2004-07-05 UK Tory MEP: EU Parliament has missed its chance of participation
--> [ News | Malcolm Harbour MEP | Letters | Joachim Wuermeling MEP 2004-05-19 ]
Summary
(analysis by Hartmut Pilch)
The Malcolm Harbour MEP Sermon has undergone a major update.
The new version, sent by Malcolm Harbour's colleague Roger Helmer MEP to a consternated constituent (see correspondance below), goes even further than previous versions in attacking the European Parliament. It says that by adding "unworkable amendments" to the software patent directive in september 2003 the Parliament had disqualified itself and would no longer have a chance to give any inputs to the directive:
- We wanted to ensure that the EU does not go down the road of the USA in extending patents to computer software and business methods. This would be damaging to the EU economy and to a crucial economic sector. At the same time, we wanted to help many small inventors who cannot get patents for genuine innovations. Parliament has missed the chance to bring about this desirable objective. We then looked to the Council and Commission to present a workable proposal without delay. However, Parliament does not have any further role to play in this legislative process.
Thus Harbour has added a new layer of pure and simple misinformation to his sermon, on top of the usual claim that UK conservatives are striving to prevent Europe from "US-style" patentability of software as such. One may speculate whether these Harbour misinformations are directed toward constituents or toward colleagues. Apparently Harbour is assuming that his colleagues do not want software patents and do not appreciate being dragged into a role of defending software patents in the Parliament.
Meanwhile very similar statements have been made by Harbour's patent lobbyist colleague from the german christian democrats, EPP shadow rapporteur Joachim Wuermeling MEP.
In the past, Harbour and Wuermeling have jointly written letters to the media to actively promote their position, which was usually based on patent lawyer committees of national employer associations organised in UNICE. The Helmer letter can therefore be assumed to reflect a new strategy of these groups in the European Parliament.
A similar line was also taken by Francisco Mingorance at a symposium in Paris in March. In what many spectators commented as an "impressive lesson in lobbying", Mingorance passionately reporte some extreme cases of recent EPO business method patents, presented BSA as a fighter against "trivial business method patents", and accused the Greens and other opponents of software patents of "missing the chance" to approve a directive which would put a stop to this kind of development.
Of course the claim that the EPO is currently pushing for the cited type of trivial business method patent is unfounded, as is the claim that the directive proposals of the Commission, Council and JURI could do anything to stop or slow down such a development. See Why Amazon One Click Shopping is patentable under the proposed directive.
Harbour adds further misinformation by stating that the Parliament has "missed its chance" to influence the directive. Quite the opposite is true. The directive is in the middle of the co-decision procedure. It can not be passed without the Parliament's consent, and by amending the directive, the European Parliament has assembled support around itself in a time of growing euro-scepticism. Harbour experienced this himself. His party lost 10% of its votes to the UK Independence Party and Harbour himself had a close call with the UKIP candidate in his region, see UK election results. The UKIP, which is strongly against software patents, missed Harbour's seat by just a few 100 votes. Much of the loss of the Conservatives can perhaps be attributed to politicians like Harbour, who complain about "EU red tape" to their constituency at home while in Brussels they closely cooperate with the ministerial bureacracy to drown SMEs in a thicket of unoverseeable ban regulations, growing at a rate of thousands per year. Wuermeling also lost 8.5% in his region, whereas Kauppi came out as a big winner.
Correspondence between R. Helmer and J. Grant
J. Grant reports:
Something is afoot. Previously I had received a letter from Mr. Helmer. While grateful to be in communications with my MEP, it would be more suitable if they supported my position as he is supposed to represent my EU constituency!
I responded to Mr. Helmer with this letter:
==================================
Subject: Re: My vote in the EU parliament elections 10th June]
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:15:07 +0100
From: Mr. Grant
To: Roger Helmer <rogerhelmer at tory.org>
Dear Mr Helmer,
Thank you for your reply with your original reply in text format.
I realise in the present Microsoft dominated situation it may not always be possible to create open readable documents; but even in Esperanto I have a chance of being able to read and understand. The Microsoft Word format is completely obfuscated to ensure "lock in" to stop for Microsoft's existing customer base choosing an open equivalent. For those of us not within their software realm this makes things difficult in our connected world.
I would like to ask you to support the position of my friends and I regarding "software" and "method" patents. Your reply below started off agreeing with my position. Then you spoke about "technical effect". I read the original -- Europarl 2003-09-24: Amended Software Patent Directive, (24th Sept 2003) and I could not spot anything which would exclude any innovation which happened to make use of computer software (rather than be solely based in computer software) from patent-ability. Could you tell me which sections/page numbers you are referring to please?
Yours sincerely
J. Grant
==================================
Look what I just received below. Mr Roger Helmer MEP within the East Midlands Region of the UK seems unable to respond himself; these Harbour-prepared responses do not even make logical sense. Why is Mr Helmer talking about being anti US styled software/method patents why he completely supports the Microsoft/Nokia sponsored software+method patent proposal? Am I the first to rumble this scam?
He does not seem to want to respond further. I have though 
See after this letter.
==================================
Subject: Software Patents
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 14:54:11 +0200
From: Roger Helmer <rhelmer at europarl.eu.int>
To: Mr. Grant
Dear Mr. Grant,
Many thanks for your email regarding software patents.
The European Parliament voted on proposals for a Directive on Computer Implemented Inventions in September 2003 in order to give a boost to the EU's quest for a 'knowledge driven' economy.
Parliament voted on a proposal that aimed to clarify European Patent Law and give examiners clear grounds for refusing patents on software and business methods, while protecting inventions that incorporate computer software as part of an innovative industrial process. However, MEPs voted to approve Socialist, Green and Liberal amendments, which greatly complicate the proposal and render it largely unworkable. One Liberal amendment would even block patents on innovations in audio-visual and printing equipment.
This was a disappointing result. We wanted to ensure that the EU does not go down the road of the USA in extending patents to computer software and business methods. This would be damaging to the EU economy and to a crucial economic sector. At the same time, we wanted to help many small inventors who cannot get patents for genuine innovations. Parliament has missed the chance to bring about this desirable objective. We then looked to the Council and Commission to present a workable proposal without delay. However, Parliament does not have any further role to play in this legislative process.
As I'm sure you already know, we have been in the UK due to the recent European elections and have only just returned to Parliament. Therefore, I haven't heard the latest information, which you've alerted me to.
However, I am grateful for your sending it. Since Parliament's legislative influence is now exhausted, any lobbying should be done toward the British Government * either directly to the relevant minister, or through your MP.
I hope that this information is of use. I'm sorry that I couldn't help further but appreciate your comments.
Yours sincerely,
ROGER HELMER MEP
==================================
Subject: Re: Software Patents
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:25:46 +0100
From: Mr. Grant
To: Roger Helmer <rhelmer at europarl.eu.int>
Dear Mr Helmer,
Thank you for your communique.
Perhaps there is some confusion, you state:
"We wanted to ensure that the EU does not go down the road of the USA in extending patents to computer software and business methods"
And yet you are pro the Irish Microsoft sponsored proposal which removes all the positive improvements agreed upon in the [Europarl 2003-09-24: Amended Software Patent Directive] and turns the Directive into a completely US-styled Patent law.
Did you get this the wrong way around? The Irish proposal sells out the EU to US-style monopolist corporations. The [Europarl 2003-09-24: Amended Software Patent Directive] sets the stage for a modern EU patent procedure; most suited to reformed business and society.
Will you join with me and condemn the Irish sponsored proposal please?
Will you join with me in support of [Europarl 2003-09-24: Amended Software Patent Directive] and contact the other MEPs and ministers promoting this proposal which is best of the EU please?
Yours sincerely
J. Grant
==========
See follow-up Roger Helmer avoiding the point
