Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UKPO Workshops Find EU Patent Directive Faulty

Posted by Zonk on from the turn-the-boat dept.

TheEvilOverlord writes "ZDNet has up a report about the current EU patent directive not being up to muster; 'Workshops held by the UK Patent Office (UKPO) around the country have found that the definition of technical contribution in the software patent directive would let through too many patents'. Unfortunately the UKPO can't change the government's stance of supporting this destructive directive."

6 of 63 comments (clear)

  1. Technical Shmecnical by pieterh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Software patents are evil. The pro-monopoly lobby is using weasel words like "technical" to hide a loophole through which one can drive freight trains. 50,000 software patents have already been granted by the EPO on this flmsy basis. If you think your softare is protected by copyright, think again - the EPO, backed by legalistic mumbo-jumbo like "technical" has sold your work under the counter to a patent attorney.

    Software patents are theft. No two ways about it. Patenting ideas and literary expressions is theft. Expropriation. Corruption.

    The lady, and she knows who she is, who invented this particular weasel word will go down in history as a villain.

    --
    My blog
  2. Throughly undemocratic by xwildph · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's an absolute disgrace, that the UK media aren't covering this very important issue. The European council have disregarded the decision of the elected Parliament, and have tried to force this through.

    Software patents are wrong, and incredibly dangerous territory for SME business. Larger companies may well be able to devend and enforce patents, but smaller players are likely to be unable to do so, and could be forced to lay off staff, raise prices, or even close down.

    Software is simply a list of instructions. It is not a physical product. It should not therefore be patentable. Copyright protection is available to those who need it.

    relevant links

    XW

    1. Re:Throughly undemocratic by langarto · · Score: 4, Funny
      It's an absolute disgrace, that the UK media aren't covering this very important issue. The European council have disregarded the decision of the elected Parliament, and have tried to force this through.

      Welcome to modern democracy.

      We will let you vote, as long as what you vote doesn't matter, dear consumer.

  3. A bit odd by boringgit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Strange thing this.

    When I first heard about this whole software aptent issue, I wrote to my MP, who then forwarded my letter to a minister at the DTI.

    He told me that the governments support for software patents was based soley on advice given by the UK Patent office.

    If this is no longer the case, surely the government needs to reconsider.....

    1. Re:A bit odd by codehelp · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was at one of the UKPO workshops and we were promised a full report. The UKPO has now put the report on the workshops on the web as a PDF.
      http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/issues/eurocom p/full_report.pdf

      The UKPO clearly state that the purpose of the exercise from their perspective was to "find a definition that fits the current [case] law" -
      sounds a lot like "decide what you want and make the facts conform afterwards".

      2. The UKPO at least admit that none of the definitions - including the one in the Directive that the Council want to force through - actually fit even that limited remit.

      This was inevitable and everyone on the FFII lists knew this in advance - nobody actually WANTS what the UKPO want. We need a change in the law and that can only come from supporting the European Parliament amendments and pushing for a complete restart of the entire directive.

      Write again to that MP and point out that the government's own statements on software patents are NOT compatible with the results of the UKPO's own workshops. The government does need to reconsider and it does need to support the Parliament amendments. The UK government is under the impression that the directive maintains the status quo and they must now see that the workshops have blown that away. The UK government has said that it does NOT want to allow more than what is currently practiced by the UKPO and the UKPO themselves recognise that the current definition does NOT match that practice.

      The Directive, as it currently stands, is MORE PERMISSIVE than the current law. The UKPO have NOT accepted this as their position on the directive, it is merely the opinion of those at the workshops. We need to drive home the message that the UKPO's own workshops showed that their recommendation, as embodied within the Directive, does NOT maintain the status quo - in direct
      contravention of everything the UKPO has published on the Directive. The Directive, if passed in the version proposed by the EU Council, WILL move the
      balance in FAVOUR of more software patents AND give ALL existing software patents the full force of European law. Additionally, a whole raft of NEW areas will also become patentable. "technical contribution" is a smoke-screen - it means absolutely nothing.

  4. Re:Letters to MEPs by Mr+Smidge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wrote a letter to my local MP, and a few London MEPs. With the exception of one conservative MEP, all the responses I got were actually quite positive!

    My local MP (conservative) commented:
    "After .. dealing with EU directives and regulations, a high proportion like this are actually damaging to business. As you observe, the Commission has scant respect from democracy."

    He took the issue up with the secretary of state for trade and industry, but no reply. After the general election, he's no longer my MP, and I have yet to contact the new one.

    To summarise the reponses from the London MEPs I made contact with:

    Sarah Ludford (Lib Dem) - Echoed the official Lib Dem stance of "support[ing] continued widespread innovation in software by resisting the wider application of patents in this area".

    Robert Evans (Labour) - Oppose software patents, and powerfully stated, "Patents and the threat of litigation must not be used as an anti-competitive weapon to squeeze out small companies", and "Open source software must be allowed to flourish and the Commission must ensure that this Directive does not have any adverse effect on OSS and small software developers".

    Theresa Villiers (Conservative) - Received a particularly personal response indicating that she shared my worries on the issue, and assured me that she would continue to oppose software patents.

    Charles Tannock (Conservative) - Oh dear, there's always one. Dr. Tannock claimed that the Directive would clarify the existing situation and not allow pure software patents. He also challenged my statements of the harmful effects on OSS and small businesses, and asked me for my evidence. He had clearly not read the Directive text itself.

    I wrote back a rather scathing letter, quoting the Directive text itself, and providing numerous references of the negative effects. I presented it all very clearly in a way that he couldn't ignore. After that, I got back a half-amusing reply, saying that the points I raised were beyond his technical expertise. He supposedly forwarded my letter to another MEP, but I haven't heard anything since.

    It seems that, on the whole, the British Politicians aren't clueless. The suspicious progress that this Directive has made has got to be due to corporate lobbying efforts.

    It really is down to the EP to make sure this Directive doesn't get made law, otherwise I might be forced to start voting UKIP (heaven forbid).