FFII UK : Les ateliers de l'Office britannique des brevets démontrent le caractère insatisfaisant du texte du Conseil
-> [ english ] [ EP 2005 | UK | UKPO Workshops | Actualités des brevets logiciels ]
17 March 2005 -- Last week a new report from the German Government backed anti-software patent campaigners, the largest EU petition against the introduction of software patents swelled to 400,000 signatures, and charity groups in the US banded together to fight the dangers of the patent system, as the UK Patent Office conducted the latest of its examinations into how far software patentability in Europe will extend. But is it too little too late?
FFII-UK spokesman Rufus Pollock said, "These workshops have shown several things that cause us great concern, while reinforcing that the current Directive will place an intolerable burden on software development. Economists have shown this, developers know this, and small and medium enterprises greatly fear it. At the end of the day the only people to benefit will be patent lawyers"
Discussing the workshops, he added "What the Patent Office says it wants is this: 'pure' software that is not patentable and 'computer implemented inventions' that are 'technical' and patentable. The definition of 'technical contribution' used in practice does not keep the processing, handling, representation and presentation of information by a computer program outside of the scope of patentability. Simply put, under the current text of the directive software is patentable."
"The feedback we have received from workshop attendees has clearly demonstrated the problems with the Council text in terms both of clarity and what it includes/excludes from patentability. An alternative wording proposed by FFII-UK appeared to be both clearer and simpler while still drawing the right line for patentability."
"But for those facing court costs running to the hundreds thousands, denial of entry to the market place, and the loss of freedom to innovate while creating and publishing original work, these consultations will seem like too little too late, particularly when the Council approved this very text only a few weeks ago. Nevertheless they do add further weight in our call to the European Parliament to either suitably amend the Directive, or failing that, reject it."
"FFII has welcomed the workshops as a rare opportunity for stakeholders to highlight the problems of the current directive, but warns that a US style system of broad and trivial patents will be written into European law unless action is taken now."
Ends.
