CEOs of 5 of the largest patenting companies in Sweden falsely accuse the European Parliament of having voted to make software-controlled industrial production processes (e.g. robots of ABB) unpatentable. Based on this false accusation, they demand support for the position of the European Commission and European Council, which is to legalise 30000 patents on pure software and business methods which have been granted by the European Patent Office in recent years against the letter and spirit of the existing law. The CEOs moreover make it clear that "harmonisation and clarification": they want either a full codification of unlimited patentability according to the EPO doctrines or no directive at all. Similar letters have been signed by prominent industry executives and sent to heads of government. This is the first time that they are directly going public with such a letter. The letter comes after a statement by Sweden's Justice Minister Thomas BodstrÃ¶m in support
In a response to a parliamentary question in december 2003, Sweden's minister of justice Thomas Bodström endorsed the approach of the European Patent Office and the European Commission on software patents and criticised the European Parliament for amending the directive with the effect of narrowing the scope of patentability and making already-granted patents invalid. Bodström announced that his government will push for reversal of these amendments. His comments provoked applause from the patent movement (also called the "technostructure" in Sweden) and criticism from some software associations and companies.
At the Melbourne congress of AIPPI, various national delegations answer questions concerning business methods. The Swedish delegation responds that business methods should be directly patentable like any other methods.
The swedish state procurement agency has been approached for patent infringement and is appealing against the patent in question with the following argument "As there is no invention in the patentable realm according to PatL paragraph 1, and as there is no novelty, or at least no inventive height, according to PatL paragraph 2 we demand that the patent office revoke the granted patent in its entirety."