Unease is expressed by various individuals (like Mr. Karl-Friedrich Lenz) concerning the intervention of non-European participants, in particular from the IIPI, in the political debate on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. I do not share such concerns. Patents are a universal instrument used in a globalised world economy, and I do see absolutely no reason why patent politics should not be openly discussed on an international basis. As pointed out by some pseudonymous participant "three blind mice" it would be naive to think that Europe could prosper as a patent-free island embedded in a globalised economy equipped with a patent law also covering computer implemented inventions:
[S]oftware patents exist in the US. [T]he US is the world's largest market. [S]oftware developers in the US have no choice but to consider patents when developing their products. [S]oftware patents developed with a mind to patent issues can be sold anywhere in the world.
[S]oftware developers in the EU, thinking themselves immune to patent infringement claims, develop software without consideration to patents. [T]hese products cannot be sold in the US or Japan and this places the EU at a competitive disadvantage.
Yes, the EU is also a large market in sheer numbers, and China easily outnumbers the U.S. and the EU even if taken together but it would be naive to deny the technological superiority of the U.S. in many fields. If numerous products made in the EU and embodying computer-implemented inventions patented in Japan and/or in the US could not be exported to those countries because of lacking patent-awareness of European companies this would surely be a drawback for the European economy. And, not to forget, that many products finally assembled in the EU are composed more or less completely from components imported from other non-EU countries. In a globalised economy, this is quite a normal procedure. If patent license roalyties are due in the countries of origin, the European importers will have to pay them anyway.
There are some participants in the debate coming from the programmer's point of view denying that e.g. a codec device made out of a piece of software running on a suitable processor can ever be seen as an embodiment of a technical invention because of software comprises of abstract data structures. I think that this is a misconception. In patent law, software as a lingustic construct is entirely irrelevant. Only software running on a suitable processor can create effects which have any meaning in terms of patent law. However, when software is executed on a suitable processor, a certain real-world semiotic has to be atttributed to the objects defined within the static linguistic contruct which goes well beyond the syntax and semantics of a programming language. For example, if a piece of software comprises a certain object, say, a variable $VELOCITY, this object is embedded into the syntax of the chosen programming language and as well into the semantics of the run-time behaviour of that language. But only if this object within the static linguistic code is directly or indirectly conncted during the execution of the software to some physical entity reflecting the real world (in this case, a velocity value measured by some sensor and communicated to the computer via some I/O channel or at least a velocity value simulating a corresponding physical entity) then we might have a technical environment justifying the application of the principles of patent law within the context of software.
The pseudonymous "three mices" further say:
[O]n the other hand, the [F]édération [I]nternationale des [C]onseils en [P]ropriété [I]ndustrielle (FICPI), and the [A]sociation [I]nternationale pour la [P]rotection de la [P]ropriété [I]ntellectuelle (AIPPI), and the IIPI to which professor lessig kindly pointed completey fail to appreciate and address the issues we stated above. [T]hey are aloof to these legitimate concerns.
Concerning the IIPI, I would say this judgement is premature; they are not long active in this particular debate. However, I could understand if someone would be disappointed due to the intellectual lethargy of some long-standing professional organisations like those mentioned by the said posting (others could easily be added). There should indeed be more room for an open discussion of moderate solutions, eg. reforms on patent law exemptions for source code, initiatives to foster collective licensing models well known from the field of copyright also in the patenting business, and the like.
If the European Parliament should eventually insist on a complete ban of any patents on computer-implementable inventions in accordance with the doctrine of Stallman's Utopia, then the final spurt will happen in the EU Council in order to make sure under all circumstances that such irresponsible and misguided policy will not be blessed by the EU Council in the course of deliberations in a Conciliation Committee made up of representatives of both bodies.
interesting debate concerning the patentability of computer-implemented inventions going on in the commentary section of 