
Software Patents > Players > Harald SPRINGORUM
Robert Hart	Jürgen BETTEN	Axel HORNS	Axel PFEIFFER	Harald SPRINGORUM	PA FREISCHEM

PA Springorum and Software Patents

Patent Attorney Dr. Dipl-Inform. Harald Springorum is one of the most vigorous promoters of software patentability in Germany. Born in the 50s, he studied computer science and patent law. At the time, computing and patents were two entirely divorced subjects, andSpringorum seems to be one of those patent attorneys who devoted much of their life to bringing the two together. His endeavor may even be fuelled by some idealism or remnants thereof. Springorum has been following the FFII on its footsteps since 1999, often warning people who have contacted us about how unworthy of cooperation we are. He managed to be appointed by the Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI, German Computing Society) as a ghostwriter of their opinion on patent policy which they submitted to the EU and to advocate unlimited patentability in this paper in a way which goes even beyond what the EPO is willing to accept. Moreover he has managed to speak on behalf of the German Chamber of Patent Attorneys at internal consultations of the Ministery of Justice, although his position is not particularly representative of patent attorneys. Springorum's positions carry a certain individual hallmark that makes them easy to recognise even when he acts as a ghostwriter.

springorum-weichware

Springorum: Zum patentrechtlichen Schutz von Softwareprodukten: Eine informative und über weite Strecken hin gut durchdachte Darstellung der Situation der Softwarepatentierung in Deutschland und Europa. Der Artikel wird schon seit einigen Jahren immer wieder überarbeitet. Seine Schwächen sind zugleich die Schwächen der meisten juristischen Fachartikel: er verehrt an entscheidenden Stellen die Meinung der Patentjuristen als eine Art mysteriöse höhere Wahrheit. So heißt es z.B. "In wieweit Information selbst eine beherrschbare Naturkraft i.S.d. Patentrechts ist, bleibt abzuwarten. Die Tendenz in Erteilungspraxis wie in Rechtsprechung und h.M. geht jedenfalls in diese Richtung".
Informatik-Honoratioren sorgen sich um Systematik des Patentrechts: Stellungnahme der GI zur Frage der Patentierbarkeit Computer-Implementierbarer Organisations- und Rechenregeln: At the order of the president of Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (German computer scientists' association), patent attorney Dr. Harald Springorum wrote this position paper in response to the European Commission's consultation call. The paper applauds the CEC Indprop consultation paper and pleads for an unlimited patentability of computer programs, business methods and anything which patent offices might deem worth patenting "as technology evolves", based on the TRIPS truth that "patents shall be available for inventions in all fields of technology", which has to be the basis, from which all valid reasoning on software patents is derived, since anything else would be artificial and ideological. Springorum criticizes new attempts of the European Patent Office to try to set limits to this evolution. Because problems that have traditionally belonged to the realm of technical inventing are today being solved by software, it is necessary to affirm the technical character of software and computerised business processes. Software must be patentable because it cannot be distinguished from hardware. Negating software patents means negating the patent system. Likewise, functional texts (data structures etc) need to come into the realm of patentability. However a patent life of 20 years is too long, 5 would be adequate for software. How this can be brought in line with the TRIPS requirement of 20 years "in all fields of technology" and with the claimed indistinguishability of hardware and software remains Springorum's secret. Springorum also fails to give examples of which kind of patents GI advocates and which it opposes. According to Springorum, the patent system in Europe is -- different from the USA -- just fine, and the existing flood of trivial and broad functionality patents deserves no mention. Thus there is also no need to analyse the effects of such or other patents. Springorum's only economic argument consists in pointing out that venture capital investors need reliable certificates on a software company's competitive advantage, and that patents provide this kind of certificate and thereby especially benefit small companies which would otherwise have their ideas snatched away by big ones. Springorum labels the critics of software patentability as "ideologues", but his own argumentation does not go beyond abstract reasoning on the basis of an unexplained notion of "technology", which, in contrast to the traditional European concept of "Technical Invention", no longer has any delimiting function. Springorum writes in every other sentence "The GI believes" ... "the GI recommends" etc. While even within the executive board of the GI nobody besides PA Springorum understands this esoteric paper, the wish for tight hierarchical control of software development according to the model of the matter-producing industries is at first sight very attractive to computer science professors, who often see themselves as underprivileged in comparison to their engineering colleagues. For some GI members, the question of the "technical character of software" is therefore a question of prestige. However this paper is not a result of any consultation within the GI but only of strong-arm tactics by a handful of top corporate activists. We have documented some of the tactics and fallacies involved, thus producing an interesting case study which offers insights into some of the backstage processes that empower patent lawyers to write consultation submissions to the European Commission in the name of large organisations.
FFII auf Linuxtag 2000: Hier trat Springorum aus, um den Linux-Anwendern die Opposition gegen Softwarepatente auszureden und ihre Gedanken auf "praktische" Alternativen wie z.B. die Gründung eines Schutzbündnisses zu lenken.