Plenary vote: UK Lib Dem Positions and Statements
-> [ EP says No | News ]
At the group meeting the afternoon before the vote, it is said that 70% of ALDE !MEPs across Europe indicated their support for Rejection plus the Duff amendments
Signatories of the Rocard-Buzek-Duff amendments:
- Andrew Duff, Elspeth Attwooll, Chris Davies, Fiona Hall, Bill Newton-Dunn
Non-signatories
(Either wouldn't sign, not in Brussels, or not available):
- Sharon Bowles, Sajjad Karim, Sarah Ludford, Liz Lynne, Emma Nicholson, Diana Wallis, Graham Watson
Comments on the vote
- Diana Wallis, Andrew Duff, Sharon Bowles, Sarah Ludford, Graham Watson
Diana Wallis
MEPS EXPECTED TO REJECT COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED INVENTIONS - WALLIS
6th July 2005
Commenting on the expected rejection of plans for a controversial directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, Liberal Democrat spokesperson Diana Wallis MEP said:
"It's disappointing not have been able to legislate to bring legal certainty to this area, however, the likely outcome of the current debate, could have left us with something even more unworkable.
"Of course to some degree Software Patents is something of a sideshow and the larger goal remains to get a 'Community patent'. If committed to the Lisbon Agenda then a 'Community patent' would set Europe on the right path to achieving it's economic goals."
Notes:
The European parliament will vote on the directive, on harmonising the patentability of computer-driven inventions today - Wednesday 6 July. Recommendation for second reading: Michel Rocard (A6-0207/2005) - Patentability of computer-implemented inventions
The aim of creating a Community patent is to give inventors the option of obtaining a single patent which is legally valid throughout the European Union. The expected advantages of this system are:
- a substantial reduction in patenting costs, particularly those relating to translation and filing;
- simplified protection of inventions throughout the territory of the EU thanks to a single procedure;
- the establishment of a single centralised system of litigation.
The creation of a Community patent system remains a sensitive issue as this dossier is still deadlocked after 13 years of discussions by European decision-makers.
Andrew Duff
Duff calls for overhaul of EU patents in wake of EU software crisis
Following the defeat of the Computer-Implemented Inventions Directive in the Parliament today, Liberal Democrat Euro-MP Andrew DUFF has warned of the dangers of inaction. Mr DUFF, who played a leading part in the mounting of Parliament's opposition to the draft law, made the following statement:
"We can be satisfied though not complacent at the outcome of this legislative battle. It is good that a bad piece of draft law is now dead, but the Parliament's rejection of the Council's draft law at second reading should only be welcomed if action is now taken to sort out the mess that surrounds the question of patents in the European Union.
"At present the single market suffers from 25 different national patent systems which is costly and long-winded for firms and inventors. EU harmonisation of patent law is needed so that enterprises can have a one-stop shop and a single language for filing for patents across the EU. The European Court of Justice needs to be able to develop its own case law in patents.
"In the light of the defeat of the sector-specific legislation, Mr Barroso's Commission must take action and give impetus to the general 'Community Patents Directive'.
"With respect to the computer industry, our aim throughout was to stop the spread of patentability to pure software. A majority of MEPs realised the danger that the proposed CII Directive risked stifling innovation and adding substantially to the costs of software development. Less innovation would mean higher prices for consumers, and a defeat for Europe's global competitivity."
Mr DUFF represents the East of England which enjoys Europe's largest cluster of the software industry. He added:
"The drafting of the law we were invited to pass was shoddy. There was a real danger that it could have opened the door to a further spread of patents towards computer programs. While software code can be protected by copyright in any case, it is important that the spread of patents does not impede the growth of open source development or the interoperability of systems. What Europe needs is a clear, consistent regulatory framework with enforceable remedies. The patent regime must exclude software as such, algorithms and business methods while allowing patents for genuine inventions with commercial application.
"Unless we get more legal clarity and consistency, European patentability will continue to be governed by a muddle of different national laws, some trivial patenting by the (non-EU) European Patents Office, and by decisions of the WTO under the 1994 TRIPs agreement.
"I am happy to have worked with the Parliament's rapporteur Michel Rocard (Socialist), Jerzy Buzek (European People's Party) and others to have halted this potentially damaging piece of legislation.
"I am only sorry that although we had a simple majority of MEPs on our side, we had not achieved the absolute majority (367 votes) that is needed to amend the draft law at second reading. It was clear that the quality of the CII Directive could only have been improved through substantive negotiations between Council, Commission and Parliament in the formal conciliation process that would have preceded the third reading. In the end there was a lack of political will to carry on the fight. Parliament's withdrawal of support for this Bill in these circumstances does not mean that the problems the legislation was first introduced to address have gone away.
"Lastly, I must commend the vigorous and intelligent lobbying that has been brought to bear on MEPs from both sides of the divided industry. Without effective lobbying the real and serious issues involved in this legislation would never have been exposed. It has been impossible to please everyone - but certainly the interests of SMEs have been assisted by the Parliament's rearguard action. The effort must however continue to ensure that US-style patent laws do not spread by infection into the European single market."
Sharon Bowles
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LOOKS SET TO GIVE 'SOFTWARE PATENTS' DIRECTIVE THE CHOP!
The European Parliament today is expected to send the Commission and the Council a strong message that it will not be rushed into supporting a directive that it isn't happy with. Sharon Bowles, Liberal Democrat MEP and a European Patent Attorney said "I would be happy with a decision to reject the directive. As I've always said it better to have no directive than to have a bad directive".
"The speculation and interest surrounding this directive has been immense. It is unfortunate that a directive which sought to harmonise the status quo across the EU was so mis-presented".
Many Members were attracted into supporting Rocard's Amendments due to an enormous lobby from software writers who thought that the directive was bringing in US style software patents. Although the amendments have some attractive elements they were not drafted tightly enough to relate only to computer software and had large impact on electronics.
Yesterday during the plenary debate Sharon Bowles said to Mr Rocard (the rapporteur) "If you wished to construct a series of amendments to cripple and disperse Europe's industry - large and small - you could not devise anything more mischievous".
Today Mrs Bowles said "It has proven impossible to find amendments that gave the software writers the security they wanted that did not cause collateral damage to industry. The lack of legal clarity in the report risked creating a gold mine for patent lawyers and a nightmare for businesses."
The Parliament does not want to bin this forever, it wants the Commission to bring this back after there have been proper impact assessments.
Sarah Ludford
MEPs must overhaul their practices as patent decision ducked
11.31.55am BST (GMT +0100) Wed 6th Jul 2005 MEPs voting in Strasbourg, Photo European Parliament
London Liberal Democrat MEP Sarah Ludford is not among MEPs rejecting proposed directive on patentability of 'computer-related inventions'. She said:
"Rejection only prolongs the uncertainty around patentability of software-related inventions in the EU. It is running away from the need to take a decision."
"I deeply regret that MEPs are proving incapable of coming up with a sensible version of the text, one which could ensure support for innovation but also reassure software writers and users that we were not going down an American-style route of allowing patents for pure software."
"MEPs are not covering themselves in glory. This process has displayed all the defects in the way we legislate at EU level, which must be addressed if we are to avoid portraying ourselves as incapable of legislating on complex but vital subjects:
First, secrecy in the Council of Ministers: it is impossible to be well-informed on the reasoning behind the Council's common positions.
Second, obstacles to understanding: it is hugely difficult to track on the Council's website the chronological development of the legislation even if documents are theoretically available.
Third, the wrong choice of European Parliament rapporteur: the convention that a report is the property of a group and it is 'not done' to query their allocation to a particular member must be junked.
Fourthly, the stupidity of using a misleading shorthand description: in this case shortening the long title of a Directive (Computer-Implemented Inventions) to 'software patents' was understandable but disastrous. While it is laudable to try to simplify technical terms, we managed stupidly to signal, quite wrongly, that there was an intention to patent pure software as in the US.
Fifthly, the absence of parliamentary draughtsmen to advise MEPs: we need Westminster-style advisers who can give guidance on the precise meaning of terminology.
Notes:
The European Parliament voted today to reject the Common Position of the Council on the Directive on Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions by 648 votes to 14, with 18 abstentions.
Graham Watson
Time for a comprehensive European Patent
The European Parliament rejected the Council Common Position on Computer Implemented Inventions today by a massive majority of 648 to 14 with 18 abstentions. It is the first time a piece of draft legislation has been rejected by Parliament in second reading.
Graham Watson MEP (UK, Lib Dem), leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (the largest of the groups which tabled an amendment to reject), called for the Commission to bring forward a proposal for a Single European Patent regime covering all sectors:
"The Commission's proposal was unclear, Council's Common Position remained ambiguous and Parliament was faced with a barrage of technical amendments pulling in all directions. The chances of achieving legal clarity and improving on the status quo were remote." Insisted Watson
"Rejection of legislation is never ideal but Parliament has shown that it has the ability to pull the plug on inadequate legislation."
"It is now time to put an end to the squabbling in Council as there is a pressing need for a Community patent regime that will bring the work of the European Patent Office under democratic scrutiny and reduce the costs and burdens on business in registering inventions."
