#title: EUK & BSA 2002-02-20: Vorschlag, alle nützlichen Ideen patentierbar zu machen #descr: Die Europäische Kommission (EUK) schlägt vor, die Patentierung von Patenten auf Datenverarbeitungsprogrammen als solchen zu legalisieren und sicher zu stellen, dass breite und triviale Patente auf Programm- und Geschäftslogik, wie sie derzeit vor allem in den USA von sich reden machen, künftig auch hier in Europa Bestand haben und von keinem Gericht mehr zurückgewiesen werden können. %(q:Aber hallo, die EUK sagt in ihrer Presseerklärung etwas ganz anderes!), möchten Sie vielleicht einwenden. Ganz richtig! Um herauszufinden, was die EUK wirklich sagt, müssen Sie nämlich nicht die PE sondern den Vorschlag selbst lesen. Aber Vorsicht, der ist in einem Neusprech vom Europäischen Patentamt (EPA) verfasst, in dem gewöhnliche Wörter oft das Gegenteil dessen bedeuten, was Sie erwarten würden. Zur Verwirrung trägt noch ein langer werbender Vorspann bei, in dem die Wichtigkeit von Patenten und proprietärer Software beschworen wird, wobei dem software-unerfahrenen Zielpublikum ein Zusammenhang zwischen beiden suggeriert wird. Dieser Text ignoriert die Meinungen von allen geachteten Programmierern und Wirtschaftswissenschaftlern und stützt seine spärlichen Aussagen über die Ökonomie der Software-Entwicklung nur auf zwei unveröffentlichte Studien aus dem Umfeld von BSA (von Microsoft und anderen amerikanischen Großunternehmen dominierter Verband zur Durchsetzung des Urheberrechts) über die Wichtigkeit proprietärer Software. Diese Studien haben überhaupt nicht Softwarepatente zum Thema! Der Werbe-Vorspann und der Vorschlag selber wurden offensichtlich für die EUK von einem Angestellten von BSA redigiert. Unten zitieren wir den vollständigen Vorschlag zusammen mit Belegen für die Rolle von BSA, einer Analyse des Inhalts und einer tabellarischen Gegenüberstellung der BSA- und EUK-Version sowie einer EPÜ-Version, d.h. eines Gegenvorschlages im Geiste des Europäischen Patentübereinkommen von 1973 und der aufgeklärten Patentliteratur. Die EPÜ-Version sollte Ihnen helfen, die Klarheit und Weisheit der heute gültigen gesetzlichen Regelung verstehen, an deren Aushebelung die Patentanwälte der Europäischen Kommission gemeinsam mit EPA, BSA u.a. in den letzten Jahren hart gearbeitet haben. #TCp: Tabellarische Textausgabe in BSA- und EUK-Fassung in Gegenüberstellung mit Gegenvorschlag im Geiste des EPÜ #HCd: Here we are presenting a critical edition of the text, with annotation and a tabular comparison between the CEC/BSA initial and final draft and an added FFII version, which shows what is wrong with the CEC/BSA version and how it could be rewritten in a coherent and adequate way. We highlighted some differences by bold typeface. #Pad: Vorschlag, alle nützlichen Ideen patentierbar zu machen, auf einem Entwurf von BSA beruhend, von der Europäischen Kommission am 2002-02-20 freigegeben #Uma: Upon Release of its Software Patentability Directive Proposal (based on a draft by BSA), the European Commission lies to the press and to the world about the contents of this Directive Proposal, trying to create the impression that this directive proposal excludes patents on business methods and software as such. #Aey: An text by the European Commission's (CEC) software patentability law drafters, designed to (dis)inform journalists and the general public about what is at stake and to soothe widespread fears that the CEC might be legalising unwanted software and business method patents. The text tries to achieve this by using EPO/UKPO Patent Newspeak, in which normal phrases may have two radically different meanings, one for consupmtion by politicians, journalists and citizens, i.e. the readers of this FAQ, and another as understood by patent professionals. #Jro: JURI working documents #WBt: Working documents of the Legal Affairs Commission of the European Parliament about the CEC/BSA software patentability proposal of 2002-02-20, published 2002-06-19, inititially consisting of a short report by MEP Arlene McCarthy and a study ordered by the European Commission. #Pi1: Lenz 2002-03-01: Sinking the Software Patent Proposal #lpa: Karl-Friedrich Lenz, professor of European Law, lists some legal and constitutional arguments to explain why the CEC/BSA proposal is a legal and political scandal, starting from the fact that the European Commission is using %(q:harmonisation) and %(q:clarification) merely as pretexts to declare itself competent for promoting an unspeakable political agenda which does not fall in the Commission's competentce. #DxW: Datamonitor 2000-09: Packaged Software Industry in Europe #ArW2: A rarely cited and largely unknown study by a company called Datamonitor about the importance of proprietary software as a creator of jobs in Europe. The study claims that proprietary software will create 1/2 million new jobs in the next few years. Praises Ireland as a tiger state which is profiting from this job miracle thanks to its low tax rates. The original of this study seems to be inaccessible on the Net. Various summaries and references have been published on Microsoft's website in the context of Microsoft's lobbying work. In 2002 this study found its way into the advocacy preface of the European Commission's software patentability proposal. This was apparently due to the influence of BSA in the drafting work. The study does not deal with the subject of software patents. It correctly states that the biggest asset of software companies is their manpower, i.e. their ability to manage complex copyrighted works and quickly turn out nifty software rather than in their patents or their ability to invent a mousetrap. #MWw: Microsoft: The growth of the packaged software industry in Norway #AWi2: An example of Microsoft's use of the Datamonitor Study for political persuasion efforts in Norway. #Aoh: A controversial debate between two people about the directive proposal and the FFII criticism. The %(q:anonymous coward) is Erik Josefsson from SSLUG, his opponent is a patent lawyer from Philips who maintains a %(im:website which argues in favor of the EPO's recent interpretation of the EPC) (and thus basically also of the directive proposal). #pnc: press release of Linux-Verband, an association of Linux companies and users in Germany #Mmn: Mingorance denies our allegations that he wrote the proposal, arguing that he would have written the %(q:form of claims) section differently. We think that the decision to not follow the EPO on the claim form question was indeed taken by the CEC. We do not doubt that the CEC played an important role in shaping the proposal. But so did Mingorance. #AWg: An journalist reports that he just phonecalled the European Commission to find out whether the BSA version that Eurolinux proposed was really the version that the CEC was going to publish that day. He was told by the Commission's press speaker that the version which Eurolinux published was not theirs but one %(q:from the industry). Several French journalists who called on the same morning received the same answer. One even received the answer %(q:no, that draft is not from us but from BSA). #AvA: A fairly comprehensive account of the BSA/CEC proposal scandal #CcB: EUK-Presseerklärung steht im Widerspruch zum Inhalt des RiLi-Vorschlages #Eui: Eurolinux Warning to journalists issued on 2002-02-20 shortly after publication of CEC/BSA directive proposal #Rsr: Robin Webb (UK PTO & Gov't) 2002-02-20: proposes to remove all limits to patentability and to rewrite Art 52 EPC so as to reflect EPO practise #Tla: The UK PTO conducted its own consultation, which showed an overwhelming wish of software professionals to be free of software patents. But the UK PTO, speaking in the name of the UK government, reinterprets this as a legitimation to remove all limits on patentability by modifying Art 52 EPC at the Diplomatic Conference in June 2002. The %(pr:proposal) has one argument going for it: while rendering Art 52 meaningless, it at least brings clarity. It describes in fairly straightforward (and yet still sufficiently deceptive) terms what the EPO is doing and what the patent movement wants. This paper was presented by the UKTPO on the same day as the EU-BSA Directive Proposal. The UKPTO had held a parallel consultation exercise in Great Britain. Its exercise ignored public opinion using the same double-talk about %(q:technical contribution) and by selective choice of examples made sure that this talk is misunderstood by the public. Yet the UKPTO has shown the Commission that even massive fraud and %(e:theft of intellectual property with with a further legal effect), jointly committed by the EPO, the CEC and the UKPTO against the european software industry and the european public, can be carried out in a graceful and mannered fashion. #Ftr: Französischer Pressebericht, der resümiert, dieser RiLi-Entwurf bringe keinerlei Klarheit #Jti: gemeinsame Erklärung der europäischen Shareware-Verbände, die den RiLi-Vorschlag als einen feindlichen Akte gegen die Schöpfer von Software in Europa verurteilen #Gyu: deutsche Europarlamentarierin von GUE/NGL warnt vor EU-Richtlinien zu Kopierschutz und Softwarepatenten #Prc: Zahlreiche Verweise, u.a. auf neue Presseberichte insbesondere aus Frankreich # Local Variables: ; # coding: utf-8 ; # srcfile: /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/phm/sys/mlht.el ; # mailto: mlhtimport@ffii.org ; # login: phm ; # passwd: YYYYY ; # feature: swpatdir ; # dok: eubsa-swpat0202 ; # txtlang: de ; # multlin: t ; # End: ;