Germany to Vote Against Software Patents in the EU
YKW writes "According to Ars Technica, Germany has decided to vote against all changes to current European patent laws. In a statement given to demonstrators in Germany, Federal Department of Justice Minsterial Director Elmar Hucko read the riot act to the EC: 'Under no circumstances do we want American procedures in Europe, Hucko vowed with regard to the US patent process. A patent must be "a fair reward for a bona fide invention and not abused as a strategy to bludgeon competitors.' With the largest EU member against software patents and French IT leaders lobbying their goverment to vote against them too, Europe might be saved from software patents. At least for a while. An older Slashdot article about software patents in Europe is here."
EU GDP: 11.50 trillion Pop: 454,900,000
US GDP: 10.40 trillion Pop: 290,343,000
Sure a trillion more is a lot in absolute terms, but it's only 10%.
Anyways in this case it might be more relavant to define a "software GDP," and for now I think the US would be #1 in that dept.
If the EU does resist software patents, it should be interesting to watch: will monetizing every little idea create more value for US companies and keep them in the lead, or will the increased freedom in the EU lead to products that integrate all the best features, leading to EU dominance? And does Microsoft even care, since they can easily buy any company with patents they want? Stay tuned...
Italian Minister for Technological Innovation, that is not entitled to vote ( DOH! ), has strongly recommended his collegues partecipating to vote against as well
Kinda strange, but DO YOU READ what you cite?
Quoting:
Last Wednesday Elmar Hucko, head of a government department in the Ministry of Justice, announced at an event in Berlin that the Federal Government would vote against the controversial software patent directive of the Council of Ministers of the European Union
You can defy gravity... for a short time
First of all, as member of the EU, Germany has to comply with EU directives that are passed. Next, WIPO does not only not require software patents, it even forbids them (just like TRIPS).
The excuse used by software patent proponents regarding TRIPs, is article 27:
This text however explicitly uses terms which are defined nowhere else in the treaty (like "invention", "field of technology" and "inventive step"), so that signing members can define these terms themselves in such a way that they fit best in their existing laws.
According to article 52 of the the European Patent Convention, a computer program can never constitute an invention. And in the Parliament proposal of the directive, "field of technology" is defined in such a way that computer programs, maths, business methods etc do cannot belong to one (even if they're executed on a computer).
And on top of that, there's articles 7 TRIPs which is interpreted by the WTO as that the measures as implemented must ...
Most evidence points to the contrary as far as software patents are concerned.
So TRIPs does not require software patents, how does it forbid them?
Article 10 of the TRIPs treaty states:
As opposed to what a first reading would suggest, namely that this simply means that copyright protection must be available for computer programs, this article goes further. The WTO states on its website regarding article 10.1:
Since patent protection is unavailable for literary works, it can't be available for computer programs either according to TRIPs. Proponents of software patents often counter this using their interpretation of "computer program as such", which turns "computer programs with a further technical effect" into "computer-implemented inventions", which in turn would supposedly not be affected by this exclusion.
This interpretation is however invalid due to article 4 of the EU Software Copyright directive from 1991. This article states that a computer program as literary work includes the following (emphasis mine):
The WIPO Copyright Treaty also contains applicable clauses (article 10):
Donate free food here