Das Übereinkommen über handelsbezogene Aspekte der Rechte des Geistigen Eigentums (TRIPs) wurde am 15. Dezember 1993 im Rahmen der Gründung der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) gegründet. Es legt minimale Anforderungen für nationale Rechtssysteme fest, um "sicherzustellen, daß die Maßnahmen und Verfahren zur Durchsetzung der Rechte des geistigen Eigentums nicht selbst zu Schranken für den rechtmäßigen Handel werden" (Präambel).
Artikel 27 wird seit Mitte der 90er Jahre regelmäßig von Patentjuristen zitiert, um für einen Universalitätsanspruch des Patentwesens und insbesondere eine Ausweitung des Patentschutzes auf Computerprogramme und andere immaterielle Gegenstände zu argumentieren.
Hierzu bemerkte Paul Hartnack, Comptroller General des Britischen Patentamtes, 1997 bei der Londoner Anhörung über Softwarepatentierung:
Manche Leute haben behauptet, der TRIPs-Vertrag verpflichte uns, Patente auf Software zu erteilen, da darin steht "Patente sollen für alle Erfindungen auf allen Gebieten der Technik erhältlich sein, sofern sie ... einer industriellen Anwendung zugänglich sind".
Es kommt aber darauf an, wie man diese Formulierung interpretiert.
Ist ein einfaches Stück Programmtext eine Erfindung?
Nach europäischem Recht ist es das nicht.
Ist reine Programmlogik eine Technologie?
Viele würden das verneinen.
Ist sie der "industriellen" Anwendung zugänglich?
Wiederum würden, was einen Großteil der Software betrifft, viele das verneinen.
Der TRIPs-Vertrag lässt sich als Argument für eine erweiterten Patentschutz für Software anführen.
Aber die Entscheidung, dies zu tun, sollte auf soliden wirtschaftspolitischen Überlegungen beruhen.
Liegt es im Interesse der Europäischen Wirtschaft und der Europäischen Verbraucher, diesen Schritt zu unternehmen?
Bei der Ratifizierung von GATT/TRIPs wies der Deutsche Bundestag ausdrücklich darauf hin, das zwischen PatG §1 und TRIPs Art 27(1) kein Konflikt bestehe.
In einer Entscheidung von 2000, in der es einen Anspruch auf ein Computer-Programm zurückweist, widerlegt das Bundespatentgericht nebenbei auch die TRIPs-Lüge:
Auch das Übereinkommen über handelsbezogene Aspekte der Rechte des geistigen Eigentums (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights = TRIPS) führt zu keiner anderen Beurteilung der Patentfähigkeit. Abgesehen von der Frage, in welcher Form das TRIPS-Abkommen - unmittelbar oder mittelbar - anwendbar ist (...), würde nämlich auch die Heranziehung von Art 27 Abs 1 TRIPS-Abkommen hier nicht zu einem weitergehenden Schutz führen. Mit der dortigen Formulierung, wonach Patente für Erfindungen auf allen Gebieten der Technik erhältlich sein sollen, wird nämlich im Grunde nur die bisher schon im deutschen Patentrecht vorherrschende Auffassung bestätigt, wonach der Begriff der Technik das einzig brauchbare Kriterium für die Abgrenzung von Erfindungen gegenüber andersartigen geistigen Leistungen, mithin die Technizität Voraussetzung für die Patentfähigkeit ist (in der Entscheidung des BGH "Logikverifikation" ist insoweit die Rede von "nachträglicher Bestätigung" der Rechtsprechung durch die Regelung in Art 27 Abs 1 TRIPS-Abkommen). Auch der Ausschlusstatbestand des §1 Abs 2 Nr 3 und Abs 3 PatG kann vor dem Hintergrund, dass er auf dem Gedanken des fehlenden technischen Charakters dieser Gegenstände beruht, nicht im Widerspruch zu Art 27 Abs 1 TRIPS-Abkommen gesehen werden.
The Federal Patent Court here refers to the Dispositionsprogramm doctrine, according to which the presence or not of controllable forces of nature in the solution of the problem is the only usable criterion for delimiting the realm of patentable inventions. According to this doctrine, data processing is not a field of technology, as Gert Kolle, the leading scholar of the time on this question, explains in his much-cited analysis of the Dispositionsprogramm decision in 1977:
Die Automatische Datenverarbeitung (ADV) ist heute zu einem unentbehrlichen Hilfsmittel in allen Bereichen der menschlichen Gesellschaft geworden und wird dies auch in Zukunft bleiben. Sie ist ubiquitär. ... Ihre instrumendale Bedeutung, ihre Hilfs- und Dienstleistungsfunktion unterscheidet die ADV von den ... Einzelgebieten der Technik und ordnet sie eher solchen Bereichen zu wie z.B. der Betriebswirtschaft, deren Arbeitsergebnisse und Methoden ... von allen Wirtschaftsunternehmen benötigt werden und für die daher prima facie ein Freihaltungsbedürfnis indiziert ist.
This is exactly what the European Parliament has stated in its amended directive proposal:
Erwägung 7
Nach dem Übereinkommen über die Erteilung europäischer Patente (Europäisches Patentübereinkommen) vom 5. Oktober 1973 (EPÜ) und den Patentgesetzen der Mitgliedstaaten gelten Programme für Datenverarbeitungsanlagen, Entdeckungen, wissenschaftliche Theorien, mathematische Methoden, ästhetische Formschöpfungen, Pläne, Regeln und Verfahren für gedankliche Tätigkeiten, für Spiele oder für geschäftliche Tätigkeiten sowie die Wiedergabe von Informationen ausdrücklich nicht als Erfindungen, weshalb ihnen die Patentierbarkeit abgesprochen wird. Diese Ausnahme gilt, da die besagten Gegenstände und Tätigkeiten keinem Gebiet der Technik zugehören.
Artikel 2b.
"technical contribution", also called "invention", means a contribution to the state of the art in technical field. The technical character of the contribution is one of the four requirements for patentability. Additionally, to deserve a patent, the technical contribution has to be new, non-obvious, and susceptible of industrial application. The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a technical field. The processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes.
Artikel 3a.
Member states shall ensure that data processing is not considered to be a field of technology in the sense of patent law, and that innovations in the field of data processing are not considered to be inventions in the sense of patent law.
- Computerprogramme, gleichviel, ob sie in Quellcode oder in Maschinenprogrammcode ausgedrückt sind, werden als Werke der Literatur nach der Berner Übereinkunft (1971) geschützt.
- Zusammenstellungen von Daten oder sonstigem Material, gleichviel, ob in maschinenlesbarer oder anderer Form, die aufgrund der Auswahl oder Anordnung ihres Inhalts geistige Schöpfungen bilden, werden als solche geschützt. Dieser Schutz, der sich nicht auf die Daten oder das Material selbst erstreckt, gilt unbeschadet eines an den Daten oder dem Malerial selbst bestehenden Urheberrechts.
Vorbehaltlich der Absätze 2 und 3 ist vorzusehen, daß Patente für Erfindungen auf allen Gebieten der Technik erhältlich sind, sowohl für Erzeugnisse als auch für Verfahren, vorausgesetzt, daß sie neu sind, auf einer erfinderischen Tätigkeit beruhen und gewerblich anwendbar sind.
[1]Vorbehaltlich des Artikels 65 Absatz 4, des Artikels 70 Absatz 8 und des Absatzes 3 dieses Artikels sind Patente erhältlich und können Patentrechte ausgeübt werden, ohne daß hinsichtlich des Ortes der Erfindung, des Gebiets der Technik oder danach, ob die Erzeugnisse eingeführt oder im Land hergestellt werden, diskriminiert werden darf.
It should be noted that the text explicitely encourages differing interpretations of some of the abstract terms used therein, such as "non-obviousness" and "industrial application".
While the paragraph forbids "discrimination" in the interest of free and equal trading conditions, it does not mandate a specific invention concept. It could however be construed to favor an invention concept which is favorable to free trade and economic development and in which the terms "technology", "industry" etc are not empty words.
Even within the realm of patentable "technology", Art 27(1) can hardly be interpreted as a rigid framework that outlaws all fine-tuning. If it was to be interpreted in this rigid way, as some patent lawyers propose, U.S. law would fall afoul of TRIPs in at least four areas: pharmaceuticals [35 USC 155,156, term extensions; 35 USC 271(e), experimental use]; biotechnology processes [35 USC 103(b), providing special non-obviousness standard]; medical and surgical procedures [35 USC 287(c), limiting remedies], and methods of doing business [35 USC 273(a)(3), providing prior user rights].
Members may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties.
This clause is cited by patent owner lobbies whenever anyone tries to restrict the rights of patent owners, no matter whether in "reasonable" or "unreasonable" ways.
siehe Interoperabilität und die Softwarepatent-Richtlinie: Welche Schranken sind Erforderlich?
Dies ist wichtig zu wissen, denn es erübrigt wohlmeinende Vorschläge wie den von Amazon-Gründer Jeff Bezos, man solle die Patentlaufzeit im Softwarebereich auf 3-5 Jahre kürzen.
The TRIPs treaty has no time limitation. It is valid as long as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as a whole can not agree to change it. The organisation of WTO is far removed from democratic participation, and many WTO members are dictatorial states. If any country wants to opt out of TRIPs, it will have to leave WTO, thereby risking a collapse of its exporting industries. The treaty was negotiated in backrooms between ministerial officials, and for most of the world's languages translations do not even exist. All these considerations make it imperative to interpret the TRIPs treaty with greatest care and to make extensive use of the flexibility which it allows, so as to achieve a fair balance of rights and obligations under the overall objective of Free Trade which the treaty serves.
The treaty drafters were aware of these problems. In the General Provisions, they included articles such as the following:
Artikel 7
Objectives
The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.
Artikel 8
Principles
- Members may, in formulating or amending their laws and regulations, adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological development, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement.
- Appropriate measures, provided that they are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement, may be needed to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology.
Gleichzeitig ist zu fragen, ob die Beanspruchung immaterieller Gegenstände aus dem Bereich der Programmlogik, der Kommunikationsschnittstellen und der Organisationsmethoden nicht dazu geeignet ist, Handelsbarrieren aufzubauen, die im Gegensatz zum Geist von TRIPs und anderen Freihandels-Abkommen stehen.
TRIPs provides meta-rules for patent law, designed to promote free trade and reduce the leverage of governments in favoring domestic industries over foreign ones. It says something about how laws should be structured, e.g. "no discrimination in favor of specific local industries", "no arbitrary limitation on enforcability". It thereby encourages limitations that are based on systematic considerations, e.g. weighing patentee rights against other rights of equal weight, such as copyright property (Art 10 TRIPs), freedom of publication (Art 10 European Convention of Human Rights ECHR) or the right of access to communication standards.
It is very important for any patent law project to concretise the abstract rules of the TRIPs treaty. Any law project that fails to do so can not be claimed to serve the purpose of clarification.
While economic policies should be justified in terms of the abstract concepts laid down in TRIPs, they can not be derived from TRIPs alone.
It is poor draftsmanship to copy&paste abstract doctrines from TRIPs into European laws, which are supposed to provide guidance at a more concrete level. Art 52(1) EPC was revised in this ill-advised way by the Diplomatic Conference of 2000, and the European Parliament's rapporteur on the software patent directive project, Arlene McCarthy MEP, proposed to directly write Art 30 TRIPs into Art 6a of the Directive. Such actions do not only make make the proposed laws unclear. They also deprive European of maneuvering freedom in future renegotiations of TRIPs, which may well be needed in order to keep the TRIPs framework workable at all.
TRIPs was negotiated by delegations that represented the dominant interests of another era. Software was largely considered unpatentable, and opensource development and distribution was almost unknown. TRIPs should be interpreted in a way that does not benefit some production technologies, business models, and industries at the expense of others. The important thing is to enhance productivity in all industries.
Many limits of the TRIPs system, at least in its more rigid interpretations, have become so apparent, that even the Americans, who were the chief promoters of the TRIPs treaty, are tailoring it to their advantage and thereby arguably violating some of its provisions.
There is now a lot less worry that the US might make a complaint about any aspects of the patent system in the EU, because the EU would hit straight back with complaints about US preference in the US patent system.
Any judgments coming out of such a row would be likely to open a sufficient number of politically difficult issues on both sides of the Atlantic that nobody wants to go there.
The European Patent office started allowing
program claims in 1998. In the justifying decisions
T 1173/97 and
T 935/97 it is stated:
Programs for computers could be considered as patentable inventions if they have a technical character.
Computer programs, as described in program claims granted by the EPO since 1998, are information structures, consisting of symbolic entities only. Any "technical character" which they might have can be found only on the meaning side of the symbolic entities. Likewise one could speak of the "technical character" of a set of chemical formulas, of a collection of construction drawings or even of a science-fiction novel, and empower every patent owner to monopolise the distribution of any information which describes his "invention".
However the EPO does not go as far as this. Instead it creates a special class of "inventions" which can be claimed in the form of information structures. These structures, since 2000 called "computer-implemented inventions" by the EPO, can be appropriated both by copyright and by patents.
Computer programs are thus "protected as literary works" (i.e. subjected to copyright), as stipulated by Art 10 TRIPs, and, in addition, patentable as technical inventions.
This alone is arguably a violation of TRIPs. Normally one intellectual achievement should not fall under two different regimes at the same time, and Art 10 states that computer programs fall under copyright. If they are "protected both as literary works and as inventions" then they are in effect no longer "protected as literary works", since it is a characteristic of copyrighted works that the ideas embodied therein remain free. If both copyright and patents apply to software, property that was acquired one regime is exposed to devaluation by the other.
The EPO and the European Commission have still gone further in violating TRIPs.
Starting from the creation of a special class of "computer-implemented inventions" which can be claimed in a special, usually impermissible way (namely in the form of an information structure describing the "invention"), they have endeavored to create a body of sui generis software patent law.
In 2000, both the EPO and the European Commission quickly adopted the doctrines of a new decision by the EPO's Technical Board of Appeal, called Controlling Pension Benefits System. This decision establishes special rules for examining the technical character of "computer-implemented inventions", such as assessing the "claim as a whole" rather than the achievement behind this claim, thereby making any computer program pass the requirement of technical invention, and, instead of this voided requirement, establishing a new requirement of "technical contribution in the inventive step", which has no basis in Art 27 TRIPs.
The Working Party of the Council of the European Union went even one step further in its secret papers of November 2002 and January 2004. They leave it to the patent applicant to decide which of the two regimes he wants to see applied to his achievement: the standard doctrines of patent law or the sui generis doctrines for "computer-implemented inventions".
By contrast, the European Parliament has proposed to clarify TRIPs by stating, inter alia, that data processing (informatics) is not just another discipline applied natural science ("field of technology") but rather a layer of abstraction, applicable to all fields of natural as well as social science. These clarifications beautifully integrate Art 10, Art 27 and the EPC. The Parliament's proposals are ignored and unreasonably discredited by the community of patent administrators and corporate patent lawyers, which is, as of spring 2004, continuing to monopolise the decisionmaking at the European Patent Office (EPO), the European Council (Consilium) and the European Commission (CEC).
In summary it can be said that the European patent establishment is
- refusing to clarify and concretise the meaning of the TRIPs treaty;
- wrongly equating the TRIPs treaty with "US practise", using threats of alleged TRIPs-incompatibility for purposes of fostering Fear, Uncertainty and Distrust (FUD);
- trying to impose a sui generis software patent regime on Europe which is incompatible with the TRIPs treaty.
OMC: ADPIC- Text des TRIPs-Vertrages auf den WTO-Webseiten
- Christian Beauprez: Art 10 TRIPs and "Computer-Implemented Inventions"
- UK software law expert argues that according to TRIPs Art 10 computer programs must be be "protected as literary works", and this means that the ideas embodied therein are free, as in literary works.
- Daniele Schiuma 2000: TRIPS and Exclusion of Software 'as such' from Patentability
- Diese Argumentation für ein weltweit einheitliches universelles Patentwesen stützt sich leider nur auf das TRIPs-Scheinargument in Kombination mit allerlei unreflektierten Glaubenssätzen. Beiläufig verrät der Artikel aber interessante historische Details, wie etwa die Tatsache, dass der Deutsche Bundestag den TRIPs-Vertrag unter der expliziten Annahme unterzeichnete, dieser Vertrag fordere nicht die Patentierbarkeit von Software.
- In a recent decsision the Swedish Patent Court of Appeals reject:
As pointed out by the plaintiff, Sweden is bound to follow the rules in the TRIPs agreement since it joined the WTO in 1995. What's relevant to this case is that article 27 (1) says that the possibility to get a patent should be available for every invention in any technical field. This decision has not made any change in § 1 PL [Swedish Patent Law] necessary. Neither article 27 (1) nor any other part of the agreement gives a legal definition of the concept "invention". There is no explanation of what is supposed to be considered a "technical" field, in this regard and for background on the article see
Joseph Straus in GRUR Int. 1996 p. 179: "Bedeutung des TRIPs für das Patentrecht", part V b)) iii, items 35 to 37, in which the relationship to article 52 in the EPC is also discussed.
- BPatG 2000: Patentansprüche auf "Computerprogrammprodukt" etc unzulässig
- A German verdict from 2000 which rejects the TRIPs fallacy in a similar way
- IPR Commission 2002-09: Final Report
- Chapter 6 argues that developping countries should be careful not to follow the US or the European Commission in framing their patent policy with regard to software, genetics et al. They should adopt an approach similar to Art 52 EPC: explicitely exclude software, business methods and the like from patentability. This, the authors point out, is perfectly compatible with Art 27 TRIPs. The authors are british scholars, their work was commissioned by the british government.
- DG IV Bakels 2002-06-19: The Patentability of Computer Programs
- This EU-commissioned study also rejects the TRIPs fallacy.
Proponents of software patenting have argued that Article 27(1) does not allow software from being excluded from patentability, since computer software is to be considered a "field of technology". The discussions preceding adoption of the TRIPs agreement, however, do not confirm such a reading. In the absence of a legal definition of "invention", the agreement arguably leaves it to the member states to determine what constitutes a patentable invention, and whether or not that includes computer software as such.
- Dan L. Burk and Mark Lemley, "Is Patent Law Technology-Specific?"
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2002) and "Policy Levers in Patent Law", 89 Virginia Law Review (forthcoming December 2003). US law scholar Mark Lemley explains the historical context of TRIPs and argues that Art 27ff can not be interpreted as rigidly as the one-size-fits-all advocates pretend it should be.
- Patentanwaltsverband gegen Technizitäts-Erfordernis in Art 27 TRIPs
- In einem Positionspapier zu aktuellen Vertragsverhandlungen meint der Weltverband der Patentanwälte, es koenne "keinerlei Grund" geben, die Patentierbarkeit einzuschränken und Art 27 TRIPs sei "niemals restriktiv gemeint" gewesen. Deshalb müssten im neuen Entwurf eines Weltvertrages ueber das Materielle Patentrecht die Begriffe "Technik" und "industrielle Anwendung" fallen oder aber es müsse klar gestellt werden, dass ihnen keinerlei begrenzende Bedeutung zukomme. Insbesondere müsse sicher gestellt werden, dass der wirtschaftlich zunehmend bedeutende Dienstleistungssektor in den vollen Genuss der Segnungen des Patentwesens komme. Damit stellt sich FICPI im deutlich auf die Seite der amerikanischen und gegen die europäische Position zum "Vertrag über das Materielle Patentrecht" (MPRV/SPLT).
- Softwarepatente in den USA
- The US government's patent lawyers have been fighting hard against incorporation of Art 27 TRIPs into the new Substantive Patent Law Treaty, because they see the words "technical" and "industrial" as a restriction on patentability.
- Interoperabilität und die Softwarepatent-Richtlinie: Welche Schranken sind Erforderlich?
- Art 30 TRIPs is being used by corporate patent lawyers and their governmental supporters for lobbying against interoperability exemptions which have been favored by all concerned committees in the European Parliament.
- Smets 2000: The Hidden Agenda of the European Commission
- Die Pläne des EPA und der Europäischen Kommission beruhen auf einem "in sich stimmigen Geflecht von Scheinargumenten", unter denen das TRIPs-Scheinargument nie fehlen darf.
- BMWi 2002-12-06 an Marcus Brinkmann: Bundesregierung in Brüssel für Logik- und Textpatente
- Nils Baggehufwudt from the German Ministery of Economics uses the TRIPs fallacy in a letter in which he justifies the German Government's policy of supporting software patentability even beyond the level advocated by the European Commission.
- Louvain Conference 2004/03/11-13
- At the conference, Prof. Alberto Bercovitz pointed out that EPO and European Commission is trying to create a TRIPs-incompatible sui generis patent law. Jean-Charles Van Eeckhaude from the European Commission's DG Commerce pointed out that the "IP Community" at WTO is undermining the TRIPs system by promoting extreme interpretations of TRIPs. One of the problems of the TRIPs system is that the arbitration process itself seems to be in the hands of the "IP Community", as can be seen from recent examples.
- Exceptions to Intellectual Property Rights: Lessons from WTO-Trips Panels
- Three law scholars explain how the European Commission has been pressing for extreme interpretations of Art 30 TRIPs at the WTO panels, partially with success. E.g. the EU succeded in using TRIPs to disallow internal stockpiling of pharmaceuticals by Canadian generica manufacturers before the expiry of the patent term and to disallow royalty-free use of musical works in the context of smallscale events in the USA. The authors conclude: "WTO-TRIPS panels are restrictively interpreting the restriction to IPR's. They thereby confirm the monopolist strength of the IPR holder, whose powers remains absolute in most respects. Given the stance of WTO-TRIPS panels reinforcing the IPR holder/owner's position, WTO contributes to stifling innovation in the digital economy by limiting the exception for the public good ever further."
- EU stärkt das Microsoft-Monopol
- Das Kartellverfahren der Europäischen Kommission gegen Microsoft hat zu einem Urteil geführt, das Microsofts Monopolstellung im Betriebssystemmarkt deutlich stärkt und Microsoft hilft, in andere Märkte zu expandieren. Während die Kommission mit der Verhängung einer einmaligen Strafe in Höhe von 1% der liquiden Finanzmittel von Microsoft sich eine spürbare Finanzsspritze verschafft hat, gibt das Kleingedruckte Microsoft grünes Licht, ihre Hauptkonkurrenten im Betriebssystemmarkt zu vernichten. Dieses Kleingedruckte wurde gleichzeitig durch Hinterzimmergeschäfte im Patentarbeitskreis des Rates bestätigt, von denen der FFII Kopien erhalten hat. Unmittelbar nach den Ankündigungen stieg der Aktienkurs von Microsoft um 3%.
![[EN English]](/img/flags/en.png){kind=small}
![[FR Francais]](/img/flags/fr.png){kind=small}
![[Übersetzungsvorlage]](/img/icons.other/txt.png){kind=icon}
![[Wie helfen?]](/img/icons.other/questionmark.png){kind=icon}
![[Papierfassung]](/img/icons.other/pdficon.png){kind=icon}
![[Addenda]](/img/icons.other/addenda.png){kind=icon}