USA Microsoft attempt to illegalise free software European Union Parliament
 

Wrote to my European parliament member and asked him to oppose US attempt to bugger up free software. Have to say I am not an expert on this subject and just trying to do the right thing. Got this response:

Dear Mr Teehalt

Thank you for your email of 18 October 2003 with regard to the
Commission's
proposal for a
Directive on "The Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions,"
also
known as the Software Patents Directive.

The Commission's proposal sets out to clarify the patent regime in
Europe
and to curb any tendencies toward the United States' model of
wide-ranging
and permissive patenting. In a world where technology, electronics and
computers are used more and more in our machines, gadgets and cars,
this
proposal seeks to establish and standardise some type of status and
rights
for innovation in these fields. It also aims to harmonise patent
protection
across the EU, so that inventors can be sure that a patent obtained in
France is also valid in Germany or any other Member State. At present,
the
Member States have differing laws and patent procedures, which can
easily be
seen as an impediment to the EU's "internal market" project.

Although the ever increasing presence of computers and computer
programmes
in manufactured products requires that provisions be established for
the
protection of such types of inventions, the patenting measures need to
be
more strictly defined and confined so as not to stifle and discourage
computer programming and software development in Europe.

If anything, this Directive should help patent authorities distinguish
between genuinely patentable inventions which use computers programmes
to
make machines work better and pure software which manipulate abstract
data
within a computer. Herein lies the importance of the definitions of the
terminology used in the proposal, specifically "computer-implemented
inventions." Unfortunately, the proposal does not adequately explain or
define such inventions. If its aim is to clarify the situation of what
is
and is not patentable, the proposal's lack of precision and definition
is
cause for concern.

Further uncertainty arises from the requirement of a "technical
contribution" in order to qualify for a patent. Although "software as
such"
is not patentable, the directive proposal does allow for exceptions. If
a
programme involves a technical innovation, it could be patentable.
Unfortunately, the definition of said "technical" contribution is left
open
to much interpretation. In fact, are computers not, by their very
nature,
"technical?" It could be argued that any new computer program is a
technical
innovation. While it is true that the proposal does exclude algorithms
and
business models from patentability, there is no clear
definition/boundary/scope for them in the proposal, leaving again a
vagueness and uncertainty to be dealt with by patent officers and
judges.

Given the nature of computers and IT, its rapid evolution, growth and
innovation, pinning down very detailed definitions could prove
difficult and
they could quickly become dated. However, little or no definition will
also
create controversy and uncertainty, and maybe even lead to a flurry of
innovation constricting patents.

I have decided to support the amendments by my colleague Piia-Noora
Kauppi
MEP (Finland) in the interests of clarity. The only thing that is clear
is
that the text is very complicated and difficult to understand and
interpret.
We must not allow such confusion to become law.

As you may know, many of my colleague's amendments were adopted at the
European Parliament's Plenary session on 24th September. This is a
complicated and delicate issue, and policy-makers and Member State
governments are highly divided over how to harmonise these patents
whilst at
the same time protecting pure software and avoiding the US route. The
next
steps, the Council position and the Commission's comments, are likely
to be
at odds with the Parliament's report and will doubtless mean drawn-out
negotiations and compromises. One can only hope a satisfactory
middle-ground
can be found.

Thank you for raising your concerns with me and alerting me to this
issue.

Regards

Giles Chichester MEP
48 Queen Street
Exeter, Devon, EX4 3SR United Kingdom
01392 491815

What does it mean? Who can tell?

For me, It is not absolutelyclear what means the whole thing, but at leat this part...
...looks not too bad. (I think)
Regards

it means he thinks EU patent laws need to be much more precise in wording so that people cant abuse it so easily he really didnt adress your question at all and simply said i think what the US has done in the past is bad and think were right but still need work