|JURI 2003/04||Europarl 2003/09||Checklist||Votes||Debate 03/09/23||result|
[text of the original proposal of European Commission]
|EDD, VERD+GUE, UEN, ..|
|Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the limits of patentability with respect to automated data processing and its fields of application|
|116||Kauppi||++||-||This directive lays down the rules concerning the limits of patentability and patent enforceability with respect to computer programs.|
|36=42=117||EDD, UEN, Kauppi||+++||+||(a) "computer-implemented invention" means any invention in the sense of the European Patent Convention the performance of which involves the use of a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus and having in its implementations one or more non-technical features which are realised wholly or partly by a computer program or computer programs, besides the technical features that any invention must contribute;|
|14||JURI||--||-||(a) "computer-implemented invention" means any invention the performance of which involves the use of a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus and having one or more features which are realised wholly or partly by means of a computer program or computer programs;|
Amendments 36=42=117 clarify that an innovation is only patentable if it conforms to Art 52 of the EPC, regardless of whether or not a computer program is part of its implementation. Amendment 14 would allow a pure computer program to be claimed as "an invention the performance of which involves the use of a computer and having all of its features realised by means of a computer program", thus contradicting Art 52 EPC.
|69||PSE (Medina)||+++||+||(b) "technical contribution" means a contribution to the state of the art in a technical field which is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. 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.|
|107||Kauppi||++||+||(b) "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.|
|96||ELDR (Manders, Plooij)||-||-||(b) "technical contribution" means a contribution, involving an inventive step to a technical field which solves an existing technical problem or extends the state of the art in a significant way to a person skilled in the art.|
Amendment 96 seems to imply that only the problem but not the solution needs to be technical. The word "significant" has no legal meaning and is therefore conductive to confusion rather than clarification. Obviously "technical" needs to be clearly defined if this is to have any useful effect. Requiring a technical problem to be solved is as bad as CEC or worse. We should not focus on the application (the problem solved), but on the solution (the result of empirical research that may merit a patent). Any software can be said to solve a technical problem, but if the solution only innovates in software, it cannot be said to be a technical solution (at least not a new technical solution).
Amendment 69 goes in the right direction by stating that "processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field". It risks mixing the "technical contribution" (= invention) requirement with non-obviousness requirements, similar to 96. However even though the wording is redundant, there is nothing wrong with saying that the contribution (invention) must be "non-obvious". This can even help to correct EPO misperceptions, according which "the non-obviousness must contain a technical contribution". Given that this amendment also defines what "technical fields" (Art 27 TRIPs) are, it is extremely useful.
Amendment 107 correctly states the traditional EPC-based doctrine, according to which that "technical contribution" is a synonym for invention. This amendment does not limit patentability in any way, it simply confirms Art 52 EPC and removes any confusion that may occur by mixing the patentability tests, like the original CEC text and the other amendments do.
|55=97=108||ELDR, VERD+GUE+, Kauppi+||++||+||(ba) "technical field" means an industrial application domain requiring the use of controllable forces of nature to achieve predictable results. "Technical" means "belonging to a technical field". The use of forces of nature to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a technical domain. The production, handling, processing, distribution and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even when technical devices are employed for such purposes.|
|37||EDD, UEN||++||0:0||"Technology" means "applied natural science". "Technical" means "concrete and physical".|
|39=43||EDD, UEN||++||-||(bb) "invention" in the sense of patent law means "solution of a problem by use of controllable forces of nature" ;|
|38=44=118||EDD, Kauppi++, UEN||++||+||(bc) "industry" in the sense of patent law means "automated production of material goods";|
|45||UEN||+++||0:0||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.|
If data processing is "technical", then anything is "technical".
Data processing is a common basis of all fields of technology and non-technology. With the advent of the (universal) computer in the 1950s, automated data processing (ADP) became pervasive in society and industry.
As Gert Kolle, a leading theoretician behind the decisions of the 1970s to exclude software from patentability, writes in 1977 (see Gert Kolle 1977: Technik, Datenverarbeitung und Patentrecht -- Bermerkungen zur Dispositionsprogramm - Entscheidung des Bundesgerichtshofs):
CULT was well-advised to vote for a clear exclusion of data processing from the scope of "technology".
Numerous studies, some of them conducted by EU instiutions as well as the opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Comittee of Regions explain in detail why Europe's economy will suffer damage, if data processing innovations are not clearly excluded from patentability.
|?||JURI||o||0:0||(Split into parts 1 2 and 3.)|
JURI has split this article into parts 1, 2 and 3. This is dangerous because it prevents certain amendments, which may apply to the whole article, from being put to vote.
|16-1||JURI||-||-||In order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be susceptible of industrial application and new and involve an inventive step.|
|56=98=109||ELDR, VERD+GUE+, Kauppi+||++||+||Member States shall ensure that patents are granted only for technical inventions which are new, non-obvious and susceptible of industrial application.|
|48||UEN||++||-||Member States shall ensure that it is a condition of constituting an invention in the sense of patent law that an innovation, regardless of whether it involves the use of a computer or not, must be of technical character.|
|16-2||JURI||o||+||In order to involve an inventive step, a computer-implemented invention must make a technical contribution.|
Moreover, the Commission text implies that ideas framed in terms of the general purpose computer (programs for computers) are patentable inventions. Deletion, as proposed by amendment 82, could be helpful, because the only effect of this paragraph is to confuse patentability tests and thereby make it impossible for national patent offices to reject non-statutory patent applications without substantive examination. Amendment 16 makes the same mistake as the commission text, it just tidies up the language a bit. Amendment 40 will be retracted, it has been retabled as an insertion now (83).
|16-3||JURI||-||-||The technical contribution shall be assessed by considering the state of the art and the scope of the patent claim considered as a whole, which must comprise technical features, irrespective whether or not such features are accompanied by non-technical features.|
|57=99=110||ELDR, VERD+GUE, Kauppi||++||0:0||The technical contribution shall be assessed by consideration of the difference between all of the the technical features of the patent claim and the state of the art.|
|100||ELDR||-||+,-||3. The significant extent of the technical contribution shall be assessed by consideration of the difference between the technical elements included in the scope of the patent claim considered as a whole and the state of the art. Elements disclosed by the applicant for a patent over a period of six months before the date of the application shall not be considered to be part of the state of the art when assessing that particular claim.|
However, the European Commission's proposal voids its own concept of "technical contribution" by allowing the contribution to consist of non-technical features. The JURI version only states that the claims must contain technical features, but this is no real limit. An example may clarify this. Suppose we want to patent a computer program, so we say that it is the "technical contribution". In the claims, we describe the application of this program, so we say that we patent the execution of this program on a computer. Now the patent claims as a whole contain technical features (the computer), and the difference between the claims as a whole (known computer+new program) and the state of the art (known computer) is the computer program. So a computer program can be a technical contribution, according to this condition, which is completely contradictory (as a computer program cannot be technical). It is clear that a correction such as that in amendment 99=57=110 is necessary, if the concept of "technical contribution" is to be used at all.
The novelty grace period proposed by amendment 100 is an orthogonal question. As shown by a recent consultation conducted by the UK Patent Office, it is very controversial even among those who are supposed to benefit from it. It is not clear whether a novelty grace period would in fact, as suggested by the ITRE report, benefit SMEs. In the case of open source development, it could even cause additional insecurity as to whether published ideas are free from patents.
|70||PSE||+||+||In determining whether a given computer-implemented invention makes a technical contribution, the following test shall be used: whether it constitutes a new teaching on cause-effect relations in the use of controllable forces of natures and has an industrial application in the strict sense of the expression, in terms of both method and result.|
Also, by saying that this test "shall apply", the provision does not clearly require that this test actually must be passed, nor that it defines what is meant by "technical contribution".
Finally, there is no legal definition of "industrial application in the strict sense of the expression, in terms of both method and result".
In spite of these shortcomings, we recommend to support Amendment 70. At least it codifies central aspects of the concept of "technical invention". Thereby, in combination with other amendments, it could eventually contribute to drawing a clear limit of patentability.
|17||JURI||-||+||Exclusions from patentability|
A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable.
|87||PPE-DE||o||n||Exclusions from patentability|
A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions merely involving computer programs (data processing which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable.)
|47=60||VERD+GUE++, UEN||++||+||Member States shall ensure that computer-implemented solutions to technical problems are not considered to be patentable inventions merely because they improve efficiency in the use of resources within the data processing system.|
Amendments 47 and 60 clearly tell the EPO to follow the German Federal Patent Court in refusing to consider improvement of data processing efficiency a "technical contribution".
|46=83||EDD, UEN||++||-||Member States shall ensure that patents on computerised innovations are upheld and enforced only if they were granted according to the rules of Article 52 of the European Patent Convention of 1973, as explained in the European Patent Office's Examination Guidelines of 1978.|
|18||JURI||--||0:0||A claim to a computer program, on its own, on a carrier or as a signal, shall be allowable only if such program would, when loaded or run on a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, implement a product or carry out a process patentable under Articles 4 and 4a.|
|49=58=101||ELDR, VERD+GUE, UEN||++||-||Member States shall ensure that a computer-implemented invention may be claimed only as a product, that is a set of equipment comprising both programmable apparatus and devices which use forces of nature in an inventive way, or as a technical production process operated by such a computer, computer network or apparatus through the execution of software.|
|102=111||ELDR, Kauppi||+||+||(a) Member States shall ensure that a computer-implemented invention may be claimed only as a product, that is as a programmed device, or as a technical production process.|
Yet, the CEC wording still suggests that known general purpose computing hardware and calculation rules executed thereon (= computer programs) are patentable products and processes. Amendment 101/58 tries to address this problem. It might be a good idea to replace "technical production processes operated by such a computer" by "the inventive processes running on such a set of equipment" if that is still possible in the form of a "compromise amendment". Amendment 102 defines "computer-implemented invention" as being only a product or a technical production process. As long as "technical" is defined, this might be useful. Nevertheless, a computer running a program could also be interpreted as a "programmed device", and patenting the use of a computer program when executed on a computer has the same effect as patenting the computer program itself: there is no other way to use a computer program than by executing it on a computer.
|62||GUE||+||o||Limitation of the effects of patents granted to computer-implemented inventions|
Member States shall ensure that the rights conferred by the patent shall not extend to the acts done to run, copy, distribute, study, change or improve a computer program which is distributed under a licence that provides for:
|72||PSE||o||o||Die Mitgliedstaaten stellen sicher, dass auf computerimplementierte Erfindungen erteilte Patentansprüche nur den technischen Beitrag umfassen, der den Patentanspruch begründet. Ein Patentanspruch auf ein Computerprogramm, sei es auf das Programm allein oder auf ein auf einem Datenträger vorliegendes Programm, ist unzulässig.|
|103=119||ELDR, Kauppi||++||+||Member States shall ensure that the production, handling, processing, distribution and publication of information, in whatever form, can never constitute direct or indirect infringement of a patent, even when a technical apparatus is used for that purpose.|
|104-1=120-1||ELDR, Kauppi||o||+||(c) Member States shall ensure that the use of a computer program for purposes that do not belong to the scope of the patent cannot constitute a direct or indirect patent infringement.|
|104-2, 120-2||ELDR, Kauppi++||+||0:0||(d) Member States shall ensure that whenever a patent claim names features that imply the use of a computer program, a well-functioning and well documented reference implementation of such a program is published as part of the patent description without any restricting licensing terms.|
|19||JURI||o||+||The rights conferred by patents granted for inventions within the scope of this Directive shall not affect acts permitted under Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs by copyright, in particular under the provisions thereof in respect of decompilation and interoperability.|
|50||UEN||+++||-||(a) Member States shall ensure that, wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion between the conventions used in two different data processing systems so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement..|
|20||JURI||++||+||(a) Member States shall ensure that wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or network so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement.|
|76||PSE||--||-||(a) Member States shall ensure that, wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for a significant purpose such as ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or networks so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement, provided that it does not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties.|
|105||ELDR||--||-||Use of patented technologies|
Member States shall ensure that, wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or networks so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement, provided that:
Amendment 76 removes all clarity about when use of patented techniques for interoperation is allowed and when not. It runs counter to the main purpose of the directive, which is to concretise certain abstract meta-rules, including those of Art 30 TRIPs, and thereby achieve clarity and legal security.
It is nice that amendment 105 agrees with us that a "computer-implemented invention" cannot mean anything else but software running on a computer. However, the exceptions it mentions are very strange. In the first case, if the invention is an independent machine, there is no interoperability requirement. If there is no interoperability requirement, amendment 20 also won't apply. Conversely, if there is such a requirement, then the patented invention will not be working as an independent machine or technical invention. The second clause is quite dangerous, as it leaves everything for the courts to decide, thus failing to achieve the directive's aim of clarification. As the anti-trust cases against Microsoft in both the USA and in Europe shows, it is extremely difficult and time-consuming to determine whether any behavior violates existing competition law. This would render the interoperability clause toothless and put SME's even more at a disadvantage, as large companies have much more money to spend on court cases.
|106||ELDR||o||-||(b) Term of patent|
The term of a patent granted for computer-implemented inventions pursuant to this Directive shall be 7 years as from the date of filing.
|21||JURI||-||o||The Commission shall monitor the impact of computer-implemented inventions on innovation and competition, both within Europe and internationally, and on European businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, and electronic commerce.|
|91||PPE-DE||+||0:0||The Commission shall monitor the impact of patent protection for computer-implemented inventions on innovation and competition, both within Europe and internationally, and on European businesses. Special attention will be paid to the position of small and medium-sized enterprises and of electronic commerce and to the impact of dominant positions on the functioning of the market.|
|90||PPE-DE||--||-||The Commission shall examine the question of how to make patent protection more readily accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises and ways of assisting them with the costs of obtaining and enforcing patents.|
|71||PSE||-||+,-||The Commission shall monitor the impact of computer-implemented inventions on innovation and competition, both within Europe and internationally, and on European businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises and the open source community, and electronic commerce.|
The Commission shall examine the question of how to make patent protection more readily accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises and ways of assisting them with the costs of obtaining and enforcing patents, in particular through the creation of a defence fund and the introduction of special rules on legal costs.
It shall report on its findings to the European Parliament and the Council and present appropriate proposals for legislation without delay.
Amendment 90 is like 71, but less explicit.
Both amendments 71 and 90 call for an insurance for promotion not of defence of software companies against patent aggression, but, on the contrary, of aggressive use of patents by specialised patent litigation SMEs such as Eolas and Allvoice against software companies. The archetype for the "Patent Defence" concept is the "Patent Defence Union" created by the CEO of Allvoice Computing PLC. Allvoice is the "ten-person company located in an employment blackspot in south-west England" which Arlene McCarthy praises in her JURI Draft Report. Allvoice has hardly produced any software itself, certainly not speech recognition software, but it used two trivial and broad patents on user interfaces in order to extort money from real speech recognition software companies. By promoting the Patent Defence scheme as set out in this amendment, MEPs should note that they would be promoting litigation instead of innovation.
Several EU studies on SMEs and software patents have found that there are systematic reasons why SMEs are not using the patent system. These are unlikely to be overcome by any proselytising system, no matter how much public money is poured into it.
|89||PPE-DE (Wuermeling)||+||0:0||(ca) the impact on the conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems to allow communication and exchange of data|
|92||PPE-DE (Thyssen)||+||+||whether the rules governing the term of the patent and the determination of the patentability requirements, and more specifically novelty, inventive step and the proper scope of claims, are adequate; and|
|93||PPE-DE (Thyssen)||+||+||(ca) whether the option outlined in the Directive concerning the use of a patented invention for the sole purpose of ensuring interoperability between two systems is adequate;|
|94||PPE-DE (Thyssen)||+||+||1a In this report the Commission shall justify why it believes an amendment of the Directive in question necessary or not and, if required, will list the points which it intends to propose an amendment to.|
|52=54=68||EDD, VERD+GUE, UEN||+?||-||reject the proposed directive|
|29=41=41||EDD, VERD+GUE, UEN, ..||++||-||Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the limits of patentability with respect to automated data processing and its fields of application|
see Article 1
|1||JURI||-||+||The realisation of the internal market implies the elimination of restrictions to free circulation and of distortions in competition, while creating an environment which is favourable to innovation and investment. In this context the protection of inventions by means of patents is an essential element for the success of the internal market. Effective, transparent and harmonised protection of computer-implemented inventions throughout the Member States is essential in order to maintain and encourage investment in this field.|
|2||JURI||-||?||Therefore, the legal rules as interpreted by Member States' courts should be harmonised and the law governing the patentability of computer-implemented inventions should be made transparent. The resulting legal certainty should enable enterprises to derive the maximum advantage from patents for computer-implemented inventions and provide an incentive for investment and innovation. Legal certainty will also be secured by the fact that, in case of doubt as to the interpretation of this Directive, national courts may and national courts of last instance must seek a ruling from the Court of Justice.|
Amendment 2 seems to claim that the mere fact of writing EU law, no matter what the contents, already "results in legal certainty", simply because the Luxemburg court can interpret this law. This new goal statement is not only questionable but also pointless, because
|88||PPE-DE||+||+||The rules pursuant to Article 52 of the European Patent Convention concerning the limits to patentability should be confirmed and clarified. The consequent legal certainty should help to foster a climate conducive to investment and innovation in the field of software.|
Deletion is good, but clarification would have been better.
|32=112||EDD, Kauppi||+||+||Under the Convention on the Grant of European Patents signed in Munich on 5 October 1973 and the patent laws of the Member States, programs for computers together with discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, aesthetic creations, schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and presentations of information are expressly not regarded as inventions and are therefore excluded from patentability. This exception applies because the said subject-matter and activities do not belong to a field of technology.|
|3||JURI||o||0:0||The aim of this Directive is not to amend the European Patent Convention, but to prevent different interpretations of its provisions.|
|95||ELDR||+||+||Parliament has repeatedly asked the European Patent Office to review its operating rules and for the Office to be publicly accountable in the exercise of its functions. In this connection it would be particularly desirable to reconsider the practice in which the Office sees fit to obtain payment for the patents that it grants, as this practice harms the public nature of the institution. In its resolution1 on the decision by the European Patent Office with regard to patent No EP 695 351 granted on 8 December 1999, Parliament requested a review of the OfficeÕs operating rules to ensure that it was publicly accountable in the exercise of its functions.|
|61||GUE||+||-||Free software is providing a highly valuable and socially useful way of building common and shared innovation and knowledge diffusion.|
|113||UEN, Kauppi||++||-||While computer programs are abstract and do not belong to any particular field, they are used to describe and control processes in all fields of applied natural and social science.|
|4||JURI||-||o||In order to be patentable, inventions in general and computer-implemented inventions in particular must be susceptible of industrial application, new and involve an inventive step. In order to involve an inventive step, computer-implemented inventions should make a technical contribution to the state of the art.|
|84||PPE-DE||-||+||In order to be patentable, inventions in general and computer-implemented inventions in particular must be susceptible of industrial application, new and involve an inventive step. In order to involve an inventive step, they must in addition make a new technical contribution to the state of the art, in order to distinguish them from pure software.|
|51||UEN||+||-||While computer programs are abstract and do not belong to any particular field, they are used to describe and control processes in all fields of applied natural and social science.|
|73||PSE||o||o||Computer-implemented inventions are only patentable if they may be considered to belong to a field of technology and, in addition, are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application..|
|5||JURI||--||o||Accordingly, even though a computer-implemented invention belongs by virtue of its very nature to a field of technology, it is important to make it clear that where an invention does not make a technical contribution to the state of the art, as would be the case, for example, where its specific contribution lacks a technical character, the invention will lack an inventive step and thus will not be patentable. When assessing whether an inventive step is involved, it is usual to apply the problem and solution approach in order to establish that there is a technical problem to be solved. If no technical problem is present, then the invention cannot be considered to make a technical contribution to the state of the art.|
|114=125||Kauppi, GUE||++||+||Accordingly, an innovation that does not make a technical contribution to the state of the art is not an invention in the sense of patent law.|
|6||JURI||o||o||However, the mere implementation of an otherwise unpatentable method on an apparatus such as a computer is not in itself sufficient to warrant a finding that a technical contribution is present. Accordingly, a computer-implemented business method or other method in which the only contribution to the state of the art is non-technical cannot constitute a patentable invention.|
|7||JURI||+||0:0||If the contribution to the state of the art relates solely to unpatentable matter, there can be no patentable invention irrespective of how the matter is presented in the claims. For example, the requirement for technical contribution cannot be circumvented merely by specifying technical means in the patent claims.|
|8||JURI||-||0:0||Furthermore, an algorithm is inherently non-technical and therefore cannot constitute a technical invention. Nonetheless, a method involving the use of an algorithm might be patentable provided that the method is used to solve a technical problem. However, any patent granted for such a method would not monopolise the algorithm itself or its use in contexts not foreseen in the patent.|
|9||JURI||o||+||The scope of the exclusive rights conferred by any patent are defined by the claims. Computer-implemented inventions must be claimed with reference to either a product such as a programmed apparatus, or to a process carried out in such an apparatus. Accordingly, where individual elements of software are used in contexts which do not involve the realisation of any validly claimed product or process, such use will not constitute patent infringement.|
The amendment may have an indirect benefit: it seems to contradict amendment 18 to article 5 by saying that only programmed apparatuses and processes can be claimed.
|10||JURI||--||+-||The legal protection of computer-implemented inventions does not necessitate the creation of a separate body of law in place of the rules of national patent law. The rules of national patent law remain the essential basis for the legal protection of computer-implemented inventions. This Directive simply clarifies the present legal position having regard to the practices of the European Patent Office with a view to securing legal certainty, transparency, and clarity in the law and avoiding any drift towards the patentability of unpatentable methods, such as business methods.|
|86||PPE-DE||-||+o+||The legal protection of computer-implemented inventions does not necessitate the creation of a separate body of law in place of the rules of national patent law. The rules of national patent law remain the essential basis for the legal protection of computer-implemented inventions. This Directive simply clarifies the present legal position with a view to securing legal certainty, transparency, and clarity of the law and avoiding any drift towards the patentability of unpatentable methods such as trivial procedures and business methods.|
Amendment 86 does not ask for a codification of the current EPO practice, but on the other hand talks about "unpatentable methods such as trivial procedures and business methods". Not just trivial business methods must remain unpatentable, but all business methods must remain so (otherwise we are deviating from Art 52 EPC, which should be avoided as suggested in amendment 88).
|11||JURI||-||+||The competitive position of European industry in relation to its major trading partners will be improved if the current differences in the legal protection of computer-implemented inventions are eliminated and the legal situation is transparent. With the present trend for traditional manufacturing industry to shift their operations to low-cost economies outside the European Union, the importance of intellectual property protection and in particular patent protection is self-evident.|
|35||EDD||+||-||The competitive position of European industry in relation to its major trading partners could be improved if the current schism in judicial practice concerning the limits of patentability with regard to computer programs was eliminated.|
|12||JURI||-||0||This Directive should be without prejudice to the application of the competition rules, in particular Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty.|
|13||JURI||o||+||The rights conferred by patents granted for inventions within the scope of this Directive shall not affect acts permitted under Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs by copyright, in particular under the provisions thereof in respect of decompilation and interoperability. In particular, acts which, under Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 91/250/EEC, do not require authorisation of the rightholder with respect to the rightholder's copyrights in or pertaining to a computer program, and which, but for Articles 5 or 6 of Directive 91/250/EEC, would require such authorisation, shall not require authorisation of the rightholder with respect to the rightholder's patent rights in or pertaining to the computer program.|
|74||PSE||-||-||The application of this directive must not deviate from the original foundations of patent law, which means that the applicant of the patent must provide a description of all elements of the invention, including the source code, and that research into it, and as such decompilation, must be made possible. This way of working is indispensable to make compulsory licensing possible, for example if the obligation to supply the market is not fulfilled.|
|75||PSE (Ortega)||-||-||In any case, the law of all member states must ensure that the patents contain novelties and contain an inventive step, to prevent inventions which are already public from being appropriated, simply because they belong to a computer program.|
More tables can be added later.
This page is created using a multilinguality managment system, which makes it convenient for you to contribute, if you observe a few rules.