Presentation Leo Baumann, Eicta Infobalt 2004-07-23
[ Baumann | EICTA | Computer-Implemented Inventions ]
Analysis
Slide 2: What are Computer -implemented Inventions?
- Very broad
- Anything software-related
- Any data processing or info handling device (i.e. hardware)
- Covers all sectors developing products incorporating any software or microprocessor
Comment: Leo Baumann apparently no longer sees a need for pretending that there is a difference between "computer-implemented inventions" and "software". In fact the legal texts from the EPO and the Commissions also do not pretend this. However the Commission and the patent departments of the national governments usually do and continue to do so.
Slide 3: "Why patent Computer-Implemented Inventions?"
- Increasing % of innovation in SW
- 500,000 Europeans employed in SW development
- Patents available for !CIIs in other parts of the world
Protects/incentivises R&D investment
- Return on investment ? licensing revenue etc
- Copyright protection alone not sufficient
--->
- So what? off-topic
- dito
- weak me-too strategy
- Lacks evidence that swpat meet this goal
- no hard figures available. Transaction costs of the system?? Assumption: Licensing market superiour to free market situation.
unsupported claims (--> Coypright too weak?)
Slide 4:
---> Leo Baumann focusses on weak SME arguments. Casuistic approach without case.
Imaginary rocket science examples: DRM solutions, Improved control engineering technology, Optimized image or speech recognition software, Mobile heart frequency measurement applications, Digital radio technology ---> No real example patent claim given, no rule for excluding broad claims or less rocket-science-like subject matters
Slide 5:
- Harmonise treatment among !MSs
- Confirm legal position in Europe
- Based on existing EPO practice
- Increase legal certainty
- Avoid drift towards US practice of allowing business methods and pure software
Sounds like Frits Bolkestein's speech.
1) harmonisation as weak standard sermon, patent law already harmonized, 2) = confirm current bad pratice, do not solve the problems for development 3) What legal authority does a executive body have? Is EPO's legal escape driven by an economic rationale? 4) Legal security for whom? 5) How shall this be achieved by opening Pandoras Box??
Slide 6:
- Confirm status quo
- Should not hinder patent enforcement
- Meet TRIPS obligations
- Permit OSS to continue to grow
--> Legalistic mechanics vs.- democracy: 1+2 questions the role of the legislative body to set rules. When Eicta wants to confirm the status quo it will not solve our problems we have today with software patents, Eicta agrees with the current bad pratice. 3) rides on false Trips references 4) defensive lip service
Slide 7: Eicta positions
- Harmonise based on existing EPO practice
- Confirm status quo ? no broader/no narrower than now
- No business method patents
R&D/innovation needs to be protected & incentivised
- Better to have no directive than a bad directive
--> 1) He tells the lawmaker to abstain rather then to clean up the mess
2) Why is it neccessary to confirm status quo? 4) How do patents reach that goal? 5) Why shall the EU kill the directive? Solve the problem.
Slide 8: "The Opponents"
- parts of the Open Source movement
- quote Bolkestein-Parliament speech "vocal" + emotional
--> We do not know these stakeholders. Probably the Free Software Alliance.
Their amendments:
?Data-processing does not belong to a field of technology? --> This is a FFII core demand. Such an exclusion is nessecary to ensure Trips-compliance.
?Industry means: the automated production of material goods? --> The Parliament's industry definition. No better worded definition proposed.
?Whenever a patented technique is used for a significant purpose, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement? ---> interoperability amendment from the EP. Overly broad because of changes by McCarthy. The original amendment as approved by JURI (and as proposed by Luxembourg in the Council) only mentioned interoperability purposes.
Slide 9:
---> wacky statement about negative effects without economic proof or foundation
- "EU non-level playing field with rest of the world"
"Impacts R&D investment in Europe"
Conclusion
Eicta has lost the political debate, arguments are weak and unprofessional
- plays on underdog sentiment (vocal and emotional...)
- tries to reduce us as a open source lobby groups or even fraction
- no economic evidence
- uses parts of our positions
- takes over official statements from the commission, no new arguments
- former patent radical switched to defensive arguments
- Eicta press speaker Leo Baumann now forms a one person "Eicta Taskforce CII"
