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, according to the UKPO on Friday.
The minister for science and innovation, Lord Sainsbury, and the UKPO agreed to hold the workshops after a public meeting at the end of last year, where software companies and developers expressed their concern about the directive, officially known as the directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
The conclusion from the 13 workshops, which were attended by over 300 people, were that the definition of technical contribution in the directive is "ambiguous and too liberal", the UKPO said.
The attendees of the workshop discussed in groups a number of fictional patent claims and assessed whether various definitions of technical contribution would allow these patents to be passed. Of the nine fictitious case studies that the UKPO said should not have been patentable, four were let through by the directive's definition and only two were disallowed, with the remaining three leaving the workshop attendees unsure, according to the results on the UKPO Web site.
Steve Probert, deputy director at UKPO, admitted that a better definition may be found by modifying the current definition but said the UKPO cannot change the UK's political policy on this.
"As far as we're concerned there's nothing more we can do at the moment," Probert told ZDNet UK. "It is very much a political football between [European] Parliament, the Presidency and the [EU] Council. As far as I know the government still stands fully behind the text agreed by the Council."
The UKPO has a policy division that advises the government on legislation related to intellectual property. Probert was unable to say whether the UKPO's policy division would update its policy following the workshops, but he said the results may influence what its advice to government in future consultations.
"If an opportunity arises to discuss amendments to the directive, it is worth considering that there may be an advantage in changing the definition of technical contribution," said Probert.
The full report of the workshops held by the UKPO can be found here.
Talkback
why doesn't someone patent the patent process so no one can use it
Another clear signal that spells NO in big bright neon capital letters. Now which part of NO do politicians not understand?
If politicians don't stop patents we will have to change people that run EU. If they don't listen to people and big majority of software companies then they just shouldn't represent us. But now that they are still making decisions we have to do evertything we can to let them know very clearly that we don't want software patents. Write e-mails to your country's members in EU parliament, put banners against patents on your web pages and blogs. Write about the danger that patents bring us and tell all people you know about this.
Apparently the new political sense is: if it is broken do not fix it.
Dear Reader,
The whole and only idea behind software patents is to illegalize all Open_Source projects in one blow - and doing so killing off all _real_ innovation !
Just consider the corporations advocating software patents and everybody - maybe total morons excluded - understands the _real_ goal of these **** patents.
If software patents are implemented 10 years in the future we'll have to put up with software that's obsoleted for 10 years - - - today !!! (thus being totally sheepelized into irreversible moroness...)
Just because the "evil empire" (m$) clearly is incapable of writing 1 little piece of _decent_ software, they are envious of the proven quality of Open_Source wares.
Putting software patents in law is like implementing software for an ancient 8-bit processor onto a new 64-bit CPU - and being suprised and angry the **** thing doesn't run... :-)
GrtzZ, Open_Sourceror.
P.S.
The "inventor" of software patents should be nominated for the (in)famous "Asbestos Cork Award"... ;-)
O.