 |
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION 
|
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION
|
|
BLOGROLL OPML:
|
|
|
|
Search in IPJUR.COM
|
BLOG@IP::JURPatent Attorney Axel H Horns' Blog on Intellectual Property Law.
Friday, August 29, 2003European Parliament defers voting.Now it is official. The chairmen of the political groups in the European Parliament have decided yesterday to defer the vote on the draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. Originally scheduled for June 30, 2003 and a first time deferred up to September 01, 2003, the plenary meeting on this day will not see the examination of the the final report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market of the European Parliament on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (COM(2002) 92 - C5-0082/2002 - 2002/0047(COD)) which now will not take place before September 22. Torn in their centre between proponents and adversaries of patents on computer-implemented inventions, the various political groups represented in the European Parliament want to attempt once more to clarify their position. In fact, the opponents of the draft Directive inside and outside of the house will in the coming weeks surely struggle ceaselessly in order to persuade a majority of the House to reject the proposal which originally was drafted by the EU Commission.
It should, however, not be forgotten that the draft Directive can enter into force only if it passes a full  co-decision procedure. This means that only if the EU Commission, the EU Parliament as well as the Council should eventually reach a "Common Position", the Directive will become law. And, it is hardly imaginable that even if the Eurolinux coalition should persuade a majority of the House that patents on computer-implemented inventions are evil that any amended Directive text providing clauses severely restricting the patent law of the EU Member States would survive the deliberations in the Council. This is in particular true in view of the bindings originating from the WTO treaties which surely would be carefully observed by the national governments in order to avoid any unnecessary struggle with the United States. So far, there is little reason to worry.
However, taken as a symbol in itself, any adoption by the European Parliament of the view taken by the Eurolinux coalition would be a blow to the further prospects of the system of Intellectual Property in Europe. It is a sad fact that much of the impact generated up to now by the Eurolinux coalition is based on falsehoods and semi-truths. For example, Eurolinux claims that patents on computer-implemented inventions (they call such things "software patents") are illegal under current EPC law. This is definitively wrong. The EPC does not exhibit any clause preventing such patents on computer-implemented inventions. What is missing is any serious attempt to to conciliate between the positions of both camps. On the one hand, those individuals and companies refusing to make use of the patent system but relying on Intellectual Commons will have to accept that others want to establish a market-based knowledge economy. There will be no such society solely based on a culture of Intellectual Commons in any foreseeable future. However, on the other hand, Intellectual Property laws should be modified in a way to provide activities based on the Commons sufficient air to breath.
| ||||||||||||||||
