European Complexity
The process of the directive through the European Union's institutions may seem convoluted. Under the co-decision rules for European lawmaking, the European Parliament, Commission and the Council all have to agree to the text of the directive before it can come into force. The Parliament passed a first reading in September 2003 which made it clear with lengthy legalese that software should not be patentable.
Since then, the directive has been under discussion in the Council, whose working version -- drafted by the Commission -- removes all of Parliament's significant amendments and inserts new articles which opponents claim leave dangerous patent loopholes. The Council is due to adopt this version as its common position soon, having been delayed so far by Poland, which disagrees with the Council's position but which is also under diplomatic pressure in other policy areas such as agriculture.
Angry at the intransigence of the Commission and Council, the Parliament's Committee for Legal Affairs (JURI) voted for a restart of the entire procedure on 2 February, a decision the Commission is free to ignore, even though it was ratified by the Council of Presidents on 17 February. Whether a restart will happen, or the Council will adopt a dangerous common position before a restart is possible, depends on a bewildering range of formalities and meetings.
Key Players
Many of the key players have exploited this confusion to further their interests. Malcolm Harbour, Conservative MEP for the West Midlands and the chosen party expert on the issue, claims that there is no significant difference between the current Council version and Parliament's version of September 2003. JURI's vote earlier this month suggests that his position is a smokescreen that hides the Commission's real intentions: to make software patentable.
Not all of the UK Conservative MEPs share Harbour's cut and dried approach -- several of them were extremely concerned when we explained the issue to them in person. But, as with Labour and the Liberal Democrats, most Conservative MEPs vote on the advice of their party expert. All three parties have been broadly in favour of software patents going by their voting record leaving the Greens, Plaid Cymru, the SNP and UKIP to staunchly oppose them in the UK.
Anti-patent campaigners take to the streets to get their voices heard
Photo Credit: FFII
Talkback
Interesting article (besides the ones that can be read by clicking on the links here above):
The war on copyright communists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1387447,00.html
European Software Patent Horror Gallery
http://tinyurl.com/6a4js
European Software Patents: Assorted Examples
http://tinyurl.com/4wc9a
Freedom to use ideas in software without restriction was enshrined in the Patents Act 1977. Is there really such a shortage of ideas that a few large companies now need to be given monopoly rights to ideas which any competent programmer could think of for themselves? Where is the public interest in this restrictive practice?
I think the Patent Office, who are promoting the extension of patents into software, should be asked to give their estimate of the damage this will cause to the British economy. Giving a right to one person evevitably means that the legitimate interests of many others will be damaged.
The Patent Office say that their proposal would limit software patents to those that "make a technical contribution". They are holding meetings across the country in a couple of weeks time to try to find a definition of what this means. In my opinion this is nonsense. Patents should be limited to products where the manufacturer has to invest a significant ammount of money in the manufacturing process in order for the public to benefit from the idea. This is not the case with software.