Organisationen und Softwarepatente:

Which institution played which role in the struggle about software patents in Europe and elsewhere

WIPO and UN negotiation rounds of patent lawyers:

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is dedicated to promoting "intellectual property" related myths and to "harmonising" the relevant laws of various countries in order to establish a worldwide uniform patent system at the level of international law. This means that innovators will be entitled to worldwide patent protection at very favorable conditions, and, as a consequence, all states will be obliged under international law to accept low patentability standards as an unalterable reality, regardless of whether this serves to promote the progress of science and the useful arts or not. WIPO has already gone a long way toward this goal. After the TRIPS treaty of 1993, a Substantive Patent Law Treaty is about to mandate unlimited patentability with strict limitations on patent quality.

Trilateral Project:

Working group of the major patent offices and related government officials, influential in framing patent policies at a world level, which are often used as an argument to reinterpret and change national patent laws.

Association Internationale Pour la Protection de la Propriété Industrielle (AIPPI):

AIPPI defines itself as an "association of patent lawyers, patent owners and other users of the institutions of industrial property". Indeed most actors of the patent world are members of AIPPI. In Vienna in 1997 AIPPI passed a resolution demanding the legalisation of software patents in Europe. In 2001 in Melbourne there was an AIPPI resolution proposal for worldwide patentability of business methods (unclear whether accepted or not). In 2002 an AIPPI paper submitted to WIPO demands worldwide patentability of software and business methods.

Fédération Internationale des Conseillers en Propriété Industrielle:

Ein traditionsreicher Weltverband, ähnlich wie AIPPI aber auf Patentanwälte beschränkt. Auch FICPI nimmt zu politischen Themen Stellung und verabschiedet regelmäßig Resolutionen, die darauf zielen, das Patentwesen weiter auszubreiten.

Union Européenne des Conseillers en Propriété Industrielle:

Die UNION tagte im Dezember 1997 im Europäischen Patentamt zum Thema Patentierbarkeit von Computerprogrammen. Dabei forderten die meisten Redner eine generelle Patentierbarkeit von Computerprogrammen. Hierzu wurde auch ein Tabungsband und eine Resolution verabschiedet.

Software Patents in Various Countries:

Governments are usually the staunchest supporters of the patent system and its expansion. This is because patent policies tend to be determined by governmental patent experts who form a community among themselves that could be characterised as a state in the state. We try to give an overview of the national patent establishments in Europe and the world.

Patentbewegung in der Europäischen Union:

An overview of the European patent establishment and its strongholds in various EU Institutions

Aktivitäten der Patentbewegung im Namen der Europäischen Kommission:

The Directorate General for the Internal Market of the European Commission is completely under the tight control of the patent movement, especially its british section. The careers of the Industrial Property unit cadres are confined to the patent establishment. They would take a personal risk if they deviated from the very narrow ideology generated by decade-long organisational in-breeding within the patent institutions. Moreover, the European Commission needs (or believes that it needs) the EPO's support in order to carry out its ambitious plans of installing a Community Patent and therebey transferring power from Munich to Brussels. It has been buying this support by offering to give the EPO a carte blanche for software patents. This policy of the DGIM makes some people in DG Infosoc and other Directorates unhappy, but these people have so far not formed a serious counter-weight.

PbT Consultants:

"PbT Consultants Ltd" was awarded at least two study contracts by the European Commission, which were written by Steward Davidson, PbT Consultants, UK. "PbT Consultants" is otherwise unknown on the Net. "IBM Business Consulting Services", formerly known as "PwC Consultants", was awarded a major study contract in 2003. Steward Davidson used an ibm.net email address in his first "PbT Consultants" contract. He is also said to be a former employee of the European Commission. While PwC was a conglomerate of 30000 consultants, PbT appears to be a small independent consultancy, possibly with an IBM background.

Den Rat beeinflussen:

Collect and Provide Information on who makes the policies of the Council on patents and information infrastructure issues and how to best contact these people.

Europa-Parlament und Softwarepatente:

The European Parliament has less rights than a national parliament. Most importantly, it cannot itself propose legislation and it has only a negative voting power that again cannot block all EU legislation projects. However it has the right to block the CEC/BSA software patentability directive proposal, and it has used this right in September 2003.

ESC and Software Patents:

The Economic and Social Council of the European Community (ESC) is a consultative organ which unites experts and scientists from various fields and drafts working papers or opinions for the co-deciding organs of the European Union (CEC, CEU and Europarl) to consider. In Sep 2002/09 it produced a report that is very critical of the CEC software patentability directive and demands a rewrite which should take the interests of SMEs and free software into consideration and formulate proper policy goals.

Europäisches Patentamt: Hoch über dem Gesetz:

The European Patent Office finances itself by fees from the patents which it grants. It is free to use a certain percentage of these fees. Since the 1980s the EPO has illegally lowered the standards of technicity, novelty, non-obviousness and industrial applicability and abolished examination quality safeguards so as to increase the number of granted patents by more than 10% and the license tax on the industry by 26% per year. As an international organisation, the EPO is not subject to criminal law or taxation. The local police's power ends at the gates of the EPO. High EPO officials have inflicted corporal injury on their employees and then escaped legal consequences by their right to immunity. The work climate within the EPO is very bad, leading to several suicides per year. The quality of examination reached a relative high in the 80s but has after that been deteriorating, partly because the EPO had to hire too many people too quickly for too low wages. Examiners who reject patents load more work on themselves without getting more pay. Examiners are treated by the EPO management as a kind of obstacle to the corporate goal of earning even more patent revenues. The high-level employees of the EPO owe their jobs to political pressures from within national patent administrations and do not understand the daily work of the office. The EPO has its own jurisdictional arm, consisting of people whose career is controlled by the EPO's managment, which again is strongly influenced by industry patent lawyers (on the Standing Advisory Committee (SACEPO)) and by the Office's internal climate. The national organs that are supposed to supervise the EPO are all part of the same closed circle, thus guaranteeing the EPO managment enjoys feudal powers beyond constitutional legality, and that whatever they decide is propagated to the national administrations and lawcourts.

The UK Patent Family and Software Patents:

The United Kingdom's patent matters are run nearly exclusively by the UK Patent Office which has been a relentless promoter of software patentability in Europe since the 1970s.

Softwarepatente in Deutschland:

Institutions of the German Patent Movement

BMJ: Ängstlicher Vorreiter der Patentinflation in DE und EU:

Für alle Gesetzgebung im Bereich des Patentwesens ist innerhalb der Bundesregierung das Bundesministerium der Justiz (BMJ) zuständig. Das BMJ unterhält in seiner Abteilung für Industrie und Handel ein eigenes Patentreferat. Zum Geschäftsbereich des BMJ gehören ferner das Deutsche Patent- und Markenamt (DPMA), das Bundespatentgericht (BPatG) und der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH). Zu all diesen Organisationen und auch zum Europäischen Patentamt (EPA) hin bestehen innige personelle Verflechtungen. Das BMJ-Patentreferat ist personell schwach ausgestattet und verlässt sich daher auf EPA, DPMA und andere Patentbewegungs-Institutionen. Die Karierre der BMJ-Beamten verläuft häufig innerhalb des Patentwesens. Sie folgen im allgemeinen (aus Gewohnheit) wortgetreu deren (von wenigen Instanzen beschlossener) herrschender Meinung und beschränken die argumentative Auseinandersetzung meist von vorneherein auf grammatische Fragen. Innerhalb der Bundesregierung und des Europäischen Rates vertreten sie energisch die Interessen der Patentanwälte führender Großkonzerne und in zweiter Linie der Patentinstitutionen. Sie verbitten sich Einmischungen "fachfremder" Personen (einschließlich BMWi, Abgeordnete) in ihren Kreis und begegnen diesen durch Ignorieren oder sonstige Diskussionsverhinderungsstrategien. Auch von tausenden von Personen unterzeichnete Briefe an das BMJ-Patentreferat (Dr Welp) blieben bisher unbeantwortet.

Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt und Softwarepatente:

Das Deutsche Patentamt griff selten sichtbar Initiativen für die Absenkung der Patentierbarkeitsstandards. Es überließ dies meist dem EPA oder dem BGH. Doch seine Vertreter feuerten in Fachzeitschriften die inflationäre Entwicklung an. In seinen Presseerklärungen feiert das Patentamt wiederum die Ergebnisse dieser Inflation unkritisch als "positives Signal für den Standort Deutschland". Das DPMA steht im Wettbewerb zum Europäischen Patentamt (EPA) und muss um des eigenen Überlebens willen bei jeder Absenkung der Patentierbarkeitsstandards mitziehen. Es ist offensichtlich diesem eigenen Überlebensinteresse viel stärker verpflichtet als dem Interesse der Innovation in Deutschland. Organisatorische Inzucht fördert diese Tendenz: praktisch alle hohen Funktionäre des DPMA stammen aus der Patentbewegung, so z.B. aus dem BMJ-Patentreferat oder aus dem DPMA selber.

Gesetzeswidrige Wirtschaftspolitik des BGH-Patentsenates:

Patent Senate of the German Federal Court

Bundespatentgericht:

In den 60er Jahren aus dem Deutschen Patentamt herausgeklagt, seitdem institutionell einigermaßen unabhängig (zumindest formelle Reste der Abhängigkeit sind noch vorhanden). Zwei Senate beschäftigen sich mit Softwarepatenten. Bis um 1973 tendierte das BPatG zu einer laxen Haltung, danach kam eine Wende. Der 17. Senat bemüht sich bis heute, das Gesetz anzuwenden und Softwarepatente zu vermeiden, verweigert dabei regelmäßig EPA und BGH die Gefolgschaft. Der 21. Senat, der mehr für Elektronik zuständig ist, neigt unter seinem Vorsitzenden Wilfried Anders zu einer grenzenlosen Ausweitung der Patentierbarkeit und greift dabei sogar EPA und BGH gelegentlich vor. Patentanwälte und Richter haben Wege gefunden, möglichst auch Fälle, die nichts mit Elektronik zu tun haben und eigentlich in die Zuständigkeit des 17. Senates fallen würden, dem 21. Senat zu übergeben.

Patent Lobbyism and Scripture Erudition in the name of Max Planck:

Das Max-Planck-Institut für Internationales Patent-, Urheber- und Wettbewerbsrecht in München, neuerdings auch als "Munich Intellectual Property Law Center" (MIPLC) oder "Kaderschmiede in der Hauptstadt der Patentbewegung" (KHPB) bekannt, betätigt sich seit Jahren als rechtspolitischer Wegbereiter des Privatbesitzes an allen Geisteserzeugnissen, die sich irgendwie beanspruchen und verwerten lassen. Insbesondere der Lehrstuhl für Gewerbliche Schutzrechte ist eng mit EPA, AIPPI, Großunternehmen und allen Schaltstellen der Patentbewegung in der Bundesregierung, der Europäischen Kommission und bei den Vereinten Nationen verflochten. Ratschlüsse des Europäischen Patentamtes sind für Prof. Straus und Kollegen eine Quelle der Erkenntnis, die es zu ergründen und zu predigen, niemals aber an volkswirtschaftlichen oder sonstigen Zweckbestimmungen zu messen gilt. Als Max Plancks Kollege Ernest Rutherford die Wissenschaft in "Physik vs Briefmarkensammeln" einteilte, verspottete er damit diejenigen Gelehrten, denen nicht primär an der Erforschung objektiv überprüfbarer Zusammenhänge gelegen ist. Es gibt jedoch einen informellen Maßstab, an dem MPI-Gelehrte ihre oft willkürlich anmutenden Schriftauslegungen orientieren: die Wünsche der "Wirtschaft", d.h. der zusammen mit Straus im Beirat des Europäischen Patentamtes (SACEPO) vertretenen Großkonzern-Patentjuristen, unter denen sich wiederum nicht wenige Alumni und Gönner des MPI finden.

GRUR -- Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht:

Auch "der Grüne Verein" genannt. Ein Verein von Immaterialgüterjuristen, die eine auf ihrem Gebiet im deutschsprachigen Raum führende Fachzeitschrift gleichen Namens herausgeben. Der Umschlag dieser Zeitschrift ist grün.

Deutsche Patentanwaltskammer:

Verband des Berufsstandes der deutschen Patentanwälte. Gibt die Zeitschrift "Mitteilungen der Deutschen Patentanwälte" (MDP) heraus und hat einen Softwarepatente-Arbeitskreis unter Leitung des auf Software spezialisierten Patentanwaltes Markus Hössle. Sowohl in der Verbandszeitschrift als auch in diversen Resolutionen hat sich die Patentanwaltskammer für eine grenzenlose Ausweitung der Patentierbarkeit und insbesondere für die Streichung des Ausschlusses von Computerprogrammen im EPÜ/PatG eingesetzt. Dabei wurde bisweilen auch behauptet, die Gegner der Patentierbarkeit kämen alle aus dem Lager der Opensource-Software, die nicht innovativ und volkswirtschaftlich unbedeutend sei. Allerdings vertritt der Chefredakteur von MDP, PA Reimar König, einen weitaus kundigeren Standpunkt und lässt auch ketzerische Meinungen zu Wort kommen.

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit (BMWA, früher BMWi) und Softwarepatente:

== Neues und Chronik

Die Hochschul-Patentbewegung:

Hundreds of universitarian "technology transfer agencies" are putting brakes on the diffusion of technology with help of patents. The taxpayer finances the creation of monopolised knowledge goods and then later pays about 10 times as much for the monopoly costs as the university can hope to gain from patent royalties. An atmosphere of tension between researchers and patent bureaucrats is created. The macro-economic reasons for the existence of a public research sector are neglected and a second-rate competition to industrial research is instead created and alimented by the taxpayer. Some day in the future this may save the state some money, says the lobby that gets the newly created posts in the patent bureaucracy. This lobby has its own governmental agencies on its side, of which the best known one in Germany is the "Patent Offensive" in the Ministery of Education and Research.

Die Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft als Bastion der Patentbewegung:

Mit ihren MP3-Patenten hat die Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft ein Vorbild für relativ anspruchsvolle und zugleich lukrative Softwarepatente geschaffen, durch die der Staat bei der Finanzierung von Forschungsinstituten ein wenig entlastet wird. Dieses Modell ist zwar nicht unproblematisch und auch nicht ohne weiteres beliebig ausweit- und wiederholbar, aber es ist zu einem Erfolgssymbol der Patentbewegung im Hochschulbereich (s. BMBF) geworden. Die Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft betreibt zugleich eine zentrale Patentstelle für die deutschen Hochschulen, die eine ähnliche Pilotfunktion ausübt. Das Fraunhofer-Institut für Innovationsforschung verfasst regelmäßig auf Bestellung des BMBF Gutachten, in denen die unfortschrittliche Methodik der Softwarebranche beklagt und die patentorientierte Fraunhofer-Forschung als Hoffnungsträger dargestellt wird. Ihre Pilotfunktion in der Hochschul-Patentbewegung verleiht den Fraunhofer-Leuten ein starkes Sendungsbewusstsein.

CDU/CSU und Softwarepatente:

Im Europa-Parlament nahmen die CSU-Abgeordneten Dr. Joachim Wuermeling und Angelika Niebler ab November 2002 sichtbar eine Vorreiterrolle bei der Verfechtung der grenzenlosen Patentierbarkeit und maximalen Blockierwirkung von Patenten im Bereich der Software ein. Sie gefielen sich in der Pose vermeintlicher Patentexperten, die alle Anfrager darüber belehrten, dass ihre Sorgen unbegründet seien und die Richtlinie eigentlich nur der Begrenzung der Patentierbarkeit diene. Gegenströmungen innerhalb der Bundes-CDU konnten keinen Einfluss gewinnen. Bei der Abstimmung im Europa-Parlament am 24. September votierten die meisten CDU/CSU-Abgeordneten für Wuermelings Extremposition und gegen die Empfehlungen der CDU-nahen Verbände kleiner und mittlerer Unternehmen (SME Union) und der Kollegen konservativer Schwesterparteien aus anderen europäischen Ländern. Auch bei anderen Themen des Immaterialgüterrechts agieren "Experten" aus dem Europarl-Rechtsausschuss wie Wuermeling und Niebler erfolgreich als Relais der Großkonzernlobbies innerhalb der CDU/CSU.

SPD und Softwarepatente:

Mit Internet und Informatik befassten Abgeordneten der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands (SPD) wie MdB Jörg Tauss, MdEP Evelyn Gebhardt u.a. haben mehr oder weniger entschiedenen Widerstand gegen die Legalisierung von Softwarepatenten geleistet, während andere wie MdEP Willi Rothley (stellvertretender Vorsitzender des Europarl-Rechtsausschusses) sich für möglichst unbegrenzte Patentierbarkeit im Sinne der Praxis des Europäischen Patentamtes stark machten. Bei der Abstimmung vom 24. September 2003 war die SPD-Fraktion im EU-Parlament gespalten. An der Spitze der Befürworter grenzenloser Patentierbarkeit stand Erika Mann, die noch wenige Monate zuvor als Meinungsführerin der Patent-Kritiker hervorgetreten war. Tauss präsidierte als Bildungsexperte über die Einführung des Hochschulpatentgesetzes. Innerhalb der SPD-Bundestags-Fraktion sind neben der Arbeitsgruppe Neue Medien auch der Rechtsausschuss und der Wirtschaftsausschuss mit der Softwarepatente-Frage befasst. Der Abgeordnete Dr. med Wolfgang Wodarg hat sich kenntnisreich gegen Genpatente engagiert. Die Justizministerinnen Herta Däubler-Gmelin und Zypries schienen bis 2003 im wesentlichen die Interessen ihres Apparates nach außen zu vertreten, d.h. sie betrachten das Patentwesen als ihre eigene Politikdomäne, in die sie sich durch keinen offenen Dialog hineinreden lassen wollen, und folgen im wesentlichen den Vorgaben der Patentämter und ihrer Beiräte aus Industrie-Patentanwälten. SPD-Parteisekretär Müntefering äußerte gegenüber dem DMMV, man sei gemeinsam mit diesem für Softwarepatente. Der Virtuelle Ortsverein (VOV) der SPD hat besonders klare Standpunkte gegen die Patentierbarkeit von Rechenregeln bezogen, und die SPD-Bundestagsfraktion hat sich organisiert mit dem Thema befasst. Zwar überwiegt dabei eine kritische Haltung, aber im Ergebnis konnten die Patentjuristen durch wenige rhetorische Verstellungen ihre Positionen behaupten und die SPD-geführten Bundesregierung auf einen Kurs der grenzenlosen Patentierbarkeit bei maximaler Blockierwirkung bringen und dort halten.

FDP.de and Logic Patents:

Am 25. Mai 2004 stellte die FDP einen Entschließungsantrag im Bundestag, der sehr klar gegen die Patentierbarkeit von Software und für die Position des Euorpäischen Parlamentes in dieser Frage Stellung nimmt. Die Meinungsbildung in der FDP reflektiert weitgehend die Meinung in Verbänden von KMU und Freiberuflern. In Zeiten geringer Beschäftigung mit dem Thema haben Patentanwälte (auch eine Freiberuflergruppe) einigen Einfluss. Auf ihrem Düsseldorfer Parteitag vom Juni 2001 spricht sich die FDP dafür aus, das geistige Eigentum an Programlogik auch künftig ausschließlich über das Urheberrecht zu regeln und kritisiert Bestrebungen, Programme als solche patentierbar zu machen. Zugleich verspricht sie sich viel von Biopatenten und setzt auf flächendeckenden Einsatz von Kopierschutztechniken an Stelle der GEMA-Gebühren. Die FDP ist neben den Grünen die einzige Partei, die zum Thema Softwarepatente eine Position beschlossen hat. Während sich der Düsseldorfer Beschluss noch als Formelkompromiss deuten lässt, fand die FDP im September 2000 und im Frühjahr 2003 unmissverständliche Worte gegen die Patentierung von Software.

Die Grünen und Softwarepatente:

Im Sommer und Herbst 2000 bezogen Bündnis90/Die Grünen deutlich gegen die Patentierung von Rechenregeln Stellung und halfen mit, Druck auf die Regierung auszuüben, um die geplante Änderung von Art 52 EPÜ zu verhindern. Während es bei den anderen Parteien in führenden Positionen Juristen gibt, die eher der Autorität von Patentämtern und Gerichten als den Argumenten der Patentkritiker trauen, kann man bei den Grünen mit einer ungeteilten Ablehnung von Logikpatenten und einer Bereitschaft zur offenen Kritik am Europäischen Patentamt rechnen. Die Grünen sind die einzige Partei, die ihre Ablehnung von Softwarepatenten durch einen Parteitagsbeschluss und durch wiederholtes öffentliches Engagement bekräftigt hat. Im Europäischen Parlament waren die Grünen diejenige Fraktion, die am aktivsten mit den Kritikern der Softwarepatentrichtlinie zusammenarbeiteten. Die Bundesgrünen taten hingegen praktisch nichts, als die Patentbeamten der Bundesregierung im Ministerrat im Herbst 2002 und nach dem September 2003 zusammen mit Kollegen anderer Länder auf maximale Patentierbarkeit und Patentdurchsetzbarkeit hinwirkten.

PDS und Softwarepatente:

Angelika Marquard hat sich im Namen des PDS-Fraktion gegenüber der Presse mehrfach deutlich ablehnend gegenüber allen Plänen zur Legalisierung von Softwarepatenten geäußert. Insgesamt interessiert sich die PDS aber nicht stärker als andere Parteien für die Belange der informationellen Infrastruktur oder für Medienpolitik. Es hat einzelne mehr oder weniger erfolgreiche Versuche gegeben, das Thema in die PDS zu tragen. Dabei weckt das Faszinosum "OpenSource" offenbar mehr Interesse als die Auseinandersetzung um die Grenzen der Patentierbarkeit. Die PDS-nahe Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung unterstützt das Oekonux-Projekt, welches freie Software als "freie Kooperation" begreift und nach Wegen zur weitergehenden Überwindung der Markt- und Warenwirtschaft sucht. In wie weit solche "Plattformen" Einfluss auf das politische Handeln der PDS gewinnen können, bleibt unklar.

Softwarepatente in den USA:

Corporate patent lawyers and lawyers in general wield great influence in the United States. One Japanese book is titled "Litigating a Country to Death -- The United States of America". Like in Britain, the patent system ran out of control rather early in the US. In the 80s, this was partially reinterpreted as an american national "pro-patent" policy by which Japan and east-asian tiger states could be kept at bay. The US has been and is allowing patent lawyers to determine its policy in multilateral rounds such as WIPO as well as in bilateral negotiations. These patent lawyers have, without much regard for US national interest, been using the muscle of the US government in order to press other countries into allowing patentability of everything under the sun according to US standards. At WIPO, the US is pushing for a Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT) which rules out any limitation on subject matter and threatening to walk out if this is not achieved. Be it WIPO, WSIS or OECD, wherever unlimited patentability is not the target, the US delegation boycotts the work and instead relies on bilateral muscle-flexing. Jordan signed a bilateral agreement with the US in this sense in 2000. Japan was heavily lobbied and followed in every detail, even to extent of passing a law that obliges Japan to push for software and business method patents worldwide. US pressure has made itself felt in Europe, so that many, including French president Chirac, have spoken about a strategic need to resist the US pressure. Whether this US pressure is really based on US national interest may be doubted. But without doubt the USA is in the position of the early adopter of software patentability. While others were still not taking the (illegal) expansionism of their local patent offices seriously, software patents became -- very much against the will of most US software businesses -- firmly entrenched in the USA, leaving US companies no choice but to adapt. About 2/3 of the European (illegal) software patents are in US hands, and many at the US companies (and at some large european companies who are active in the US market) would like to be able to leverage their assets in Europe also.

Patent Inflation in Japan:

Japan, although a world champion in the number of patents, has been rather passive in the patent inflation movement. The patent officials in the government bent their patent law in reaction to pressures from the US government and the local patent lawyers. The subject was hardly discussed anywhere. Prof. Konno of Tokyo University has tried to prevent the patent inflation movement by publications and even by appealing to the highest courts. In early 2002 his last appeal was rejected by the supreme court on the grounds that he as an individual was not entitled to sue the Japanese Patent Office (JPO).

Poland and Software Patents:

Poland has taken a conservative approach to patenting and explicitely defined the "technical invention" as "use of forces of nature" in its patent law, and the Polish Patent Office (PPO) has been reluctant to grant software patents. Yet the choir of patent lawyers from large IT companies in combination with local patent lawyer interests, which has been chanting the "TRIPs requires software patents" and "We must follow the EPO practise" tunes, has had effects in Poland as well. The "forces of nature" provision was recently deleted from the Patent Law. Meanwhile of the 35000 EPO software patents identified by FFII, only one belongs to a polish applicant, and that one is not even a software patent in the strictest sense. It is clear that the Polish local patent lawyers are not chanting Polish local tunes.

Czechia:

land-sk:

Hungary:

/swpat/gasnu/swpatlt/index.en.html:

/swpat/gasnu/swpatlv/index.en.html:

/swpat/gasnu/swpatee/index.en.html:

Indonesia and Software Patents:

Indonesia has, like other South-East-Asian nations, been pressed into the TRIPs regime by WTO in the late 1990s. The European Patent Office has carried out "developmental aid" in this region.

China:

Russia:

Australia and Software Patents:

Australia has traditionally been skeptical of patents. The patent system and in particular its expansion into software and business methods were pushed on Australia by uncontrolled judicial developments and trade treaties with the US. The subject flared up again in 2004 thanks to the AU-US Free Trade Agreement and some new decisions on business methods.

India and Software Patents:

Indonesia has, like other South-East-Asian nations, been pressed into the TRIPs regime by WTO in the late 1990s. The European Patent Office has carried out "development aid" in this region.

Denmark, DKPTO and Software Patents:

The Danish government has left patent matters almost completely in the hands of the Danish Patent and Trademark Office (DKPTO), which has been one of the most vigorous promoters of the patent faith and of software patentability in Europe. Their activity includes efforts to rush the CEC/BSA software patentability directive through the Council of the European Union (CEU) and to worsen it by introducing program claims, and publishing "expert opinions" which claim that no innovation would happen without patents and that patents are beneficial even for the development of free/opensource software, placing the Danish EU Presidency of 2002 under the slogan "Growth, Prosperity and Patents" and lobbying for EU subsidies to a proposed insurance for patent owners.

Software Patents in Sweden:

How Policies on Software Patents are determined in Sweden

Software Patents in Finnland:

Between 1998 and 2003 the Finnish Patent Office (FiPO/FiPRH) did not follow the European Patent Office's (EPO) decisions to grant literal claims to information objects such as "computer program product, characterised by ...". In 2003 the FiPO suddenly rushed to grant such claims, although both the European Commission and the European Parliament had proposed not to allow them and the existing laws clearly forbid them. The FiPO based its decision merely on the fact that the FiPO itself had participated in pushing the "European Council's Patent Working Party", a group of national patent administrators, to propose that such claims be accepted. Thanks to Nokia, Finnland is one of the tallest software patenting dwarfs at the EPO. Nokia owns about 70-80% of the finnish software patents at the EPO and is said to wield overwhelming influence on Finnland's politics. Nokia's patent department has been intensively lobbying for software patentability in Helsinki, Brussels and Strasburg.

Portugal e as Patentes de Software:

Portugal, a nation whose citizens own none of the 30,000 software patents granted by the EPO as of summer 2003, has formed a "national consensus" in favor of software patents and of the EU directive proposal. This consensus was reached by a consultation exercise conducted by the Portuguese Patent Office (INPI) in 2001. Back then the INPI sent a pro-software-patent letter to 33 senior corporate executives, and received 6 responses, all of which applaud the INPI viewpoint. In summer 2003 MEP Ilda Figueiredo conducted another hearing which showed a large consensus of portuguese software companies against software patents. Impressed by this, INPI launched a second round of consultations.

Les Brevets Logiciels en France:

The french government understands well that software patentability is harmful to the interests of France and has documented this understanding by political interventions from time to time. Yet, in general, France's patent policy is in the hands of the French Patent Office (INPI), whose representatives regularly hold the government's policies in contempt and follow only the consensus of the European Patent Organisation. Recently, the Raffarin government has softened its stance of opposition to software patentability. All advisors who have acquired a knowledge of the dossier were dismissed and instead a person of trust of the patent movement was entrusted with patent policy. In Raffarin's election district, a major public infrastructure project called Lunapark is said to be financed by Microsoft.

Software Patents in Greece:

Patent Policy in Greece has been dominated by the Greek Patent Office. Even now, resistance seems to be coming only from Linux user groups. The number of greek signatories to the Eurolinux petition is among the lowest, far behind Poland. Greece's software industry seems to be among the weakest, and Greek companies have very nearly zero software patents at the EPO. Yet the Greek patent office firmly believes that "in the long term" austerity policies pay off. In 2000, the Greek patent administrators were among those who most firmly insisted on having "programs for computers" deleted from Art 52 EPC. In 2002 in the Council's talks they took a somewhat more cautious approach but ultimately followed the lead of UK and DE patent administrators in proposing to extend patentability beyond the scope of what the European Commission had foreseen. In May 2003, greek MEPs Koukiadhis and Tsatsos apparently supported the JURI amendments which further worsen the CEC directive proposal.

Österreich und Softwarepatente:

The Austrian government has for a long time been hijacked by patent alwyers. It always took the most radical pro patent positions in the international patent policy fora. Austria introduced "program logic utility certificates" in the early 90s in an attempt to prevent patent expansion into this area while providing a more light-weight system for experimenting with exclusivity of algorithms. However, due to the intrusion of patents into the same field, the utility certificate with its shorter duration wasnot much used. The Austrian Chamber of Commerce has published an anti-swpat statement in 2000.

Luxemburg and Software Patents:

The Luxemburg government is interested in having European patent institutions such as the planned patent court in Luxemburg. As in other countries, the people who determine patent policies for Luxemburg in the European Patent Organisation and the European Council come from a patent law and patent office background. In September 2000 they voted for deletion of "programs for computers" from the list of exclusions, thereby initially overruling the large states.

Wallonia -- French Belgium:

Belgian politicians have been fairly critical of software patents both in the European Parliament (e.g. Olga Zrihen MEP) and in the government. However the parliament has not taken charge of the question and is leaving it to ministerial patent experts whose contribution to the Council's secretive "IP working party" policy formation remains unknown.

Netherlands and Software Patents:

In 2001 the Dutch Parliament formed a workgroup with major representatives from the software business world, including FENIT.nl and VOSN.nl, which worked out a set of recommendations for preventing software patents and won the support of the Dutch Parliament. However the "patent policy experts" in the dutch Ministry of Economics ignored this paper and pushed for unlimited patentability in the Council. In the European Parliament, the Dutch right-wing liberal party of Frits Bolkestein was one of the driving forces of unlimited patentability but did not prevail.

Ireland and Software Patents:

Irish members of the European Parliament have to a large part voted against software patents (i.e. for amending the software patent directive) in September 2003. Irish ICT associations have been more sceptical of this directive than some of their counter-parts of other countries. Ireland took the EU presidency in the first half year of 2004. The Irish presidency supported efforts of the national patent administrators to scrap the European Parliament's amendments without discussion at the ministerial level. The Irish presidency said on its website that it was "sponsored by Microsoft". The Presidency's effort was supported by FUD from a group of patent-centered companies which were heard by the Irish Parliament and parrotted by the Irish press in early May. Ireland provides a tax haven for patent royalty fees and harbours (partially for this and similar reasons) much of the finance flow of large US companies, so that Ireland is often called "Europe's largest software exporting country". Trinity College in Dublin is a leading European facility for training patent lawyers.

Französischsprachige Schweiz:

Brevetti Software in Italia:

The patent politicians in the Italian government have been among very few who opposed program claims in the European Council of Ministers. Italian representatives in the European Parliament of both right and left parties also voted against software patents, and some Italian representatives, such as Marco Cappato, actively helped the campaign against software patents. The patent movement seems to be somewhat weaker in Italy. Some opposition against software patents has been organised since 2000 or earlier. Yet the knowledge about these problems is as superficial and unreliable in Italian politics as elsewhere. Currently a "Reform of the Industrial Property System" seems to be under way at the governmental level.

IBM und Logikpatente:

IBM's patent department is actively lobbying Europe to legalise software patents. They have invested millions in fighting example cases to leading European lawcourts such as the EPO's Technical Boards of Appeal and the German Federal Court in order to soften and eventually remove European restrictions on patenting software. They have also threatened European politicians that IBM might close down local facilities if software patents are not legalised in Europe. IBM has also prevented the US government from conducting studies on the value of software patents for the national economy. In the wake of the Opensource hype, IBM's rhetoric has become relatively moderate, but nonetheless it is supported by real pressure. IBM has acquired approximately 1000 European software patents whose legal status is currently unclear. Given the great number of software patents in IBM's hands, IBM is one of the few software companies who may have a genuine interest in software patentability. Once software patents become assertable in Europe, an IBM tax of several billion EUR per year may be levied on European software companies.

Microsoft and Patents:

Microsoft Corporation grew large and successful without patents, relying instead on copyright. In 1991 , Bill Gates warned that software patents could lead the software industry to a standstill but could also be very useful for defending monopoly positions. At the USPTO hearings of 1994, Microsoft was the only software company that argued in favor of software patentability. Microsoft has been involved in promoting software patentability in Europe. Simultaneously Microsoft's has invested ample ressources into a campaign to dissuade governments and corporations from using free operating system. Pointing out the insecurity caused to Free Software by patents and contributing to this insecurity by occasional threats has become an important part of the campaign. Microsoft appears to be a favorite victim of patent attacks. In June 2003, Microsoft hired formar IBM patent strategist Marshall Phelps, the father of the "IBM tax", to embark on an aggressive rent-extraction program. Phelps also announced to step up efforts to campaign for software patentability in Europe. Much of this campaigning appears to have been done indirectly by Microsoft partners.

Softwarepatente und SAP:

SAP gibt seit Jahrzehnten jährlich Milliarden für Forschung und Entwicklung aus. Erst 1999 begann SAP mit dem Aufbau eines Patentportfolios. Bis März 2001 besaß SAP 4 Softwarepatente und hatte von dieser Entwicklung nur schlimmstes zu befürchten. Dennoch setzt sich die Patentabteilung von SAP im Namen der Firma für die Patentierbarkeit von Software in Europa ein. Allerdings haben SAP-Vorstandsmitglieder im Deutschen Bundestag erklärt, dass SAP Patente nicht als Innovationsanreiz oder Investitionsschutz braucht sondern vor allem als Waffe gegen andere Patente in einer Umgebung wie den USA, wo Softwarepatente etabliert sind und zum Tagesgeschäft gehören.

Thomson and European Software Patents:

Various subsidiaries of the US-based Thomson group have been active in lobbying for software patentability in Europe. Thomson's strategy is largely based on acquiring patents and enforcing them, but Thomson also has an R&D department of its own. One of Thomson's first victims in Europe was Tord Jansson, a developper of opensource audio streaming software. Thomson has shifted its MP3 licensing conditions from a liberal to a more aggressive regime, so that some shareware developpers were forced to take support for MP3 encoding and decoding out of their software after having spent years on developping it.

Tenovis and European Software Patents:

Tenovis is a fairly old and not very well known large company with US background with 6000 employees in Germany. They advertise themselves as innovators and seem to be proud of their patent portfolio. Their patent lawyer was one of the 7 patent lawyers took part in the Bitkom (german software industry association) patent lawyer workgroup, presided by IBM patent lawyer Fritz Teufel, that decided Bitkom's position on the EU directive proposal. Tenovis is not one of the big players in the field, but they do obtain a few software patents each year.

Sun Microsystems and European Software Patents:

Sun was the number 1 software patent applicant at the European Patent Office in the late 90s for several years. Sun's rise as a patenter marked the end of the dominance of IBM in this field. During that time, its patent lawyers also appeared at various public conferences and advocated patentability of software. They were fairly effective in that role, because Sun enjoyed a reputation of supporting open architectures and cooperating well with free software. Not everybody in the audience was aware of the cultural gaps between the IP department and other departments. Sun's patenting activities gradually declined and left its position to companies like Microsoft, Matsushita and Hewlett Packard.

Siemens und Logikpatente:

Siemens has always been at the forefront of the patent movement. Yet, even those Siemens patent cadres who most actively promote software patentability within industrial and governmental organisations do not try to argue that this is beneficial, either for Siemens or for the world. They merely say that Europe has to follow the lead of the US, which sets the standards in the global market. Meanwhile, many Siemens managers in IT and telecommunications believe that patents are putting brakes on their activities and doing substantial harm to the industry.

Philips and Software Patents:

The dutch electronics giant grew big in the early 20th century when Holland had abolished patent law. Historians say that Philips owes its growth to the absence of patents in Holland at that time. Nowadays Philips is one of the largest European software patent applicants at the European Patent Office (EPO), and the patent department of Philips is pressing heavily to have software patents legalised. They say that Philps is earning more than 1 bn eur from "IPR licenses". This figure probably consists mostly of hardware patents and even copyright licenses. Statements of Philips patent lawyers at the European Commission's consultation show that their thinking is shaped by the consensus of the patent lawyer community rather than by specific interests of Philips, and it is difficult to know to what degree the managment of Philips is interested in questions of patent law at all. Yet some smaller companies that have Philips as a customer are afraid of publicly voicing concern about software patents.

Matsushita Electrics and European Software Patents:

Matsushita Electrics alias National Panasonic is one of the most prolific software patenters and has regularly obtained more software patents than Siemens at the European Patent Office. Politically, they have kept a low profile in the European debate on the limits of patentability. Unlike IBM, General Electrics or the American Chamber of Commerce etc, they sent no reply to the European Commission's consultation call. Here we try to give an overview of Matsushita's patents and patent applications at the European Patent Office (EPO).

Thales and Software Patents:

The french weapon maker Thales has only recently applied for at best a handful (3 until 2003) of software patents at the European Patent Office. It is clear that Thales is not among the winners of the software patents arms race and has more to lose from it than most players. Yet the chief patent lawyer of Thales, Thierry Nguyen, has been one of the most active promoters of software patentability in Europe. He has been present at many conferences and spoken in the name of his company as well as the whole industry of Europe, demanding that programs should be directly patentable. Nguyen's argumentation was limited to the usual belief statements of the patent law community, such as that patents are good and SMEs in particular need them. Some people at the R&D department of Thales are unhappy about Mr. Nguyen's activities, but they do not have a say in the company's policy on patent matters.

Air Liquide and Software Patents:

Air Liquide, a french chemical industry giant, has only recently applied for less than a handful of software patents (2 as of 2003) in Europe. Yet their chief patent strategist, Thierry Sueur, has been one of the most active promoters of software patentability in Europe. Sueur appeared at various conferences as "Mr. The Industry", insisting that "the Industry" absolutely needs patents, and of course also software patents, in order to be innovative. Sueur previously worked in IBM's patent department. Under his guidance, Air Liquide is trying to secure itself advantages by applying for organisation rules such as gas bottle labelling techniques. If such patents become valid in Europe, they may help Sueur to quickly build a large patent portfolio, thus giving Air Liquide an edge over more old-fashioned chemical companies who believe that patents must be obtained by hard laboratory work. Nevertheless Air Liquide will be among the losers, because most of the relevant software patents which can be used to extract money from chemical companies are not and will not soon be in the hands of chemical companies.

Nokia und Software-Patente:

Tim Frain, head of Nokia's patent department, is a "permanent resident" of the European parliament and has used every opportunity to ask politicians in Brussels and in Finland to support the European Commission's software patentability directive. He is present at conferences everywhere. He argues that small companies badly need software patents because otherwise their ideas might be stolen by large companies. Interestingly, most of the software which Nokia uses in its mobile phones is written by Opera, a relatively small (120 employees) company which has actively supported the Eurolinux campaign against software patents. Frain's department is one of the most active producers of software patents in Europe. Here you find an overview of their applications at the European Patent Office.

Ericsson and Software Patents:

A report by the Swedish telecommunication giant Ericsson estimated in 2001 that "Like other companies operating in the telecommunications industry, because our products comprise complex technology, we experience litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. Third parties have asserted, and in the future may assert, claims against us alleging that we infringe their intellectual property rights. If we do not succeed in any such litigation, we could be required to expend significant resources to pay damages, develop non-infringing technology or to obtain licenses to the technology which is the subject of such litigation. However, we cannot be certain that any such licenses, if available at all, will be available to us on commercially reasonable terms." Ericsson is currently (2003) facing software patent infringment charges in a US court where the plaintiff is demanding 1 billion USD in damages. The patent activities of the swedish telecommunication giant Ericsson are cited in MEP Arlene McCarthy's software patentability directive proposal as a reason for legalising software patents in Europe. Here we take a close look at the software patent applications of Ericsson at the European Patent Office. Although Ericsson's patent portfolio is gigantic, we cannot find the "1000 patents per year" which McCarthy talks about, nor does it seem likely that Ericsson's R&D is dependent on the availability of software patents. The Ericsson paper itself writes: "We rely upon a combination of trade secrets, confidentiality policies, nondisclosure and other contractual arrangements, and patent, copyright and trademark laws to protect our intellectual property rights...". In order to defent itself against litigation threats and earn itself the freedom to develop products, Ericsson it is patenting masses of ideas and concepts which any normal engineer or software developper would hardly consider as "inventions".

Alcatel and Software Patents:

In 2002, the french telecom giant published a paper which complains in harsh words about negative effects of patents such as legal insecurity and diversion of funds from R&D to litigation. On the other hand, Alcatel, as a global telecom player, owns a large software patent portfolio, and Alcatel's patent department is actively lobbying politicians to assure that Alcatel's patenting efforts will pay off in Europe in the same way as in the US. Jonas Heitto, Alcatel patent lawyer trained at MPI in Munich, seems to be present at every related meeting in Brussels and some national capitals. He is not the only one. Alcatel participated in the European Commission's "Consultation Exercise" of 2000 in its own name as well as in the name of IT associations such as ANIEL from Spain. Alcatel has recently been pursuing a strategy "fabless company", i.e. outsource as much production as possible to partners in countries where production is cheap (e.g. China) while keeping a lean headquarter (financial and legal services and some R&D) in France and/or the Bahamas/Bermudas, depending on where taxes are lower. Patents are said to be helpful in implementing this strategy and in transferring money to tax havens. In the rationale for her software patentability directive proposal, MEP Arlene McCarthy cites Alcatel as an example and stresses that patents are needed to protect European businesses at a time where production costs are high here. Here we try to take a closer look at Alcatel's patent-related strategies and in particular their software patent applications at the European Patent Office. Most of Alcatel's developments are in the area of software, and recently Alcatel is more than ever focussing on "next generation Internet" communication standards and applications.

EICTA und Software-Patente:

The European Information and Communication Technology Association (EICTA) is a coalition of national associations for lobbying at the EU level. Their positions on software patents have been dominated by patent lawyers from the patent arms of large corporate members, such as IBM's Fritz Teufel, who has alsow dominated the position of the german EICTA member BITKOM, and not been supported by any information about the enterpreneurial calculus of the member companies or other informations beyond the usual patent lawyer belief statements. The BITKOM decision was taken by a committee consisting of 7 mega-corporporation patent lawyers and one SME representative who opposed software patentability.

Vom Teufel geritten --- BITKOM e.V.:

The German Information and Telecomunication Industry Association Bitkom, one of the influential members of the European EICTA.org, began in 2001 to get involved in questions of patent policy. The activity was conducted in a closed circle of patent lawyers, dominated by IBM's european patent deparment head Fritz Teufel. This circle published a first statement in support of the CEC/BSA directive proposal in spring 2002 after adoption by the meeting between 7 patent lawyers of large corporations, held by the IP workgroup under the presidence of Teufel. This workgroup later published a survey which tries to demonstrate that the software industry wants patents. This survey was used for supporting talks with politicians for many month before the survey was finally published, after we had reported about it. The survey does not show what its authors claim it shows.

Gesellschaft für Informatik, %(q:Software-Engineering) und Patente:

Die GI wird von Hochschulprofessoren geleitet und hat 21000 Mitglieder. Viele Informatikstudenten und auch Softwareunternehmen sehen eine Mitgliedschaft in der GI als obligatorisch an. Die GI steht weder unter direktem Einfluss der Patentbewegung noch sind ihre Mitglieder besonders an Softwarepatenten interessiert. Dennoch schaltete sich das Präsidium der GI im Herbst 2000 in die Debatte ein und plädierte -- unter heftigem Protest vieler Mitglieder -- für Softwarepatente. Dabei verwendete es die bekannte Ideologie der Patentbewegung mit einigen GI-spezifischen Zusätzen, nämlich dem Traum von perfekter generalstabsmäßiger Planung der Softwareentwicklung ("Software Engineering"). Diese Wunschvorstellung hängt mit dem Selbstwertgefühl einiger Universitätsinformatiker zusammen und ist in er GI als eine Art Berufsideologie seit Jahren weit verbreitet. Diese "ingenieurmäßige" Denken steht nach Sicht mancher älterer GI-Professoren (wie z.B. Endres) in unversöhnlichem Gegensatz zu einer anarchischen Vorgehensweise der "Opensource-Bewegung". Die Ausdehnung des Patentwesens bietet manchen Informatikern auch deshalb eine unwiderstehliche Chance, weil patentierte Rechenregeln zu Zwecken der Forschung und Lehre frei verwendet werden dürfen. Während theoretisch ausgerichtete Informatiker mit Programmierverboten und Erpresserbriefen kaum in Berührung kommen können, eröffnen Patente ihnen die Hoffnung auf unmittelbare Verwertbarkeit ihrer Forschungsergebnisse. Bei Verhandlungen mit privatisierungsbeflissenen Hochschulpolitikern kann dies einen erheblichen Vorteil bedeuten. Glaubt man jedenfalls. Die Frage der Technizität von Computerprogrammen ist für das GI-Präsidium vor allem eine Prestigefrage.

BDI: Bund der Deutschen Industrie(-Patentjuristen):

Der Bund der Deutschen Industrie (BDI) ist ein Dachverband der deutschen Industrieverbände, der wiederum auf EU-Ebene dem Dachverband UNICE angehört. Bitkom und ZVEI haben ihre Unterstützung des Europäischen Patentamtes und des EU-Richtlinienvorschlages für die Patentierbarkeit von computer-implementierter Organisations- und Rechenregeln (Algorithmen, Datenverarbeitungsprogrammen) bekundet. VDMA u.a. haben aufgrund innerer Uneinigkeit auf eine Stellungnahme verzichtet. In Wirklichkeit herrscht auch bei Bitkom und ZVEI Uneinigkeit. BDI und EUNICE werden aber ihrerseits ähnlich wie die Mitgliesverbände in dieser Frage von Patentjuristen dominiert, die es gewohnt sind, ihre Standesinteressen als die der Industrie auszugeben. In den Stellungnahmen von BDI und EUNICE finden sich keinerlei Hinweise auf die unterschiedlichen Interessenlagen der Mitgliedsunternehmen, und volkswirtschaftliche Studien werden ebenso ignoriert wie die Sicht der Techniker und Programmierer.

VDMA und Softwarepatente:

Die im VDMA verfassten Maschinenbauer konnten sich zur Frage der Logikpatente auf keinen gemeinsamen Standpunkt verständigen. Deshalb hat die Verbandsleitung es vorgezogen, in dieser Frage keine Stellungnahmen abzugeben. Der VDMA ist ein Verband, in dem vor allem mittelständische Unternehmen verfasst sind. Die unentschiedene Haltung des VDMA floss nicht in die Position des BDI ein, in dem der VDMA Mitglied ist.

ZVEI und Softwarepatente:

Der Zentralverband der Elektronischen Industrie (ZVEI) fungierte lange Zeit als Sprachrohr der Patentabteilung von Siemens. Seine Stellungnahmen wurden z.T. direkt von deren Chef Arno Körber formuliert und allenfalls mit einer Arbeitsgruppe der Patentjuristen, niemals aber mit Ingenieuren oder Software-Entwicklern besprochen. Der ZVEI forderte dabei eine Neuregulierung der Patentierbarkeit nach US-Vorbild oder gemäß der dem weitgehend entsprechenden neuesten Praxis des Europäischen Patentamtes (EPA). Auch nach der Veröffentlichung des Swpat-Richtlinienentwurfs der Europäischen Kommission forderte der ZVEI eine noch vorbehaltlosere Bejahung der grenzenlosen Patentierbarkeit als in diesem Entwurf vorgesehen war. Nachdem im Frühjahr 2002 einige Mitglieder in nicht-juristischen Arbeitskreisen Kritik an der patentlastigen Verbandsposition geäußert hatten, begann der ZVEI, seine Position neu zu überprüfen. Die Fachpresse sprach von "Zurückrudern".

Deutscher Multi-Media-Verband und Softwarepatente:

Der DMMV veröffentlichte im Mai 2002 ein Programmpapier, in dem er die Schaffung und Stärkung von "geistigem Eigentum" aller Art zur zentralen ordnungspolitischen Aufgabe der Informationswirtschaft erklärt und insbesondere eine weitere Erleichterung des Zugangs zu Patenten fordert. Trotz einer starken Stellung von Großunternehmen und Juristen innerhalb des in München ansässigen Verbandes konnte sich der DMMV sich im Oktober 2003 dazu durchringen, deutlich gegen Softwarepatente und für die Entscheidung des Europäischen Parlamentes zur Änderung der geplanten Softwarepatentrichtlinie Stellung zu beziehen. Damit positioniert sich der Verband gegen Bitkom als Sprecher der mittelständischen Softwarebranche.

Verband der Software-Industrie e.V. (VSI) und Logikpatente:

1987 gegründeter Verband von Software-Unternehmen, Ausrichtung ähnlich wie BSA, von Großunternehmen dominiert, mehrere Microsoft-Leute im Vorstand, darunter der Vorsitzende Rudolf Gallist, der sich Anfang 2002 in einer Presseerklärung im Namen des VSI gegen den Einsatz von GNU/Linux im Bundestag einsetzte und dabei die Allgemeine Öffentlichkeitslizenz der Freien Software als "das Opensource-Patent" bezeichnete. Offenbar kennt man im VSI den Unterschied zwischen Urheberrecht und Patenten nicht. Für die Patentierbarkeit von Rechenregeln macht sich insbesondere der Microsoft-Vorstandskollege Richard Roy stark. Er appelliert dabei, ähnlich wie GI-Präsident Mayr, an das Prestige-Denken der Vorständler, welche Software "als vollwertig anerkannt" sehen wollen. Der VSI prägt auch die diesbezügliche Standpunkte des DMMV, mit dem der VSI eine umfassende Kooperation eingegangen ist.

UNICE -- The Voice of European [Patent] Business:

UNICE is an association of national industry associations for lobbying at the EU level. Its position concerning patents have, like those of most national industry associations, habitually been dominated by patent lawyers. UNICE papers on patent policy are rarely publicized outside of the circles of patent lawyers. Some papers are even published through patent law organs before they appear anywhere else. There is virtually no participation of engineers of software developpers, as can be seen from the lawyer-style in which they are written. UNICE treats the enunciations of patent offices and patent judges as sources of ultimate wisdom, at least as far as they are in favor of extensive patentability. UNICE has been instrumental in lobbying for the EU software patentability directive and has closely collaborated with the European Commission's patent lawyers in overcoming the resistance of other departments of the European Commission. Protest letters from (indirect) member companies have regularly been left without reply from UNICE. Patent-critical statements of member associations have not found any reflection in the UNICE position papers.

International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and Software Patents:

ICC's "Intellectual Property Committee", consisting of 240 corporate "IP professionals" from around the world, headed by Urho Ilmonen, Vice-President Legal of Nokia Mobile Phones Ltd, has vigorously defended the interests of the patent community in Europe. Their letters and statements are characterised by "strong belief" in the beneficiality of patents and disregard for the opinions not only of most ICC member companies but also of national member organisations such as the German Chamber of Commerce, which has pronounced itself against software patents and against the directive proposal.

Business Software Alliance and Software Patents:

BSA is an organisation founded in the USA and currently without official status in most European countries, controlled by Microsoft and a few other large members. BSA is specialised on copyright enforcement and, until recently, was uninterest in patents. Representatives of BSA in Europe have even pronounced themselves skeptical or hostile to software patents in public. However, during a recent campaign for the introduction of software patents in Europe, BSA's new director of public policy, Francisco Mingorance, became a close friend of the European Commission's patent lobby and even had a privileged opportunity to participate in the drafting of the directive proposal. Moreover, under Mingorance's direction, BSA became a supporter of extreme pro-patent positions. This is apparently not because Mingorance or BSA want software patents, but because it is Mingorance's job to entertain good relations with the European Commission, which again married the European Patent Office as a part of a strategy to transfer power from Munich to Brussels.

Free Software Alliance:

The "Free Software Alliance" (FSA) is an imaginary organisation, created by Arlene McCarthy (MEP, UK Labour) in August 2003 for the purpose of press briefings. The FSA is a mirror of the BSA: it fights aggressively and intrusively for the right of its members to free-ride on other people's intellectual property. The FSA supports a caricature of the positions of the FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure) and the Eurolinux Alliance. Unlike FFII, Eurolinux and BSA, the FSA consists only of computer rights campaigners, and enjoys no support among commercial software producers.

Nachrichtenmedien und Software-Patente:

An attempt to document the reporting of various news media on questions of patents and information infrastructures. Some media have done excellent independent research while some are mouthpieces of the patent lobby and help spread lies against their better knowledge. Most are in between. We try to gain an overview.

Computer-Zeitung:

Eine ganz durch Abkommen mit Unternehmen und Verbänden finanzierte Zeitung aus einer Verlagsgruppe, die vorauseilenden Gehorsam gegenüber den (vermeintlichen) Interessen der potentiellen Geldgeber pflegt und bislang durch Patentpropaganda der plumpesten Art auffiel. Mit Softwarepatenten ihr Brot verdienende Patentanwälte wie Axel Pfeiffer werden hier in jedem Artikel als Autorität zitiert. Wenn etwa die Bundesjustizministerin zur CZ etwas gegen Softwarepatente sagt, wird das Zitat von Frau Däubler-Gmelin unterschlagen und durch einen abwertenden Kommentar von PA Pfeiffer ersetzt. Nicht selten kommen auch FFII/Eurolinux kurz zu Wort, aber mehr in der Rolle exotischer Dissidenten, die auf verlorenem Posten stehen. Dies spiegelte sich auch in einigen von der CZ veranstalteten Podiumsdiskussionen wieder, etwa nach dem Muster: "Opensource-Sozialromantiker Hartmut Pilch gegen drei Praktiker aus dem Patent-Establishment". Da in Wirklichkeit aber das Geld nicht unbedingt nur bei den Großfirmen und ihren Patentrechtlern liegt, besteht Hoffnung auf Besserung. Wie strengen Weisungen die Redakteure unterliegen, ist uns nicht klar. Der Chef Eduard Heilmeier hat immerhin auch ein Unix/Open-Magazin betrieben. Im Prinzip dürfte es ihm egal sein, woher die Kohle kommt.

MEPs:

Arlene McCarthy MEP and Software Patents:

British Member of the European Parliament, Labor/PSE, appointed by the Europarl Committtee for Legal Affairs and Internal Market (JURI) in 2002/03 to report on the software patentability directive. In June 2002 Arlene McCarthy published a short report which aggressively promoted the agenda of the European Patent Office (EPO). The paper charged the patent critics of having provided only invalid arguments, but failed to quote or refute any of these arguments. Meanwhile various people from the EPO and patent lobby were in contact with McCarthy and boasted that their viewpoint would prevail and the discussion would soon be over. A hearing arranged by McCarthy and the europarl webspace dedicated to the hearing both offered minimal room for critical views. Arlene McCarthy's draft report of 2003/02/19, her explanatory note of 2003/05/03 and her refusal to accept any amendments which limit patentability or patent enforcability in any way show complete dedication to the interests of patent owners. While staying away from all informed discussions and conferences on software patent questions, McCarthy has actively reaching out to the media in order to present herself as a victim of a "dishonest and destructive misinformation campaign" who is sincerely trying to limit patentability. McCarthy has been serving the recording industry and various projects of the Commission's Directorate for the Internal Market (Bolkestein) with equal fervor. McCarthy's political business model appears to consist in (1) aggressively and unconditionally serving of the Commission and big business (2) obtaining favorabl treatment by Commission and Big Business for her electoral region / constituency.

Janelly Fourtou MEP and Software Patents:

Janelly Fourtou, member of the European Parliament, French Conservative, has actively promoted software and business method patents in Europe, while pretending that she was "only restating the current law". Fourtou in particular used every opportunity to push for legalisation of program claims (e.g. "a program, characterised by that upon loading into memory some computing process is executed"), which the European Commission had suggested not to allow. Jean-René Fourtou, husband of Janelly, former top manager of Aventis (pharma), is currently the CEO of Vivendi Universal. Vivendi is involved in cooperation negotiations with Microsoft. In 2002/12 J-R became the head of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), an organisation with a very active patent arm (IP Commission) which is lobbying for expansion of the patent system worldwide. In 2003, Fourtou became the rapporteur of a new IP enforcement directive, which, if enacted according to Fourtou's proposal, may allow the Fourtou family to earn many thousands of EUR by suing people, either on the grounds of patents or copyright. This directive proposal is once again based on documents from BSA and once again claims to be "only harmonising the status quo". Fourtou finds the proposed measures still not draconian enough.

Dr. Joachim Wuermeling MEP and Software Patents:

Joachim Wuermeling, doctor of law, member of the European Parliament (MEP) for Bavaria's Christian Social Union (CSU), shadow rapporteur of the European People's Party (EPP) on the software patent directive, opposed everyting that could somehow limit patentability (e.g. interoperability privilege) and advocated everything that extends it beyond the European Commission's wishes (e.g. program claims). Most EPP colleagues tend to blindly follow their shadow rapporteur. Many critics have in vain sought dialogue with Wuermeling. Wuermeling has however actively contacted the press in order to present himself as an opponent of "patents on pure software and business methods" and to ascribe contrary impressions of the public to "irrational fears of the opensource lobby". Wuermeling may believe what he says. In the JURI discussions of May 2003, Wuermeling tabled a pseudo-restrictive amendment (recital 13d), according to which a patent claim is limited to a specific product an may not encompass underlying algorithms. Some corporate patent lawyers from Wuermeling's clientele have been laughing about Wuermeling's lack of basic knowledge about patent law. Wuermeling accuses the European Parliament of having bowed to these "irrational fears" in September 2003 and hails the Council decision of May 2004 as a "positive signal for innovation in Europe".

Angelika Niebler und Softwarepatente:

Als Mitglied des Industrie- und Rechtsausschusses hat Angelika Niebler sich für die Einführung von Programmansprüchen stark gemacht und konsequent gegen alle Änderngsanträge argumentiert und gestimmt, die zu einer Begrenzung der Patentierbarkeit hätten führen können. Sie erwies sich als rechte Hand ihres Kollegen Joachim Wuermeling bei der durchsetzung grenzenloser Patentierbarkeit im Sinne der Forderungen der Patentanwälte von BDI und Bitkom.

Malcolm Harbour MEP and Software Patents:

Malcolm Harbour, Member of the European Parliament, UK Conservative, has been an active and forceful promoter of software and business method patents in Europe, all while pretending that he was "only closing loopholes in the current law so as to avoid US-style broad patentability" and that claims to the contrary came from "misguided lobbyists in the European Parliament". Harbour vigorously promoted program claims and opposed all amendment proposals, including those approved in CULT and ITRE, which put any limits on what can be patented. Patent lobbyists have great confidence in "Malcolm". Some write letters to MEPs telling them to look out for Harbour's amendment proposals and to support them as soon as they come out. Harbour, until recently an automobile industry manager at Rover, speaks in a very self-confident manner which gives many of his listeners, including MEPs from other countries and other parties, the impression that he is in power and they can rely on him and follow him.

Willi Rothley und Softwarepatente:

Willi Rothley, patent expert of the german social democratic group in the European Parliament, vice president of the Legal Affairs Commission, is critical of EU lawmaking and instead believes very much in the self-regulatory capability of the patent judiciary. In this sense, he gave a speech in the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) on 2003-06-16 where he called JURI a "sausage machine", which produces ever-new superfluous laws just to keep turning. Rothley can be expected to show an attitude of disdain for parliamentary patent lawmaking in quite blunt ways. Faithful to this attitude, Rothley voted against the proposed directive. Whether or not software should be patentable is a secondary consideration for Rothley, but in case of doubt he will usually follow the current patent jurisdiction, including that of the European Patent Office, and look with suspicion at any attempts by politicians or pressure groups to set rules in one way or other.

Frits Bolkestein and Software Patents:

Internal Market Commissioner of the European Commission since 2000, leader of dutch right-wing liberal party VVD, known mainly by interventions in favor of the world's second largest pharmaceutical company, of whose supervisory board he is a member, and by various policies in favor of big business. Ever since he took office, Bolkestein firmly committed himself to the agenda for legalisation of software patents in Europe and pushed this agenda through an unwilling European Commission. Bolkestein saw himself forced to pay lipservice to the goals of his opponents and sell his directive as a means to achieve those goals. When it became apparent that this strategy did not work, Bolkestein threatened the Parliament with removal of its competence of decision. The Parliament was neither deceived nor intimidated. A month later, Bolkestein's directorate lobbied the national ministers to ignore the Parliament's will and drive the directive project against the wall. When asked for justification, officials of the directorate often point to "the Commissioner" who allegedly is insisting on this.

John Mogg and Software Patents:

John Mogg has been Director General of Internal Market under commisionner Bolkestein and his predecessors since 1993, i.e. throughout the time of preparation of the Software Patentability Directive. He took particular interest in the software patentability debate and appears to have been an ardent believer in dogmas such as "intellectual property is the key to innovation, the more property the more innovation".

Anthony Howard:

Chief drafter of the European Community software patentability directive proposal, born 194x, previously an examiner and administration official at the UKPO, involved in TRIPS negotiation for the UKPO, came to the European Commission on secondment from the UKPO in 2000/09, succeded Berhard Müller in his post as a chief drafter in 2001/03.

Bernhard Müller and Software Patents:

Bernhard Müller worked in the European Commission's Industrial Property Unit and was in charge of the software patent directive proposal drafting and consultation activities for several years until March 2001, then moved to the European Trademark Office in Alicante. Müller conducted "representative surveys" among several dozen patent lawyers in order to conclude that patents on software and business methods as granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) are needed. Until summer 2000, Müller advocated a "harmonisation" of European patentability rules with those of US and Japan. Later, during the Consultation of late 2000 which he conducted, Müller presented the same contents with a more cautious packaging, claiming to be aiming at a "restrictive harmonisation of the status quo". In early 2001 Müller obtained support from governmental officials for a position paper which calls for codification of EPO practise and dismisses the 91% opposition to software patents expressed in the consultation as irrelevant.

Paul Schwander and Software Patents:

Paul Schwander, French citizen, Alsatian, born 195x, worked as a liaison officer of the EPO in Brussels during the years from the Greenpaper through the Consulation. He was in charge of the IPR Helpdesk project at the Commission's General Directorate for Enterprises and managed for a study on SMEs and software patents in the name of DG Enterprise. Both IPR-Helpdesk and the DG Enterprise study, although implicitely lending legitimacy to software patent practise of the EPO, showed a slightly more critical spirit than most of what emanated from the EPO and DG Internal Market at the time. In 2001 Schwander left the Commission. In early 2002 he was working at the EPO in The Hague.

PA Fritz Teufel:

Patent lawyer, software patentability guru, patent department head of IBM in Germany and Europe, working in Stuttgart, active promoter of software patents, responsible for pushing many landmark cases through the EPO and the German courts. Ghostwriter of various patent papers of German and European trade associations. Positions and style well known from public discussions. Hardline advocate of software patentability and very much in love with certain dogmatic fallacies which he successfully used to win over the (already very inclined) EPO and BGH in a series of decisive battles. Do not expect Teufel to understand the viewpoint of opensource programmers or to come up with solutions to non-juridical problems. Expect him to stick to EPO fallacies as steadfastly as anyone. These fallacies constitute his success experience before the lawcourts.

Robert J. Hart and Software Patents:

Some data and links about one of the leading figures of the British software patentability lobbying effort at the European Commission.

PA Jurgen Betten und Softwarepatente:

PA Jürgen Betten, a Munich-based patent attorney, chairman of several software patent work groups of patent lawyer associations, rapporteur to AIPPI, close collaborator of Prof. Straus and friends from MPI, AIPPI lobbyist to the European Commission, passionate software patentability advocate, author of expert opinions ordered by the EPO, attorney in EPO procedings that brought about landmark decisions, has particularly many Japanese clients.

PA Axel Horns und Softwarepatente:

A Munich-based patent attorney specialising on software, process control, telecommunications and the like, vociferous supporter of unlimited patentability. Horns is the main author of a German government-ordered study on the subject. He argues that Art 52 EPC is ill-defined and practically meaningless: not meant to limit patentability but only to limit claim wording: the invention is what is written in the claims: as long as the claims describe an engergy-consuming process, the invention is technical. Horns however feels that something should be done to accomodate open source software: source code should be treated like a scientific publication: not authors but users should bear the risk of patent infringement. Horns proposes this in various publications, including his ipjur.com website, an ambitious collection of immaterial property related documentation.

PA Axel Pfeiffer und Softwarepatente:

A German/European patent lawyer who often writes articles and participates in mailing list discussions, trying to convince software professionals that patents are good for them and that Art 52 EPC was never meant to exclude software concepts from patentability. Pfeiffer believes that software is, like rubber or iron, just another means of embodying an "invention", and most software ideas are inventions according to Art 52 EPC. Which is why he likes to speak about "software-implemented inventions".

PA Springorum and Software Patents:

Patent Attorney Dr. Dipl-Inform. Harald Springorum is one of the most vigorous promoters of software patentability in Germany. Born in the 50s, he studied computer science and patent law. At the time, computing and patents were two entirely divorced subjects, andSpringorum seems to be one of those patent attorneys who devoted much of their life to bringing the two together. His endeavor may even be fuelled by some idealism or remnants thereof. Springorum has been following the FFII on its footsteps since 1999, often warning people who have contacted us about how unworthy of cooperation we are. He managed to be appointed by the Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI, German Computing Society) as a ghostwriter of their opinion on patent policy which they submitted to the EU and to advocate unlimited patentability in this paper in a way which goes even beyond what the EPO is willing to accept. Moreover he has managed to speak on behalf of the German Chamber of Patent Attorneys at internal consultations of the Ministery of Justice, although his position is not particularly representative of patent attorneys. Springorum's positions carry a certain individual hallmark that makes them easy to recognise even when he acts as a ghostwriter.

PA FREISCHEM:

Wolfgang Tauchert:

Head of the department at the German Patent Office that started to grow from near zero to several thousand applications per year when the German courts began emulating the EPO in allowing software patents. Tauchert supported this trend by articles in various journals which argue in the same direction. In his interpretation, only source code is 'as such' while object code and algorithms are 'not as such'. His view has received great attention due to his position, and since Mr. Tauchert usually does not shun the efforts needed to found it on learned reasoning, he can be characterised as the "chief ideologue for technicity questions at the German Patent Office".

Gert Kolle und Softwarepatente:

As a young scholar in the 70s, Gert Kolle quickly became the leading german theoretician on the limits of patentability with respect to computer programs. Kolle wrote his doctoral thesis at the Max-Planck Institute and Patent Law on this subject and published several deep-searching articles in GRUR from the early 70s to the early 80s. These articles confirmed and refined the view of the courts that there is no room for patenting computer programs if the notion of technical invention is taken seriously. Kolle's works wor often cited by German courts as a foundation for their refusal to grant software patents. Later Kolle became an official at the European Patent Office. Currently he is their head of diplomacy, and he occasionally gives talks where he explains and justifies the current software patenting policy of the EPO.

Michel Vivant and Software Patents:

, which is a polite way of saying that they do not conform to correct methods of law interpretation.

Jean-Paul Smets and Software Patents:

A french informaticist and economist, author of a comprehensive study on the problem of software patentability and of a book on free software. Argues against software patents from an economic and legal point of view, for the latter relying much on Vivant. His study, made in the name of the Conseil des Mines, is the only one that proposes and weighs alternative approaches to the codification of EPO practise, including a sui generis software law approach.descr: french informaticist and economist, author of a comprehensive study on the problem of software patentability and of a book on free software. Argues against software patents from an economic and legal point of view, for the latter relying much on Vivant. His study, made in the name of the Conseil des Mines, is the only one that proposes and weighs alternative approaches to the codification of EPO practise, including a sui generis software law approach.

KONNO Hiroshi and Software Patents:

A professor of mathematics, specialising in operations research, at Tokyo University. Wrote a very readable book about his experience with the Karmarkar patent in which he points out the inconsistencies and harmful effects of patenting math and software. Has tried to resist software patentability in Japan by filing a lawsuit against the Karmarkar patent. Although, after spending an equivalent of 1 mn usd, he finally won the lawsuit, he did not achieve his aim of making japanese courts rethink their drive to patent software and mathematics against the letter and spirit of the Japanese law. In recent years, Konno has himself been in the role of struggling to patent many business methods in order to preempt US companies. This made part of the japanese press erroneously hype him as a promoter of business method patents in Japan. In 2002, Konno published another japanese book, titled "Patents for just anything? Where is the patent business heading?"

Donald Knuth and Software Patents:

Donald Knuth, pioneer and cult figure of informatics (computer science), author of some definitive monumental classics such as "The Art of Programming", finds that software patents are built on some basic misunderstandings, similar to the misunderstandings of certain provincial american legislators in the 19th century or the medieval catholic church. Computer programs are as abstract as any algorithm can be, Knuth says.

Prof. Dr. iur. Bernd Lutterbeck and Software Patents:

a professor at Berlin Technical University specialising in informatics related law. Co-authored a government-ordered study on software patentability. Supports the policy of the European Patent Office (EPO) but advocates that publication of software source code should not be considered an infringement.

Patentpapst Prof. Dr. Josef Straus:

Managing Director of a patent movement think tank in Munich which derives its reputation mainly from the name of poor old Max Planck. Promoter of gene and software patents, firm believer in the unconditional beneficiality and inevitably growing importance of "intellectual property in the knowledge economy", teacher of numerous equally firm-believing disciples, drafter of guiding papers and resolutions for lobby organisations such as AIPPI as well as expert opinions for patent offices and governments, partner in a study on software patentability ordered by the German government -- and screwed by Straus and his disciples, who refused to subject their holy belief system to such profane an endeavor as the government had requested, namely an economic analysis of law.

Daniele Schiuma and Software Patents:

patent attorney and patent law scholar at the MPI, together with Nack and Straus, argues that "new technologies" (usually citing some very impressive ultra-advanced examples) are unprotected without software patents, that patents should be available for anything that is at the forefront of R&D, that the constitutional right to private property extends to such things, and especially that art 27 TRIPS requires the deletion of the computer programs exclusion from art 52 EPC, no matter how that exclusion is interpreted. This is also called the "autonomous interpretation of TRIPS", a theory which is tied to Schiuma's name.

Prof. Dr. Jan Busche und Softwarepatente: Gute Noten für großzügige Patentrichter:

Prof. Dr. Jan Busche, Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Bürgerliches Recht und Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Autor zahlreicher Artikel in den Fachzeitschriften der Patentjuristenzunft und Redner auf Patentanwaltskongressen. Busches Artikel und Reden schildern und die Entwicklung der Rechtsprechung bezüglich Softwarepatenten und versuchen sie zu legitimieren, obwohl die Analyse manchmal durchaus Widersprüche offenlegt. Über solche Widersprüche hilft Busche seinen Lesern dann meist durch schlichte wertende Adjektive hinweg.

Ralph Nack und Logikpatente:

Ralph Nack, a young scholar at the MPI, student of Straus. Ardent supporter of unlimited patentability, in particular of patents for anything that runs on a computer and can be said to "stand in a tradition of engineering". This, according to Nack, includes algorithms that allow a computing task to be solved more efficiently and that are also sometimes said to stand in a tradition of purely mental activity. Nack has written a doctorate thesis, numerous GRUR articles and some AIPPI reports and participated in a government-ordered study on this subject. Nack insists that text must also be directly patentable because the intellectual achievement and not the form is important. He also insists that patentability can neither be limited by explicit exclusions as those in Art 52 EPC nor by a theory of "technical invention" as has been built by german courts in the 60/70s. Instead anything that stands in an "engineering tradition" should be patentable, and it is up to the courts to identify and follow the path of this tradition and shape it according to a legal intuition which is not open to questioning by outsiders. Some have remarked that Nack sees law as a kind of Disk World. On the other hand Nack does not agree with the widespread patent lawyer view that the invention is what is claimed and that Art 52 EPC can be dodged by writing appropriate claims. Instead, Nack agrees with us that "invention" = "technical contribution" = "the novel core of the teaching, which must be technical".

Mark Schar and Software Patents:

one of the judges at the EPO's Technical Board of Appeal who brought about the landslide decisions of 1998, also wrote an article that explains the thinking behind those decisions and tries to redefine the concept of "technical invention" as "practical and repeatable problem solution".

Alex Clelland and Software Patents:

Mr. Clelland is a judge at the Technical Board of Appeal who participated in the framing of the decisions of 1998 which authorised computer program claims. Clelland occasionally speaks at conferences in order to explain (and justify) the current practise of the EPO.

Dr. Klaus-J. Melullis und Softwarepatente:

Presiding Judge at the patent senate of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, Federal Court), lawyer by education, later became known as software patentability theoretician, seeking to bring BGH closer to the EPO's line of making software patentable, but showing a certain uneasiness about the consequences, warning that only the technical (implementational) aspects should be patented and not the concepts and functionalities. In november 2000, Melullis expressed himself publicly against the plans to remove the patentability exception. In 2001 Melullis became the presiding judge of the BGH patent senate. In 2002, after public exchanges of views with Swen Kiesewetter-Köbinger, Reimar König and other critical patent law scholars, Melullis published a series of articles and memorandums which criticise the EPO's approach and the European Commission's directive proposal for deviating from what is permissible under Art 52 EPC and sticking to inconclusive legalistic reasoning instead of attempting a fair assessment of the interests at stake.

Uwe Scharen and Software Patents:

Scharen is one of the BGH judges who followed the EPO's lead in making software de facto patentable in Germany. He took part on behalf of the BGH in talks about the software patentability directive proposal held by the patent-friendly officials in the Ministery of Justice in 2002. In selecting discussion partners, they gave Scharen preference over other judges who are known to view things more critically.

Wilfried Anders und Logikpatente:

Presiding judge at the 20th senate of the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht), former Siemens employee, author of many articles in law journals advocate patentability of software and business methods. Praised by patent lawyers and patent administrators as an opinion leader. Anders gladly accepted the praise by labelling himself as "progressive" and his colleagues from the 17th senate as "conservative" in a speech at a public patent policy discussion meeting in november 2000. Anders may have he reached his preliminary climax of progressiveness when his senate officially declared business methods to be patentable in Germany through the Automatical Sales System (Automatische Absatzsteuerung) decision of 1999, a decision that scared even the patent lawyers from the EPO and the European Commission, who prefer not to put things so clearly.

Ingo Kober and Software Patents:

president of the European Patent Office (EPO) since the mid-nineties, former FDP (liberal party) secretary of state in the BMJ (ministery of justice), active promoter of patentability expansion and of international unification of the patent system.

Jürgen Schade, Präsident des DPMA seit 2001:

Der neue Präsident des DPMA stammt zwar auch aus der Patentwelt, könnte aber ein wenig unabhängiger sein als manche seiner Vorgänger.

Peter Hayward and Software Patents:

A key player in the drive for software patentability at the UKPO and the European Commission, entrusted by the British government in late 2000 to conduct a "consultation" and formulate policies in the name of the government.

/swpat/gasnu/swpatgmelin/index.en.html:

Herta Däubler-Gmelin und Logikpatente: vehement dagegen, beharrlich dafür:

Allen öffentlichen Äußerungen von 1999 bis 2002 zufolge scheint die Bundesministerin der Justiz nicht nur fest an die "Belohnungstheorie" und die a priori segensreichen Wirkungen des Patentwesens zu glauben, sondern sich auch durch eine besonders patentfreundliche Politik profilieren zu wollen. Bei Gesprächen in kleinerem Kreise zeigte sich, dass die Ministerin Schwierigkeiten hat, sich eine Welt vorzustellen, in der nicht jede kreative Idee einzeln vom Staat mit einem Monopol belohnt wird. Auch in der Frage der Genpatente macht sich die Ministerin, trotz gelegentlicher Skrupel hinsichtlich der Fragen der ethischen Vertretbarkeit von Genmanipulationen, vehement für eine weitgehende Patentierbarkeit stark und scheut dabei auch nicht Dissonanzen innerhalb der Koalition. Sie scheint generell fast blind dem Rat des Münchener Patentpapstes Prof. Straus und der Führung des Deutschen Patentamtes zu vertrauen. Auch hinsichtlich der Organisations- und Rechenregeln (Software) verfolgte Däubler-Gmelin langezeit eine patentfreudige Linie, aber nach einigen harten Diskussionen konnte sie sich im November 2000 dazu durchringen, energisch für eine Vertagung der geplanten Änderung des EPÜ einzutreten. Im Frühjahr 2001 äußerte Däubler-Gmelin für die Presse "vehemente Kritik" daran, dass die EU-Kommission "Programme als solche" patentierbar machen wolle. Unter "Programm als solches" versteht D.G. jedoch nur den urheberrechtlich geschützten Ausdruck, dessen Patentierung ohnehin von niemandem angestrebt wird. Hinter den Kulissen arbeiteten Däubler-Gmelins Ministerialbeamte weiter auf eine grenzenlose Patentierbarkeit hin. In geheimen Stellungnahmen (z.B. der Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Sondierung von 2000/10 sowie Redebeiträgen auf Sitzungen) ermutigten die BMJ-Patentreferenten alle Brüsseler Initiativen in diese Richtung. In internen Papieren der EU-Kommission wird die Bundesregierung zusammen mit der Britischen Regierung zu den Proponenten einer möglichst unbegrenzten Patentierbarkeit gezählt. Auf Sitzungen der Arbeitsgruppe für Geistiges Eigentum und Patente des Europäischen Rates setzten sie sich mehrfach dafür ein, über den Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission hinaus auch unmittelbare Patentansprüche auf "Computerprogrammprodukte" und andere Informationsgegenstände zuzulassen. Ein offener Brief von MdB Tauss an Frau Däubler-Gmelin, der hier Gegensteuerung verlangte, blieb unbeantwortet. Überredungsversuche des Virtuellen Ortsvereins der SPD prallten auch hart an Frau Däubler-Gmelin ab.

Edelgard Bulmahn und ihre Patentrezepte für die deutschen Hochschulen:

Während ihrer ersten Amtszeit 1998-2002 brachte die junge SPD-Forschungsministerin einen Gesetzesentwurf durch den Bundestag, der die Hochschullehrern zum Patentieren verpflichtet. In zahlreichen Reden der Ministerin taucht das Wort "Patente" in rosaroter Färbung auf. Das Patentsystem ist für Frau Bulmahn offensichtlich ein Hoffnungsträger. Es könnte erlauben, die kostspielige und sperrige öffentliche Forschung abzuschütteln (oder wenigstens durchzuschütteln) und den Staatshaushalt zu entlasten. Die Entwürfe dazu werden Bulmahn von den wohletablierten Patentfunktionären ihres Ministeriums auf den Tisch gelegt, aber die Ministerin legt bei ihrer Abarbeitung eine auffällig euphorische Haltung an den Tag.

Gerhard Schröder:

Der "Genosse der Bosse" hat bekanntlich ein besonders offenes Ohr für die Einflüsterungen hoher Wirtschatsfunktionäre und insbesondere eine anhaltende Neigung, sich an Seite von Microsoft-Führungskadern öffentlich zu zeigen und stolz auf Partnerschaften mit MS zu sein. Seine Herkunft aus dem Anwaltsberuf, seine Orientierung an anglo-amerikanischen Vorbildern (bei relativer Distanz zu Frankreich) könnte für Software-Urheber und -anwender ebenfalls Anlass zu Sorge sein: in Frankreich fielen die Entscheidungen gegen Softwarepatente auf der Ebene des Premierministers. Bislang hat sich Schröder zum Thema Softwarepatente, soweit bekannt, nicht geäußert, aber sein Verhalten im Zusammenhang mit der Kopierschutzrichtlinie lässt wenig Verständnis für informationelle Infrastrukturen erwarten.

1:

MdB [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerzy_Montag Jerzy Montag] (* 13. Februar 1947 in Kattowitz, Polen) ist seit 1975 [http://www.faktuell.de/Hintergrund/Background281.shtml Rechtsanwalt] und *Fachanwalt für Strafrecht* in München, rechtspolitischer Sprecher der Grünen, Vertreter im Rechtsausschuss des Bundestages, Europarecht, stellv. in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union.

Resources