Talk:Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions

TRIPS lie

Trips 27 is often misinterpreted by lobbyists, i.e. they miy up colloquial and legal wording.

Software is no "field of technology" (in the meaning of patent law). The wording tehcnical has a special meaning in patent law. This also the Parliament confirmed.

Furthermore researchers doubt whether TRIPS 27 defines what has to get patented. TRIPS is a trede agreement with the goal to combat IPR abuse in trade policy, that is that patents were used as non-tariffic trade barriers.

Neutrality

The article sounds rather non-NPOV compliant, e.g.:

"Unfortunately for direct democracy, the Council is essentially comprised of civil servants from national ministries of governments rather than elected parliamentarians (...)."

--- the problem of direct democracy lack is known, in this case there is an institutional mixup of forces: The national executive branches are the legislative branches in the council. In the case of strong institutionalised interests as here patent body intrests it means that the institutions write their own laws. I don't think this is biased as it describes the hostile takeover in a very precise way.

Well, the EU Commission (the Council didn't write the proposal but the Commission) acts as the executive body of the EU. There are few countries, if any, where executive bodies are directly elected, so the expression "Unfortunately for direct democracy" is weird and unbalanced.

Non-NPOV compliant as well according to me (it isn't based on facts but feelings):

"This means the Council is completely isolated from the grassroots activism of the campaign for limits on patentability, and even further away from the national constituents. The goverments are more atuned to the position of organisations such as the Business Software Alliance (BSA), than the Parliament and the constituents. Letter writing campaigns, coalition building and reinforcement of the scholarly case against unlimited patentability, may nonethless "trickle up" through governments to the Council."

-- Edcolins 21:28, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But democracies elect the effective head of the executive, the US president or UK prime minister. Everyone on the commission is an appointee, a significant distinction

Not true, not all prime ministers are directed elected. For instance, Canadian prime ministers are not directly elected. That does not make Canada a lesser democracy. -- Edcolins 22:09, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

--> pls mind the principle of devision of forces! In a western democracy not the governments make their own laws. This principle is infrigend by the EU-Council.

Many executive bodies, i.e. governments, in Western Europe have some legislative power when it comes to enacting laws which have a lesser impact on society. The European Commission initial purpose with the directive was only to harmonize national patent laws, according to which computer programs are nowadays exclude from patentability only to the extent to which the application relates to such subject-matter or activities as such [1]. I don't think the Commission purpose has ever been to totally overrule what happens in practice in European countries. --Edcolins 20:16, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the nature of the reverted proposals:

The agreed version permitted patenting of computer-implemented inventions to a certain extent (providing the inventions have a technical character), and overturned most of the Parliament's amendments.

seems to understate the changes. My (limited) reading suggests that the "technical character" requirement is very week - it excludes a program as such, but seems to include a program that is run on a technical device like a computer. If this is actually true, then that edit seriously underplays the significance of the changes, and the extent to which software would become patentable. Can anyone comment more authoritatively? -- Paul 16:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's easy to be confused by the discussion of "technical character" requirements. The essence of it is that the Council's version is that any kind of algorithm, software idea or informational process can be patented if the patent is drafted correctly. In contrast, the Parliament's version precluded most of these patents. -- pde

Moving towards a more balanced and correct article

Thanks to Edcolins for his clarifications on Business Method Patents. I think we're moving towards a more balanced and correct article, on the whole.

A few reservations:

I'm a little concerned that the characterisation by an opponent of one side of the debate, moved to the start of the article, is too much PoV. I believe that, after the actual issue is discussed, it may be in order to give one side's view of the other side - but that is hardly the way to start a discussion of an issue. Accordingly, I'll move the opinion below the debate. I'll defer to other editors on the appropriateness of the PoV statement itself.

Can we have a similar summary (Edcolins? Pde?) of the groups "lobbying" favour of the Commission's version? Perhaps in the "Reactions" section? I know it's not all the big players in the computing space (not Sun or HP, for example). Also, I'm not sure of the academic opinion in favour (Economics, IT, and Librarians, for example, tend to be against)...

"Patentable... ...to a certain extent" - on consideration, this qualification seems to obscure rather than clarify the broad patentability of software under the Commission's reversions (and perhaps current patent office practice).

The parliament's changes prevent patentability of "any invention which is somehow related to signal processing" - I have not seen this claim made outside the single, somewhat partisan reference quoted. The article goes on to say that the Parliament's changes "would throw Europe's patent landscape back to the world of the 19th century with its steaming coke-fuelled and oil-contaminated work machinery" - we should be careful not to quote polemic as if it were an authoritative source. I'll use a more measured claim, and state that it's an argument, not an authoritative legal opinion". -Paul 12:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Paul, I added a small paragraph about the position of EICTA, in favour of the Commission's version (more on this can be found on http://www.patents4innovation.com/). But the article still needs more balanced information I think. And the whole structure of the article is getting messy... What do you think? The "Reaction" section does not suit me before the history of the directive... Mmm.. --Edcolins 07:16, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

EICTA and critics

I removed this part:

EICTA has in turn been characterised by opponents of software patents as a classic example of an organisation which has been captured by the IP departments of its largest members, especially US multinationals.

Please cite your sources. I can't find the exact sentence on the web or something close to it, with such strong words like "captured by the IP departments of its largest members, especially US multinationals" [2]. --Edcolins 20:27, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

You might like to consider this [3] from FFII's Hartmut Pilch:

"Their positions on software patents have been dominated by patent lawyers from the patent arms of large corporate members, such as IBM's Fritz Teufel"

Or this [4] from AEL's site on software patents:

"That is only 15 of the 49 members of EICTA have "mainly European interest".

or this [5] from NoSoftwarePatents.com's Florian Mueller:

"The patent policy of EICTA .. is tailored to the special interests of a few large corporations that are particularly influential there".

The charge was also several times at FFII's conference in Brussels this November.

Wouldn't you say that I had fairly and succinctly summarised that position? --User:jheald 19:10, Nov 25, 2004 (GMT)

Okay, thanks, I reworded your part to include the sources. Is it alright for you? --Edcolins 21:22, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Clash of cultures?

Recently, I have heard anecdotal claims from relatively reliable second/third-hand sources, suggesting that culture clash has played a significant role in motivating the Commission's perserverance with software patentability. The claim is that various eurocrats, who are used to doing things in a relatively subtle and "respectful" manner, have been deeply offended by the effrontery of free software activists. Clearly this is hearsay but it's also not that hard to believe that this factor works alongside other, more political ones (Eurocrats have been known to find US trade negotiators offensive, let alone hackers).

So, can we find an appropriate way of mentioning this theory? Can anyone involved in the campaign shed more light on it? -- pde 00:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe something like "the strong feelings and aggressive debating style of some members of the computing community, their lack of expertise in the technicalities of IP law and practice, and their all-too-evident lack of respect for the procedures and institutions of the EU may have gained them a less than sympathetic hearing from some of the EU Council's civil servants, and reduced the effectiveness of their critiques of the proposals"? -- Paul 18:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reactions

I'm faintly concerned that the "Reactions" section has hardly any analysis, and only ad-hominem comments on the protagonists. Maybe it's enough that the rest of the article has a fair amount of discussion of the issues? -- Paul 18:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)