On Tuesday the European Parliament (EP) proposed a number of changes to the directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, including a change to the name of the directive to make it clear that software cannot be patented.
Confusion over just what would be patentable under the directive has been such that it has become widely known as the software patents directive.
Now, Michel Rocard, the rapporteur for the EP's Legal Affairs Committee (JURI), has drafted amendments to the directive which, if agreed by the committee next week, will be voted on by MEPs in a plenary session of the European Parliament in July.
Rocard has proposed that the expression 'computer-aided invention' should be used rather than 'computer-implemented invention' throughout the directive text, including the title of the directive. This change is needed to make it clear that innovations can only be patented if they use software to aid the performance of the invention and not if they comprise software only, according to Rocard.
"The expression 'computer-implemented' is not suitable, because it may let one think that an invention can be wholly realised by means of a computer, which would mean that software can be patentable. Since both the [European] Commission and the [EU] Council agreed that software should not be patentable, the scope of the directive has to be defined so as to exclude this case," said Rocard in the draft amendment document.
Some of the proposed amendments revert to the changes introduced by the European Parliament in the first reading, which were later removed by the EU Council. This includes a change to make it clear that innovations in the field of data processing cannot be patented.
Jonas Maebe, a spokesman for the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, told ZDNet UK in an email on Tuesday that he was pleased with the amendments proposed by Rocard.
"Overall, the compromise amendments proposed by Mr Michel Rocard MEP ensure that Europe can keep all of its future options open," said Maebe. "Keeping our options open for the future should be the core message of this directive. It is much easier to extend patent rights than to limit them."
Politicians should not make a decision on the patenting of software until the results are available from an EC-funded study on software patents, according to Maebe. The study, which is being conducted by researchers at the Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology over the next two years, is investigating the legal, technical and economic effects of software patents on innovation.
Talkback
Why bother allowing a consultation to take place, why not steam roller ahead like you did to get it this far.
Well If I get the chance I'm still voting No on the constitution.
Sigh. Whatever this patent thing will be called, labelled, defined or whatever fact is that even the smallest part of it that survives will be lobbied back to the full potential the deep pocket companies with self interest motivations want it to be.
It seems only politicians are arrogant and ignorant enough to actually believe that they can outsmart companies that have played this kind of game longer then those politicians have been, or will be, in office.
Especially because those politicians get there "advise" from "experts" that are either mostly payed for to tell someone elses opinion or have other commercial motivations.
It's pretty simple actually. Just follow the money and see where you end up.
So the solution is quite simple. Dump the patent thing completely and first establish some rules about making certain desicion makers and advisors really accountable and liable for their actions.
Oke so now we have to wait for the "EC-funded study on software patent". Great, smashing, very impresive! However the European Parlement already has a report about the effects of software patents, so why another study ? To now get a study that fits the needs of the European Commision (read Microsoft).
And what about the dinner for politicians in Ireland funded by Microsoft ? No wonder people don't like the smell that is coming from Brussels. There are some politicians in Brussels that are now sitting there because they have "scratch" (the came from one of the member counties). The longer you are in politicis the more connections you build up, thats not always bad. I personaly see Brussels as an old boys network that has more power in Europe then it shoud have! Looking at how "democratic" the counsil of ministers and the commision have been dealing with this patent directive you can certainly smell the rotting fish in Brussels...
Nero fiddles while Rome Burns!
I think the acid test for this one is to see what the words actually say and see the response from those who have most to lose if software patents are allowed; the Free/Open Source Software Community. I agree that smaller commercial organisations would suffer under a bad directive, but the FOSS would be very badly dented indeed.
Some would argue that this is why certain companies want the directive in the first place.
Ensuring clear blue water between software and non-software inventions to prevent the former being patented and allow the later is (IMHO) a good thing(tm).
If those people in Free/Open Source-land say that the new words do this and only this, then fine. Do it. If not, then we have to get our pens out again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again .. and again ..
The Commission works by attrition. They just keep bringing their dross back, time and again, until the elected bodies behave themselves, get it right and vote as they should.