Compliance Toolkit

Story: EC pushes on with patent directive

• 
• 

Arthur B., more replies below.

Mr. Trainee Patent Attorney, dealing with software patents on a daily basis and having read the proposed directive doesn't exactly make you an IP laywer and experienced software developer as well, does it?

(I'm not sure that I said it did. However, my job does give me a familiarity with software patents, what they are and what they are not. I have also done plenty of coding in my time.)

Tell me, on what legal basis are software patents currently being granted?

(These are granted by the EPO under the European Patent Convention, and also by National Offices such as the UK Patent Office. Just like any other patent.)

How much is charged for that service?
What's the decision making process for granting a software patent? Is the legal and commercial impact a software patent might have part of that decision making process?
What if the legal and commercial impact a software patent has changes because the law changes, would that make any difference to the decision making process?

Would already granted software patents be revoked under certain circumstances and if so, which ones?

(They would become unenforceable.
They would also be revokable by application to the national courts in the EU.)

Under which circumstances could the Patent Office itself be draged to court?

(Cant think of any)

Fact is that mostly big firms are pushing for legalized software patents in the EU. Is that to clear up the legal position of software patents in the EU? Most certainly, but could you enlighten us as to why they want that?

(To make money, of course. Really, I dont want to get into a debate about the pros and cons of capitalism)

Have software patents been granted for obvious "inventions"?

(Yes. Although the standard of examination at the European Patent Office is generally accepted to be of a very high quality (far better than that at the US Patent Office, for example), some applications slip through the net and are granted in a shoddy state. This is not a reason to ditch the system though, the issue here is more to do with improving the quality of examination at the patent office. This, again, is an aim of the directive.)

Well, would you quit your job if we could point out just one?

(For the reasons given above, absolutely not)

Can truly good ideas be rewarded without legalized software patents? Most certainly.

(I note that you give no examples. Patents are a tried and tested way of encouraging innovation in a wide range of technologies. Patents work.)

Will smaller firms with a software patented IP be better protected against bigger firms with an enormous software patented IP and huge legal resources? I think not.

It seems to me that the group of pro software patent people is getting smaller and less powerfull by the day.

(Dont you believe it.)

I think there are reasons for that which have been explained in length.

(The current attitiude in my industry is one of shock that the Parliment can be so stupid.)

Here's a web site you might find interesting. It's not perfectly balanced but should provide enough leads to research further by means of more independant web sites.

http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/intro/index.html

http://www.base.com/software-patents/examples.html

(I have seen these sites. I think they are a sad reflection of the lack of understanding/awareness of what patents and the directive are about. It seems that a little ignorance can go a long way.

One last point - There are many more software patents in the US. They are generally accepted to be of lower qualitiy than European patents, and have been around longer. If software patents are so harmfull to industry, then why is the software inustry in the states so successfull?

Please take ten minutes to read the directive before you dismiss it - its only a few pages long)

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread