by the council.
> 
> Even if a text like the current one would be put into law, Fraunhofer
> would not loose it's source of income because a) it should have other
> sources of income as well and b) it currently depends on the interpretation
> of the European Patent Convention by the national courts if somebody
> has to pay a license fee. If they would interpret it in a way which
> says that an algorithm is not patentable, they would not have got
> much money from patent licenses in this country. And all thus EU
> stuff does also not directly affect the money which they get from
> US and Japanese patents.
> 
> I think the council has a very strange role now:
> 
> The group in the council prepares it's position on this law is some
> intellectual property group which is composed from delegations from
> all the national patent offices.
> 
> This group already had the law proposal in it's hands, the FFII has
> a page which details what it did:
> 
> http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/dkpto0209/
> 
> So it looks to me that this "EU-PTO" group is even more dangerous
> with regard to holes on this directive because they obvoiusly(logically)
> want to give all the power to the patent offices, as it can be
> interpreted from the changes described at the FFII page above.
> 
> It can be guessed that this group will propose some changes which
> introduce some holes into the proposal, probably more or less along
> the lines what JURI voted to have ammended in June, which would
> be really bad, but what else can we expect from a closed council
> group of patent office delegations?
> 
> I think we must point out that what they will propose will very
> likely be a very biased statement towards unlimited patentability
> (hidden) or at least give the patent offices the power to interpret
> the law like some patent offices, at least the EPO, has done so far.
> 
> To me this looks like to ask the people which are known to change
> their interpretation of the current legal framework(the EPC) how
> they like and make more money from it(the EPO makes good revenue!)
> by granting more patents it if they are happy with a new law which
> restricts their ability to interpret it like they did and loose much
> revenue.
> 
> I hope the position of the Council, at least in it's second reading,
> will not be determined by this group(but ATM, it seems to be) or
> a text which reduces the income of the patent offices will not be
> adopted.
> 
> This is purely wishful thinking (*dreaming again....*) but maybe
> with good work on the national press and national parliaments, the
> national ministers which should have the final say in the council
> would have their own opinion...
> 
> Bernhard
> 
> Whatever you do will be insignificant,
> but it is very important that you do it
>                   -- Gandhi
> 
> You can find your local organisation for helping here:
> http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/PatentInformationLeafletsLinks
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.