EU to Redefine Scope of Software Patents

karvind writes "According to story on ZDNet, the European Parliament (EP) has enlisted the help of intellectual property lawyers to amend the directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions so that companies are prevented from patenting pure software. According to article: "The ongoing argument over patents in the software industry revolves around the distinction between physical inventions that use software -- such as a car braking system -- and pure software." (See also this earlier story about the EU and software patents.)"

Comments

Please RTFA !

[Joh_Fredersen]

The European Parliement (elected by Europeans to function with EU level competence). Has effectively given the bird, to the blatantly pro-Patent the undeomcratic (European Council, various heads of state waffeling about crap). The EP, emasculated the original Patent draft, only to have the Council, make an ever *more* pro Patent document.. bang it's chest and say to the Parliment "Go on... change the text if you have the balls". Turns out the Parliment did have the balls to change the text. Better still, this directive would *eliminate* patenting pure software... so, to the earlier poster who questioned "jpeg" the answer is no... under this proposal, patenting jpeg is out, patenting mp3 is out, patenting the double click, one click shopping or XML is similarly out. Patenting a software controlled system that influences the physical world, like an alram panel, or a mechanism to open/close a garage door with software somehow *is* allowed. Personally, I welcome our new Democratically elected, Representative, Neo Natal Federalist government. But I'm not paying any taxes !!!

Re:Oh no.

[Bozovision]

Language like this is already present in the European Patent Convention. It says

European patents shall be granted for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an inventive step.

There is no definition of what an invention is or is not. However, article 52(2) provides a list of things that "in particular" shall not be regarded as inventions (suggesting there might also be other things that are not inventions):

1. discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
2. aesthetic creations;
3. schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
4. presentations of information.

However a little further on it says of the above text:

(3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.

That "as such" has proved to be a large loophole which patent seekers have used.

What do you think it means?

why not just set realistic expiry ?

[Sq]

It is highly unrealistict to expect Patent offices to have enough expertise not to pass stupid patents. As it goes, even if patent is invalid, nobody wants to challenge it as it would bankrupt them in court before they win.

So why not just set expiration of patent to 6 months, with possibility of prolongation for another year if nobody put the objection in the first 6 months ?

Such a legislation might actually have a chance to benefith both the inventor (ok, its employer realistically) and community (as after max. year and a half it will be free to everyone.)

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Lifewish]

The problem with patents is that any areas they're applied to will tend to gravitate towards a natural lifecycle identical to the patent lifetime (17 years, iirc).

In industries such as, say, grand piano making, where the natural product lifecycle is very long, patents give an effectively zero window of opportunity - they just don't last long enough to be worth getting. It could be argued that in this case patents don't put enough stress on the industry.

In industries such as bioresearch, where creating new products is very costly, the tendency is to just produce knock-offs. As a result the natural product lifespan is probably in the region of 30 years or so (after that the drugs will cease to be effective or will have been surpassed by academically-researched alternatives). In these industries patents give a medium-length (relatively speaking) window of opportunity for getting ahead of one's competitors, thus encouraging innovation. The stress that this puts on the industry speeds the average product lifecycle up to approach the lifetime of the patent.

In the software industry, the average product lifecycle lasts for somewhere between 1 and 7 years - call it 3 years. The lifetime of a software patent is almost 6 times that. In such a fast-moving industry, this is an effectively infinite window of opportunity, resulting in companies theoretically being able to get a big heap of patents then sit back and relax (or fail to get patents then die). The stress that patents put on the software industry is thus misdirected towards lengthening rather than shortening the product lifecycle, and just results in lots of protesters rather than any actual progress.

I would accept software patents if they were of duration = 2 or 3 years, but then they'd be so short that, given the speed of the patent system and legal system, they wouldn't be worth filing for. Anything longer than that and they can only be harmful, with progress proceeding despite patents rather than because of them.

Shouts to Clausewitz for the "stress" metaphor.