The proposed software-patenting legislation is the result of a European Commission effort to clarify patenting rules as they apply to "computer-implemented inventions", a term that includes software. The patent offices of different EU member states currently have different criteria for accepting the validity of software-related patents, a situation that the Commission's proposal aims to remedy.
Since February, the proposed directive of the European Parliament and of the European Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions has been considered by three European parliamentary committees, with a final vote by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (Juri) on 17 June. The Juri vote approved the proposal 19-9 with some modifications, and the resulting draft legislative resolution was to go before the European Parliament on 1 September of this year.
Shortly after the vote, the draft resolution was put on a fast-track process that moved the parliamentary vote up to 30 June. This vote would have effectively finalised the resolution as a Directive, which would take effect across the EU and ultimately be promulgated as local legislation by member states. As a measure of how controversial the draft is, however, MEPs successfully cancelled the 30 June vote in order to give them more time to consider all the angles. Critics note that the delay is not as substantial as it seems, since MEPs will be on holiday for most of the period between 30 June and 1 September.
Confusingly, parties on both sides agree that moving towards the US model is a bad idea, and both insist that their proposals will keep the European patent system on a healthier footing than across the pond. For example, Arlene McCarthy, one of the directive's more vocal proponents, has said the draft is designed to stop the European "drift towards a US model". The draft will not allow the patenting of business methods or algorithms, according to McCarthy, as this would amount to giving parties a monopoly on abstract mathematics, and would surely hinder the development of new technology. Patents are restricted to a "computer-implemented invention" that "makes a technical contribution in its inventive step", according to the directive.
Unfortunately, the draft is a bit vague on exactly what constitutes a computer-implemented invention and a technical contribution, according to those who wish to alter the draft, with the result that companies are likely to patent anything they can and defend their patents in court -- a bit like what US companies do now. Companies such as IBM, used to building up large patent portfolios of their own with which to defend themselves against patent lawsuits, will be able to use the law to keep smaller competitors at bay, while patent lawyers will be able to afford larger, flasher automobiles.
In this climate, those rallying against the legislation are mainly scientists, developers and small software companies, with some large businesses such as Bull thrown into the mix, although McCarthy has said many smaller businesses have also come out on her side. Open-source developers fear that software patents could effectively derail their movement, since the development model depends on the software remaining free of intellectual property restrictions.
Many of the documents relating to the directive can be found on the European Commission Web site, here.







Talkback
When you spend more time and effort protecting innovation rather than practicing innovation, society's progress will stagnate.
This could kill Linux as we know it. I'm very worried.
On the other hand - the recent virus outbreaks are doing the opposite - hail to the authors of Blaster, Welchie and Sobig.F!!! Even Micro$oft had to hide behind Linux servers to limit damage. ha ha ha
The saying goes, you have to be cruel to be kind - let's get a few more devastating virii out there to take down more Micro$oft networks and make businesses finally realise that they cannot rely on this faulty software any more. Good work gentlemen.
The US allowing software patents back in the days of Regan/Bush Sr. was a blatent right-wing greed fest...all you have to do is look at the total mess that has happened in the patenting of software in the US. You had law students evaluating software patents, not skilled practioners in the computer field...once any of these questionable patents have been granted, it's allmost inpossible to get it in-validated...other examples of patenting prior art as a new concept abound...patents have been proved to strangle any new innovation as it is almost impossible, even for the original inventors to understand a typical patent due to the lawyer legalies applied to patents....patents were originally intended to protect the small inventor...that's a load of crap, it just protects the big corporation, ask Eddison, he even admitted it, he would devalue.bully every small inventor until he got his way and aquired their invention/patents and added to his huge arsenal of patents (he was the Bill-Gates/Microsoft of his era)