Sarah Ludford (MEP, UK Libdem) 2004-06-08 on Software Patents

--> News, UK Parties, UK Lib Dems, UK Patent Family, Libdem Youth 2003-12-08

In an answer to worried questions on software patents, Sarah Ludford of the Liberal Democrats says the Libdems will see to it that "only" new software can be patented and that these patents do not cover the software as such (huh?).

The answer is similar to those of Labour and Conservatives in its attempt to appease the feeling about software patents while still in fact vowing to give the patent lobby everything it wants.

The paper shows once more that the EP libdems are taking a line which is not in agreement to that of the Libdem policy paper of 2003, which they cite in an attempt to placate the inquirers, but rather with that of the UK patent establishment.

This response makes it clear that we must once more expect the UK Liberal Democrats to vote for software patents and against the Parliament's majority, as they did in september 2003.

• Thank you for contacting me expressing your concerns about the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. The Liberal Democrats addressed this issue in the Liberal Democrat IT policy paper "Making IT Work" which was adopted at our Spring Conference in 2003. This made it clear that we are sceptical about the application of patents in the software field. We state that we would "support continued widespread innovation in software by resisting the wider application of patents in this area." The full policy paper may be of interest to you and can be read in the policy section of our website at:

  http://www.libdems.org.uk/index.cfm/page.folders/section.policy/folder.policy_papers This issue has remained high on the agenda of Richard Allan MP, the Liberal Democrat Information Technology Spokesman at Westminster, who has been campaigning actively for the Directive to be amended. He has raised this in correspondence and meetings with the relevant Ministers and liaised with us in the European Parliament and campaign groups. Most recently, Richard lobbied Jacqui Smith MP as the Minister representing the UK at the Council of Ministers to seek to persuade her to reconsider the Government's support for a draft of the Directive which seems to us too pro-patent. The European Parliament adopted its first reading on the draft Directive last September. The concerns of small firms and programmers were taken into account during our consideration of this proposed legislation. MEPs recognised that, due to the tendency in the USA to allow the patenting of computer software, there is a pressing need for legal certainty in this area through introduction of EU legislation. Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular have been concerned that patenting will restrict their ability to write new and better software without infringing the rules. At the same time, SMEs will also benefit from the legal protection that will be established by this Directive. The European Parliament voted to strictly limit patents to new inventions only, rather than computer programs as such, in an effort to take a balanced view of the Commission's proposal. The Parliament's position would ensure that patents in the field of computer engineering will be issued on the same basis in all EU Member States. Specifically, the UK Liberal Democrats supported an amendment to the definition, so that "In order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be susceptible of industrial application and new and involve an inventive step. In order to involve an inventive step, a computer-implemented invention must make a technical contribution". Equally importantly, the Parliament proposed tightening up the rules on what cannot be patented. So a computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a 'technical contribution' merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus - or because it improves efficiency in the use of resources within the data processing system. After the adoption of the Parliament's first reading, the proposal passed to the Council for consideration. In its Common Position of 18 May, the Council accepted some of the Parliament's amendments including those regarding the conditions and exclusion of patentability. According to the Council's position, a computer program as such cannot constitute a patentable invention. The patentability definition is the same as proposed by the UK Liberal Democrats, (already stated above). Since the proposed Directive comes under the co-decision procedure, both the Parliament and the Council have to agree on the final text. Thus the Parliament will have another opportunity, in a second reading, to examine, accept or amend the Council's proposal. It is expected that the text will not come back to the Parliament for the second reading until late 2004 or early 2005 because of the work to be done by the 'jurists-linguists', the specialist staff who get the translations and legal terminology right. At this point the legislation will be re-opened to amendments. If there is still no agreement between the Council and the European Parliament after the second reading, the proposal will go to a Conciliation procedure (face to face negotiations between the three EU institutions). I will continue to follow this issue by liaising with my MEP colleagues on the relevant committee when MEPs return to the Parliament after the elections in June. You could also address your concerns to the British government whose ministers and representatives sit in the Council. Thank you once again for contacting me about this matter. Yours sincerely Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP Liberal Democrat MEP for London