Greg Aharonian of the Internet Patent News Service talks about the EU patent situation:

- EUROCOMMISSION TELLS EUROPARLIAMENT TO ACCEPT/REJECT SOFTPATLAW

Last week there was flurry of news articles/complaints about a European Commission (EC) action regarding software patents. For some years, a proposed directive on European Union (EU) computer/software patents has been shaped, a directive the subject of much criticism. Recently it was thought that the EC directive would be rewritten, to have a mostly new directive for debate and acceptance by the European Parliament (EP).

Last week, however, the EC announced it would NOT rewrite its' directive on computer patents. Instead, it forwarded the current directive to the EP for a second reading (during which it is hard to make minor amendments) to be acted upon within three months. This action partly reflects the EC's frustrations with the politics of delay instigated by some minor software countries (Poland, Denmark, Spain - for example, Spain files about 400 EP patent applications a year). In the words of EU Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McGreevy to the EP: "If the Parliament decides to reject it, then the Commission will respect your wishes. .... I will not propose a new directive.".

One concern of the EC is the lack of internal harmonization. In the words of McCreevy: "The current rules in the European Patent Convention are out of date and leave a very wide decision-making power in the hands of patent examiners." If the directive is rejected, software patenting would continue to be handled by European countries and the EPO as they see fit, which some welcome. (see next news item below)

Part of this politics reflects an ongoing struggle between the bureaucrats of the EC, and the Representatives of the EP, as to who is running the EU.

The EP is investigating if the EC Council broke procedural rules by sending the directive to the EP for a second reading, as opposed to not sending it back to be modified in a first hearing.

To me, it is not so much that the EPC is out of date, but rather that the EPC is ill-defined, as are other aspects of software patent and copyright law dragged into this debate. Until the EC properly frames this debate using more scientifically precise language to talk about computer programs, they might as well reject the directive and go on with the status quo.
And it wouldn't hurt if the US started using more scientifically precise language for software IP law as well.

Much of the waste and of these debates, and resulting inaction, is due to illogical legalisms ("as such", 17 USC 102a/b) forced onto the science of computing by non-scientists.

As noted earlier, this is not a topic on which I claim even rudimentary competence, so keep at it Greg!

posted by James DeLong @ 11:13 AM | International

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)