descr: Everybody in the European Parliament (EP) seems to agree that we want clear limits on patentability and that they should be enforced throughout the EU. But there is disagreement as to whether the proposed software patent directive brings us anywhere close to that goal. This meeting in EP room A8F 388 at 14.-16.00 may be the last opportunity for software innovators and MEPs to examine the proposed Software Patentability Directive before the scheduled vote in the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI). title: 2003/06/10 BXL: How to Patent Business Methods under the Proposed Directive ida: Time & Place sut: The European Parliament is located at Rue Wirtz / Wirtzstraat 60, right beside Luxemburg Railway Station / Gare de Luxembourg. ASP stands for Altiero Spinelli = Spinelli Building. hti: These are the only organized registrations, feel free to be invited by Your MEP ssd: Public Meeting urf: Introduction of Speakers and Outline of Subjects WtC: Toward a %(q:Restrictive Interpretation of the Current Law) Wei: Recent Conflicts between EPO and Swedish Courts on Art 52.2c EPC nnr: Recent Conflicts between EPO and German Courts on Art 52.2c EPC R8y: Very Clear Interpretation of Art 52 EPC in the EPO's Early Days aos: How to Patent Business methods under the Proposed Directive ffn: prof. of information law rkd: author of %(js:EP-commissioned study) sai: Amsterdam Univ. yon: Clarification by Confusion? hpb: The problem iea: lack of clarity of the current provisions (-> risk of patent wars, problems for SMEs in particular: legal risks (inadvertent infringements), difficulties for new companies on the market (need to build a patent portfolio merely for exchange purposes). xvW: Threshold for patents is too low: patents are granted for mere ideas, inventive step requirement (%(q:nonobviousness)) is very low. This causes a flood of patents - which again calls for simplified examination - and so forth. hit: The directive gxe: complicated, confusing, contradictory language does not improve clarity: it does the very opposite - which is even admitted by EPO people off the record ixn: harmonisation is just theory: clarification requires extensive European Court of Justice interpretation which will take many years nvn: But even if and when the ECJ decides, it is eventually the ECJ that decides, not the parliament! psl: does not even prevent undesired patents, admits some %(q:business methods) may still qualify for patents dta: complicated add-on to national statutes and the European Patent Convention etn: will achieve the very opposite of what is intended: will only increase confusion PWe: Communication Failures between computer scientists and patent directive drafters and how to overcome them aoi: Appeal of 30 Computer Scientists 0tW: McCarthy 03/05/03: %(q:Restrictive Statement of the Current Law) dWo: Groundless Fears? Misguided Lobbying? Dlo: Testing the Directive on example patent claims ntd: runlength coding cWa: Discussion and Wrapup Wlt: END of public meeting cwd: Nanotech Convergence with Biotech and Infotech anP: Nanopatents and Intellectual Property srn: Lessons to be Learnt from European Policies ddr: The documents listed below will be available in printed form at the meeting. Copies of most of them will be handed out to each participant. reo: Some more info about our event may be found here. ooa: Allows you to register for our meeting, to contact MEPs, and to cooperate in other ways # Local Variables: ; # coding: utf-8 ; # srcfile: /ul/prg/src/mlht/app/swpat/swpatpenmi.el ; # mailto: mlhtimport@a2e.de ; # passwd: XXXX ; # feature: swpatdir ; # dok: swpparl03610 ; # txtlang: en ; # End: ;