Second Round of EU Patent Fight, Coming Up

An anonymous reader writes "Seems that last fall's victory over EU patent regulations was just round one. The current draft rejects all clarifying amendments made by the European Parliament, allowing direct patentability of computer programs. A net-wide protest is being organized on April 14."

Comments

Re:As has been said before.

[flossie]

If you would really like to promote change, please take the time to write or call officials.

e-mail works fine. Most of the ones I write to (we have 8 Scottish MEPs) are generally happy to receive and reply to e-mails.

Re:As has been said before.

[Tsian]

Well, by either:

a) Calling the office of the Prime Minister

or

b) Writing the office of the Prime Minister.

Much as you would contact a regular MP.

time for me to once again...

[cribb]

put up a link to

http://petition.eurolinux.org/

on my webpage. also it looks like they'll be

organizing a demonstration on 14th of april

in brussels.

Re:Need to keep hammering

[flossie]

It may be true that the majority of people don't have an opinion on software patents, but that also means that it is a fair bet that they are not writing to their representatives about the issue. Therefore, it is up to those of us that do care to make enough noise.

Re:The important lesson: they never give up.

[flossie]

current legislation does not allow for software to be patented. However, some software patents had been granted, and the directive is an attempt to legalize that. This means that, if the directive is accepted, we can expect more patents to be granted, BUT there is a good chance they will be in accordance with the directive, which used to have various provisions to protect rights like reverse-esgineering to achieve interoperability.

The original intent of the directive was to legalize the patenting of software. The commission introduced the directive with the stated aim of harmonising and clarifying patent law in Europe. The actual aim was to codify current practice of the European Patent Office which has recently been issuing software patents despite Article 52(2) of the European Patent Convention which states that computer programs are not patentable inventions. The original fight, therefore, was an attempt to prevent a change in the law which would make software patentable. Although patents have been granted by the EPO, we have not yet seen many adverse effects because the patent holders would risk having their patents invalidated by the courts if they tried to enforce them - hence the desire (by the pro-patent lobby) to introduce the directive.

However, the European Parliament significantly amended the text of the directive. The most important change was that they explicitly reinforced Article 52(2) and insisted that software not be patentable. This is the reason that the European Commission threatened to withdraw the directive entirely rather than allow it to pass in its amended form. The directive was originally a Bad Thing, but in its form as last seen by the parliament it is definitely a Good Thing.