 |
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION 
|
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION
|
|
BLOGROLL OPML:
|
|
|
|
Search in IPJUR.COM
|
BLOG@IP::JURPatent Attorney Axel H Horns' Blog on Intellectual Property Law.
Wednesday, August 20, 2003Industrial Property – Quo Vadis?At the time being we have vacation season throughout the EU member states but I expect some very interesting debates to continue very soon. First of all, the plenary assembly of the European Parliament is due to vote on September 01, 2003 on a proposal for a European Directive on the patentability on computer-implemented inventions. The Council common position is expected for September 22, 2003. The starting point of all that will be defined by 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)).
While approving the general idea of patentability for computerised inventions, the committee sought to clarify and tighten up the wording of the Commission's proposed directive and at the same time strike a balance between Members of the European Parliament sharply differing views. According to the committee, in order to be patentable, a computerised invention should be one that could have an industrial application. Moreover, it should involve a technologically inventive step. The  Eurolinux Alliance opposing the draft directive are meanwhile ceaselessly agitating in order to prevent the approval by the European Parliament, arguing "The directive proposal as prepared by Arlene McCarthy MEP would impose US-style unlimited patentability of algorithms and business methods such as Amazon One Click Shopping". We will have to wait and see whether or not they can exert sufficient impact based on such ill-conceived and misleading arguing to the members of the European Parliament for obtaining a perceivable shift in policy.
There are other developments which, on the long term, might be more important than the public uproar currently staged by Eurolinux. For example, there is a closed shop conference organised by the European Commission in close co-operation with the Italian Presidency of the European Council and scheduled to be held in early October under the title "Industrial Property – Quo Vadis?". This gathering is devoted to the future role of IP in creating wealth and employment and stimulating innovation and competition. Issues to be addressed are said to include the relationship between Intellectual Property Rights and competition policy, limits on the scope of patentability, for example whether patents for software and business methods aid or block innovation and how to tackle the problem of access to patented medicines for people in the developing world. It looks like as if this conference would be intended to be something like a continuation of the Columbanus Symposium 2002 "The Expanding Scope of Patent Law" on a higher and more formal level. For example, Professor Hugenholtz who chaired the said Columbanus Symposium will also be one of the speakers talking about "The Final Frontier - What should be the limits of patent protection for software?"
It seems to be quite clear that, on the one hand, the blatant agitation of the Eurolinux Alliance will probably have limited impact. On the other hand, behind the scenes and out of reach of the limelight of the various vigorous (and often clueless) public debates we have seen during the past years there are serious and well-informed discussions underway concerning not only the benefits of intellectual property law but also the limitations. I expect that the long term policy of the European Union will strongly be influenced by more informal findings of such gatherings.
| ||||||||||||||||
