Reaktionen auf die Entscheidung des EU-Parlaments von 03-09-24

Annotated Links

1. Annotated Links

EU-Parlament stimmt für echte Begrenzung der Patentierbarkeit: In der Abstimmung am 24. September hat das Europäische Parlament die Richtlinie über "Patentierbarkeit computerimplementierter Erfindungen" mit einer Reihe von Änderungsanträgen angenommen, welche deutlich die Nicht-Patentierbarkeit von Programm- und Geschäftslogik unterstreicht, und freie Veröffentlichung sowie Interoperabilität sichert.
CEC 2003-10: Inakzeptable Anträge: In a first reaction to the European Parliament's amendments, the European Commission's patent experts (i.e. the authors of the amended draft) list the amendments which they say are "inacceptable to the Commission". The list is long. It comprises all amendments that can limit patentability or patent enforcability in any way. The only "acceptable" amendments are the cosmetic ones from JURI. CEC does not give any reasoning as to why it can't accept the others. This CEC statement was published on the Coucil website two weeks after the EP vote, shortly before a first meeting of the Council's "Patent Working Party".
siehe auch Europarl 2003-08-24: Geänderte Softwarepatent-Richtlinie
Heise 03-10-22: "IT-Verband ruft EU auf den rechten Weg zurück": Bericht über Bitkom-PE und Warnung von FFII UK
siehe auch Bitkom-PE 2003-03-22: und Treffen der Patent-Arbeitsgruppe des EU-Ministerrates
DMMV 2003-10-23: DMMV empfiehlt EU-Ministerrat, der Parlamentsentscheidung zu Softwarepatenten zu folgen: Der Mitte 2003 neu gegründete Arbeitskreis der Softwareindustrie innerhalb des Deutschen MultiMediaVerbandes (DMMV) hält Softwarepatente wie von EU-Kommission und Rat befürwortet für mittelstandsfeindlich und verweist auf Gefahren, die verschiedenen mittelständisch geprägten neuen Branchen drohen. Der DMMV ist daher mit den Änderungen des EU-Parlamentes zufrieden und verweist auf einen breiten Konsens unterschiedlicher Strömungen, der hinter diesen Änderungen stehe.
siehe auch Fachgruppe "Softwareindustrie" im DMMV, Deutscher Multi-Media-Verband und Softwarepatente und Heise 2003-10-23: EU-Parlament erhaelt Unterstuetzung bei Software-Patenten
Tauss & Kelber 2003-09-24: EP erklärt Trivialpatenten eine Absage: Pressemitteilung der zweiter Bundesabgeordneter, die in der Politik der SPD zu Fragen der Informationellen Infrastrukturen führend sind. Tauss und Kelber fordern die Kommission und den Rat auf, den Beschluss des EP zu unterstützen.
Bolkensteins Drohung: One day before the vote Bolkestein told the MEPs:
Now I am aware that the large number of amendments to the McCarthy report have been tabled. Many of those try to re-introduce ideas and themes which were already considered and rejected by the committee during the preparation of the report. There are some interesting points, but in the main, I am afraid that the majority of those amendments will be unacceptable to the Commission. And I must confess, to being very concerned about this situation. Many of these amendments are fundamental, and there is the very real possibility of the failure of the proposal if the parliament chooses to accept them. If that were to happen, there would I fear be two consequences, neither of which I suspect has been forseen by some mebers of parliament, and neither of which I can only assume would advance the objectives which seem to lie behind a number of amendments. Firstly, in the complete absence of harmonisation at the level of the community, the European and various national patent offices would be free to continue their current practice of issuing patents for software-implemented inventions which may blur or even cross the line in undermining the exclusion from patentability of software as such under article 52 of the European Patent Convention. And the result would be not only continuing legal uncertainty and divergence for inventors; but also erode the position which I think almost everyone in this room and above all the Commission itself wants -- namely to maintain the exclusion of pure software from patentability. That we do not want. That the proposal rejects. And secondly, in the absence of harmonisation at Community level, member states would be very likely to pursue harmonisation at the European level instead. And may I explain what I mean by that remark. Unlike many fields, patents are unusual in that as a result of the existence of the European Patent Convention, and the creation of the European Patent Office, there already exists a supranational patent system, which covers the whole of the European Union, and indeed beyond, and which can act independently of the Community's legislative process. Now if we fail in our efforts to achieve a harmonisation of patent law relating to computer-implemented inventions in the European Union, we may well be confronted with a renegotiation of the European Patent Convention. And if I may be blunt, President, the process of renegotiation of the European Patent Convention would not require any contribution from this parliament. So the situation is clear: there is a single objective but a choice of means. Either we proceed using the community method, or we take a back seat and watch while member states go via the route of an intergovernmental treaty. And I think it is clear which route would give European citizens a greater say through this parliament in patent legislation in an area which is so crucial to our economy.
Plenary Debate 03/09/23: Rough Transcript of the Speeches given in the Plenary Debate of 2003/09/23.
ZDNet UK News: Patents directive wins European Parliament OK: An informative account of what happened.
CEOs of big telcos sign letter against Europarl Amendments: The chief executive officers of Alcatel, Ericsson, Nokia and Siemens have signed a letter to the European Commission and the European Council which complains about the European Parliament's amendments to the proposed software patent directive, saying that these will effectively remove the value of most of the patents of their companies and thereby harm the competitiveness of Europe's industry and violate the TRIPs treaty. FFII points out that the Directive indeed threatens the interests of the patent departments of such companies, but not of the companies themselves: The letter is characterised by untruthful dogmatic assertions which say much about the thinking of patent departments and little about the interests of their companies, many of whose employees, especially software developers, support the positions of FFII.
Kai Brandt 2003: Patent Protection in Europe in Danger: In a Siemens journal called "Best Practise", Dr. Kai Brandt writes that the European Parliament voted to ban patenting of all innovative industrial processes that make use of software, that there is no R&D without patents, that the European Commission's original proposal was well balanced, that the EP voted for amendments because it was misled to believe that patents and opensource software are incompatible, and that Siemens boss Heinrich von Pierer has teamed up with other CEOs of big companies and associations to save European R&D from a disaster which is only in the interest of a few distributors of free software and against the interests of all innovative small and medium enterprises. Brandt fails to give his audience any usable pointers that could allow them to examine the truth of his statements. Contrary to its usual practise, "Best Practise" gives only the name of the author but no information about his role in Siemens. However simple research reveals that Brandt is an independent patent attorney who is currently working for the Siemens patent department.
Reuters echoing the telcos FUD: An article by Reuters News Agency which reports about the letter of the 5 CEOs and adds some comments by a leading employee of Ericsson who is worried that since the use of computers is progressing hand making "inventing" very easy, what formerly was a patentable invention no longer be so in the future. But without patent protection, Ericsson would go broke and therefore Ericsson would have to move out of Sweden. Note that Ericsson is already under obligation to move out of Sweden, because swedish voters didn't heed their CEO's threats when voting to stay out of the euro zone for another few years.
Business Week on European Parliament's vote: leftists erasing billions in intellectual property: An editorial of the US magazine BusinessWeek reports that a group of "left-leaning politicians" and "open-source advocates" by "last-minute lobbying" "upended" a directive proposal in such a way that it actually "bans software patents", thereby creating an "industry-specific exemption" which violates the TRIPs treaty amd "erases billions in intellectual property granted by the EPO". The author gives Europe a lot of advice, demanding that Europe should set an example by finding a formula that "spurs innovation while safeguarding intellectual property". The article contains various contradictions and false assertions. Jim Bessen (innovation economics researcher at MIT) and others have written letters to the editor.
EICTA reaction: Patentanwälte von großen Informations- und Kommunikationstechnischen Unternehmen, die im Namen einer Europäischen Industrie-Vereinigung sprechen, sind sehr unglücklich über das Ergebnis der Abstimmung im Europäischen Parlament
siehe auch EICTA reaction und EICTA und Software-Patente
Down Jones Newsletter about the amended directive: Brussels correspondant Mathew Newman confuses patent lawyer interests with industry interests, attributes limiting amendments to "environmentalists and socialists", extensively quotes EICTA statements.
IDG.com.sg: reversal of positions on Directive: Der Brüsseler Korrespondent Paul Meller berichtet, daß nun die Rollen der Unterstützer und der Gegner der Direktive getauscht wurden. Er zitiert Hartmut Pilch und Laura Creighton.
ZDNet UK News: Software patent limits 'go too far': UK patent lawyer and former EPO examiner Alex Batteson denies competence of the parliament in matters of patent legislation, predicts that European Commission and Council will withdraw directive and entrust "patent experts" from national governments with legislation via the European Patent Organisation.
siehe auch Christian Engstroem: Democracy not so bad (I)
Christian Engstroem: Democracy not so bad (I): Christian Engström, swedish software developper, refutes statements by UK patent lawyer Alex Batteson who asked that the European Parliament should be stripped of its right to legislate on patent matters, as by voting against software patents it had shown its incompetence.
siehe auch ZDNet UK News: Software patent limits 'go too far' und Christian Engstroem: Democracy not so bad (II)
Horns 03-09-25: Severe Defeat for the Users of the Patent System: A patent attorney trying to mobilise his profession for backlash in the Council.
siehe auch PA Axel Horns und Softwarepatente
PA Axel H. Horns' blog on IPR: the day after: Patent attorney Horns says that EP decision is "rubbish", based on FFII "misinformation campaign", will be "thrown into the dustbin" by European Commission or Council and, if not, attacked on the basis of TRIPs by friends from US.
siehe auch PA Axel Horns und Softwarepatente
Lenz Blog: Horns Blog on Patent Vote: Dr. Lenz, professor of german and european law in Tokyo, is worried about the attempts of Horns and other patent lawyers to declare themselves "experts" in this matter and deny the competence of the European Parliament, points out that this runs counter to recent principle decisions of the German Constitutional Court. Moreover Lenz confesses himself guilty of what Horns calls a "misinformation campaign" about the exclusion of software from patentability by the European Patent Convention and expresses doubt about the correctness of Horns's assertions.
siehe auch PA Axel Horns und Softwarepatente
FFII Softwarepatente Diskussion Mailingliste: Re: Matthew Broersma : Software patent limits 'go too far' (fwd): Antwort von Hartmut Pilch an Axel Horns in einer Mailinglisten-Diskussion zum Broersma Artikel
siehe auch PA Axel Horns und Softwarepatente
Antwort von Hartmut Pilch an PA Axel Horns: Horns bezichtigt das Europaparlament, dem FFII auf einen dilettantischen und abenteuerlichen Kurs gefolgt zu sein, dem nun die Patentprofis um Bolkestein, im Rat und in der US-Regierung ein Ende bereiten werden, indem sie die Richtlinie abschießen. Pilch widerlegt die Argumente.
siehe auch PA Axel Horns und Softwarepatente
Rat der Europäischen Union und Logikpatente: Informationen darüber sammeln und liefern, wer die Entscheidungen des EU-Ministerrates zu Patenten und Informationellen Infrastrukturen bestimmt und wie man am besten mit diesen Leuten ins Gespräch kommt.
REU/DKPMA 2002/09/23: Änderungsvorschläge zum Softwarepatente-Richtlinienentwurf: 2002 haben die Patentbeauftragten des Rats auf unbegrenzte Patentierbarkeit gedrängt, obwohl sie laut den Verfahrensregeln des EU-Gesetzgebung gar nicht an der Reihe waren. Genauso wie der Binnenmarkt-Ausschuss der Europäischen Kommission, ist die "Arbeitsgruppe für Patentrecht" des Rates eine Institution auf welche die Patentabteilungen großer IT-Konzerne zählen können. Ihre Mitglieder sind immer dazu bereit, entgegen schriftlicher Anweisungen ihrer eigenen Regierungen zu handeln, falls der Konsens der Patentlobby dies verlangt.
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: 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 proposal would render Art 52 tautological. Given that an "invention" in the meaning of Art 52 is the same as a "technical contribution to the state of the art", the UKPO proposal is tautological:
the following are not inventions, unless in their inventive step they make a technological contribution to the state of the art
just means
the following are not inventions unless in their inventive step they are inventions
or, after removing the misplaced "inventive step" requirement, which is dealt with in Art 56 EPC and not in Art 52 EPC, the UKPO's proposal boils down to:
The following are not inventions unless they are inventions
. In order to arrive at this recommendation, the UKPO conducted a consultation, it says. The purpose of this UKPO proposal was to help CEC Commissioner Bolkestein persuade the grudging European Commission to adopt their directive proposal in February 2002, a proposal written by UK patent office people together with BSA in Brussels. "If the European Commission doesn't adopt the proposal, we will sidestep the EU by pressing ahead in the European Patent Organisation", was the UKPO's (and thereby the UK government's) message.
siehe auch The UK Patent Family and Software Patents
Petitions-Initiatoren danken dem Europäischen Parlament: Letzten Mittwoch stimmte das Parlament gegen Softwarepatente und für Publikationsfreiheit, Interoperabilität und andere grundlegende Werte der Informationsgesellschaft. Dabei wurde die Stoßrichtung des Richtlinienvorschlages der Europäischen Kommission umgekehrt. Damit entsprach die Richtlinie im wesentlichen den Forderungen einer Viertel Million Unterzeichner einer Petition für ein Softwarepatentfreies Europa sowie eines weiteren Appells 30 berühmter Informatiker. Die Initatoren beider Petitionen werden am Dienstag um 18 Uhr vor dem Petitionskomittee des Europäischen Parlaments ihren Dank aussprechen und gemeinsam mit den Abgeordneten erkunden, was noch zu tun ist.
Philippe Aigrain 2003-09-30: Rede vor dem Petitionsausschuss des Europäischen Parlaments: Eine Petition von 33 berühmten Informatikern im Mai 2003 hat "die Mitglieder des Europäischen Parlaments, gleich welcher Parteizugehörigkeit, dringend gebeten, einen Gesetzestext zu wählen, der es unmöglich machen wird, in klarer Weise, ein- für allemal, die zu Grunde liegenden Ideen von Software (oder Algorithmen), von Methoden zur Informationsverarbeitung, von Repräsentationen von Informationen und Daten und von Software-Interaktionen zwischen Menschen und Computern zu patentieren." Philippe Aigrain, Initiator der Petition, dankt MdEPs für die grundsätzliche Erfüllung des Verlangens der Petitionäre und warnt vor vielfältigem Druck und Täuschungsmanövern der Patentanwaltslobby, mit denen das Parlament in den kommenden Monaten konfrontiert werden wird.


Logikpatente > Rezensionen > Europarl 03-09-24 > Reaktionen
Europarl 03-09-24	Reaktionen	Tauss+Kelber 03-09-24	BMJ 03-09-26	AIPLA 03-10-06	Nokia