Liz Lynne (MEP, UK Libdem) 2004-06-08 on Software Patents

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

Alex Macfie comments:

First time to my knowledge that a LibDem MEP has cited the party policy. But she doesn't seem to understand why the policy doc says what it says. Small software businesses want protection from patents, not protection by patents.

Both the buzzwords "technical" and "industrial" are there --- the very ones Liz Lynne and her colleagues did not want to be defined.

She seems to be reassured because the Council has said that computer programs will not be patentable "as such", but only if they are "susceptible of industrial application" and "make a technical contribution".

Of course it has --- on the condition that patent lawyers can define the key words how they like.

• Thank you for contacting me concerning the proposed EU Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. We 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 would "support continued widespread innovation in software by resisting the wider application of patents in this area."

  The LibDems are in favour of increased legal certainty in the EU; a balance needs to be struck between the needs of small business on the one hand, to protect their inventions - and big business, on the other, from patenting everything to the exclusion of competitors. This has guided our approach to the legislation during its passage through the European Parliament. The European Parliament voted its first reading on the proposal in September 2003 where amendments were adopted to strictly limit patents to new inventions only. The Parliament's position would harmonise current practice in the European Patents Office, and ensure that patents in the field of computer engineering would 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". More recently, the Council of Ministers adopted its common position on 18 May 2004. This is the text of the legislation as Government Ministers wish to see it adopted. The Council has specifically excluded a computer program, as such, from constituting a patentable invention. It has also accepted the Parliament's amendment (above) as the Condition of Patentablity. When the text comes back to the European Parliament for its second reading, possibly by the end of 2004, it will then be open to further amendment. As this legislation falls under the co-decision procedure, the European Parliament has equal powers to the Council of Ministers. The Council will therefore not be able to ignore the wishes of the European Parliament, and if an agreement is not reached at the second reading the directive will go in to a conciliation process between the Parliament, Council and Commission. Rest assured that Liberal Democrats will continue to fight for a fair outcome on this issue. Yours sincerely, Liz Lynne MEP