[Ecommerce] More on EU RFC for new patent regime

[Manon Ress]

EU move prompts fresh fears about software patents

Earlier initiative to patent software was blocked last year

http://www.infoworld.com/article/
06/01/17/73966_HNfearsaboutpatents_1.html?source=3Drss&url=3Dhttp://
www.infoworld.com/article/06/01/17/73966_HNfearsaboutpatents_1.html

By Simon Taylor, IDG News Service
January 17, 2006
The European Union's request for comments on an effective way to
protect intellectual property in Europe has prompted fears of a
renewed attempt to allow software to be patented, after an earlier
patents initiative was blocked last year.


The European Commission, which is responsible for drafting new
legislation for the 25-member European Union, launched a new round of
consultations Monday on a patent regime for the E.U.

Announcing the initiative, E.U. internal market commissioner Charlie
McCreevy said good intellectual property rules are essential to
stimulate innovation and encourage the development of new products.
He said he wanted to make a unified patent system for the E.U. a
reality.

At the center of the discussions will be whether to revive work on a
European Community-wide patent system for all 25 member states. E.U.
governments have been trying to agree upon rules for a Community
patent since 2000, but progress has been blocked by the refusal of
countries such as Germany and Spain to allow English to be the
official language for applications. Both countries fear they will
lose lucrative patent registration work if their right to issue
patents in their national languages are not protected.

Austria, which currently holds the six-month rotating presidency of
the E.U., has said it will restart discussions on the Community
patent in the coming months.

Members of the open source software community warned that the new
initiative could be an attempt to reintroduce patents for software,
which they say will harm innovation and unfairly benefit big
technology vendors. The Commission's announcement of consultations
with industry lobbyists were "a definitive indication that our camp
has to take action again," said Florian M=FCller, who led the
successful campaign to block the so-called computer-implemented
inventions directive, or the software patents directive, as critics
called it.

The directive was rejected by members of the European Parliament last
June after one of the most intensive lobbying campaigns in the E.U.=92s
history. The directive concerned only inventions using computer
technology, while the Community patent would apply to all areas of
technological innovation.

In a statement, M=FCller warned that unless the current proposal for a
Community patent was changed to remove a clause saying that the
European Patent Office (EPO) should apply the case law which it has
developed, E.U patent authorities would be "extremely likely to
follow the EPO's law-bending approach and declare U.S.-style software
patents legal in the E.U."

He added that it was "imperative=94 for the open source software
movement to =93influence the new debate on the community patent on a
timely basis=94. Otherwise, it would be impossible to stop the
=93avalanche" of allowing software to be patented.

The Commission's consultation focuses on three major issues: the
Community patent, how to improve the current patent system in the
E.U., and possible areas for harmonization. Its questionnaire is
available in English at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/
indprop/patent/consultation_en.htm. French and German versions will
be available by Monday.

The Commission is also seeking views on other actions that could be
taken while work on the Community patent continues, in particular
within the framework of the existing European patent system.

For example, one option may be to bring national patent systems more
closely in line with each other, through either approximation of laws
or mutual recognition of national patents, it suggested. The legal
framework for jurisdiction over patent disputes will be an important
area in this discussion, the Commission believes

One of the complaints about the current system of national patent
authorities is that different patent offices have varying criteria
for approving patents, and that these cannot be challenged with
reference to a central set of definitions. For example, the Swedish
patent office will not grant patents on inventions which are purely
software without any technical innovation, although the European
Patent Office has done so, according to critics of the current system.

Interested parties have until March 31 to communicate their views.
After analyzing the results of this consultation, the Commission will
organize a seminar in Brussels to discuss the outcome in June. If the
Commission decides that it needs to present new legislation, such as
a revised version of the Community patent, it would do so after the
summer.




************************************************
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673

Consumer Project on Technology
1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology
24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607