 |
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION 
|
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION
|
|
BLOGROLL OPML:
|
|
|
|
Search in IPJUR.COM
|
BLOG@IP::JURPatent Attorney Axel H Horns' Blog on Intellectual Property Law.
Monday, February 28, 2005Mr. Charlie McCreevy won't Restart the CII Patentability Directive. According to various reports ( here and here), EU Commissioner Mr. Charlie McCreevy has refused to comply with  the request of the European Parliament to re-start the legislative process concerning the EU Draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. Meanwhile, FFII e.V. is fostering speculations about Mr. McCreevy's motivations:" [...]The reported reason was that if they do restart, they must produce a new text on which several other DG's, such as Information Society and Competition, must agree as well. These other DG's would reportedly never support an extreme text such as the one currently on the table in the Council, or even the original Commission proposal from 2002. They would insist on a more balanced approach, which is apparently not desired by DG MARKT. [...]"Furthermore, they say "[...] In the mean time, highly placed government sources have also confirmed the directive will once more appear as an A-item on 7 March, this time on the agenda of the responsible Competition Council formation. [...]"Let's wait and see... [UPDATE_0] 2005-03-01 21:00 There is an Official Letter written by Mr. Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, sent to Mr. Borrell Fontelles, President of the European Parliament, confirming that the EU Commission expects a second reading to be held on the basis of the political agreement as reached in May 2004 by the EU Council. See also another report on Heise's Newsticker.
Friday, February 25, 2005SCANIA Supporting EU Council's Version of Draft Directive on Patentability of CII.FromCampaign for Creativity News:"Södertälje, 24 February 2005 - Scania is one of Europe’s leading manufacturers of heavy trucks and buses. We are able to successfully compete internationally mainly due to our investments in product development. Using the patent system in Europe to temporary protect our innovations allows us to get a return on our R&D investment.This statement of a truck manufacturer makes clear that the version of the European Parliament of the Draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions would not only harm companies in the telecommunications sector but also other branches far away from the mainstram of IT-centered businesses. WIPO Casablanca Consultations.From theUK-PTO website:"The Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Dr. Kamil Idris, expressed satisfaction this week at the outcome of informal consultations on the future work of WIPO's Standing Committee on Patents, which is working to build consensus on a treaty that seeks to harmonize patent laws around the world. Following a decision by WIPO member states in autumn 2004, the Director General of WIPO convened informal consultations concerning future sessions of the Standing Committee of Patents (SCP) in Casablanca, Morocco, on February 16, 2005.In particular the last sentence of the statement reads as if, in recation to the US unilateral attempt, the WIPO Member Staes have in fact agreed to proceed with the SPLT deliberations in a constructive mood?
WIPO has come under Fire from NGOs fearing Exclusion from Key Meetings.FromIntellctual Property Watch:"[...]The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has come under fire from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) fearing exclusion from key meetings in April on WIPO’s Development Agenda. But a spokeswoman from the Geneva-based U.N. body on Wednesday said it is complying with its mandate for meeting accreditations. [...]See also my earlier post concerning the political row on the future orientation of the WIPO.
Mr. Jeremy Phillips: "Could any external non-European features be imported into the European system?"Mr. Jeremy Phillipswrites in IPKat:"IPkat co-author Jeremy is speaking at this year's ECTA Conference in London (ECTA is the European Communities Trade Mark Association). Grandly entitled Past, Present and the Future: the development of trade marks, designs and related rights in Europe, it runs from 8 to 11 June and incidentally celebrates ECTA's silver jubilee.Hmmm ... Hmmm... Umm... I must confess that I do not have any idea which features could match Mr. Phillips' enquiry. Maybe this is due to my own ignorance of the various non-European trade mark jurisdictions. Or are there seriously no desirable features worth to be imported? Turmoil at the EPO in The Hague, NL.Avery strange thing has happened: The President of the European Patent Office feels that the situation of the EPO staff in The Hague has degraded so much that there seems to be no other alternative than to make the problem widely known to the public: The Netherlands seem to have amended their laws concerning foreigners residing in NL in a way that even EPO staff runs into severe trouble:"Rijswijk/Munich, 24 February 2005 - In its endeavour to reach an agreement with the Dutch authorities on treatment of its 2.700 staff in Rijswijk, the European Patent Office (EPO) continues to experience serious problems. For a number of years now, changes to Dutch regulations on identification and tax law have presented the EPO with ongoing difficulties. Negotiations with the Government of the Netherlands are under way with a view to redefining, in a new Seat Agreement, the conditions for treatment of the EPO as an international organisation.What can be done if the Dutch Government is unwilling to comply? Moving the EPO The Hague Operations to England or Poland? Anyway, there would be a lot of trouble also for the "customers" of the EPO who would have to wait even longer for the next Office Action in their cases.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005German Bundestag on CII: Minutes of the Debate.I have preparedan excerpt [PDF; in German only] of the Official minutes of the Parliamentary Debate held on February 17, 2005 concerning the adoption of the multi-partisan Resolution commenting on the EU Draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
Monday, February 21, 2005Term of Office of Mr. Wubbo de BOER, President OHIM, Renewed to 2010.FromDocument 5411/05:
Sunday, February 20, 2005Some Observations by Mr. Rocard on Intellectual Property: "Like Speaking Chinese".Mr. Michel ROCARD, former French Prime Minister, MEP (Socialist Group in the European Parliament) is a profiled supporter of the various anti-patent NGOs. Recently he said in an interview with LeMonde:Or, in an English translation: "[...] We never could have talked in a common language with the companies representatives we met - in particular those from Microsoft. Speaking about free circulation of ideas or free access to knowledge was like speaking Chinese to them. In their way of thinking, everything that is not usable for immediate profit ceases to be a growth vector. They don't seem to be able to understand that an invention which is a pure intellectual creation can't be patented. It's simply terrifying. Many of us, at the Parliament, agree to say that they never have experienced such a pressure and such a verbal violence during their parliamentary work. It is a huge case. [...]"Perhaps, Mr. Rocard has in the subtext of his statement something like a message to the effect that supporters of a proper patentability of computer-implemented inventions should not be too much surprised if those anti-patent campaigners, at least from the patent experts' point of view, do use various blatant misrepresentations in order to support their common cause. They are, the subtext goes, not really interested in patent law. In fact, the anti-patent campaigners are not even seriously bothering with tricky technicalities of the law but they want to oppose against the current globalised capitalistic system of making money out of knowledge in the broadest sense of those terms: Terms like 'free circulation of ideas or free access to knowledge' are said to be foreign matter for those company representatives he cites, and the other side, unsaid in the interview but nevertheless clearly visible, 'Intellectual Property' is deemed to be foreign matter for those circles to which Mr. Rocard directs his favours. In Mr. Rocard's interview, Microsoft merely appears as an illustrative embodiment of this kind of capitalistic desire to cash in lots of money out of selling knowledge-based products, be it on the platform of copyright or patents. The other players on such markets are clearly also covered by his verdict. Mr. Rocard seems to suggest that in fact the anti-patent campaigners merely form a (significant) subgroup of a broader protest movement desiring to free human knowledge from subjugation under the yoke of capitalism. Those 'companies representatives' cited by Mr. Rocard might naively have assumed that they have a common ground when talking to politicians like Mr. Rocard about markets and growth vectors - but in fact there is nothing else than a wide and deep gap, and, maybe, even no bridge over it. Only on the one side of the gap opposite to Mr. Rocard, there is a word of an ubiquitous Intellectual Property regime including not only a patent law covering computer-implemented inventions but also things like the paracopyright law (i.e., legal constraints on technologies which might have the power to hamper the exploitation of copyright).Patent professionals here and there tend to suffer shortcomings on two sides: At first, in many countries patent professionals are not (or not sufficiently) trained in copyright matters. Too often they simply do not know anything about the state of the affairs on the copyright and paracopyright theatres. Such knowledge is not of substantial importance for the day-to-day patenting business; however, any overall understanding of the system of Intellectual Property as it is installed today is incomplete without a deeper understanding of this other side thereof. The political disputes of our days around the system of Intellectual Property are not only related to patent law but also, in particular, to the newest paracopyright law. Secondly, they also may fall short of recognising that there is not only a bunch of individual critics of the patent system who have gone wild and can easily be controlled by means of conventional lobbyism but a powerful conglomerate of adversaries campaigning against the Intellectual Property system in its entirety, sharing something like a fuzzy but common utopia in trying to establish some kind of a new world which a much reduced role of Intellectual Property or even entirely free of Intellectual Property. Of course, the campaigners against the current system of Intellectual Property do not form a monolithic block. For example, the President of the FFII e.V., Mr. Pilch, is used to praise the holy regime of copyright versus the evil patent system but not everybody in the crowd is prepared to follow him in his euphemistic view of copyright.Did anybody say that there are connotations with the '68 movement of the past century? The WIPO controversy (see also here) exemplarily shows what is at stake.Every political gap requires some kind of a compromise if catastrophes are to be avoided. In this case it looks as if the political bridge of such a compromise needed to span the gap needs to be much more elongated than originally expected.
Saturday, February 19, 2005Computer Associates to license Patents to OSS Developers.FromZDnet.com: "[...] Computer Associates plans to submit a portion of its patent portfolio to open-source developers, following moves by other technology companies delving into open source.
Friday, February 18, 2005German Bundestag Adopting Multi-Partisan Resolution on Patentability of CII.In accordance with the expectations yesterday the German Bundestag has adoptedthe multi-partisan Resolution commenting on the EU Draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. See Heise Newsticker [In German].
Thursday, February 17, 2005Directive on Patentability of CII: Turmoil Everywhere (Cont'd).From TheRegister:"[...] The European Conference of Presidents (CoP) has given its blessing to a parliamentary request to restart the legislative process on the Computer Implemented Inventions (CII) directive. Parliament now has the green light to ask the Commission to send the legislation back to the drawing board. [...]"This is not yet surprising; it was to be expected (Although there might have been some crackling thrill in the CoP session this morning). And what now? TheRegister continues:"[...] The next step is for the Commission to consider this restart request. If it grants the request, the bill goes back to the beginning. If it does not, the common position agreed last May will be accepted, and the bill will progress to its second reading. [...]"The EU Council has not yet taken any decision concerning the formal adoption of the Draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. Perhaps this might happen next week, or perhaps not, I now do not catch on to make any predictions. If the EU Council should eventually approve the Draft then we probably would have a sound institutional crisis in the EU. [UPDATE0] 2005-02-17 23:50 The FFII e.V. just has provided the report quoted below:"[...] The conference was attended by Brussels correspondents of various newspapers, including New York Times and International Herald Tribune, as well as by correspondents from news agencies. [UPDATE1] 2005-02-18 14:30 From EUpolitix.com:"[...] Europe’s competition ministers will on March 7 decide the fate of controversial EU software patent proposals.A frontal institutional crash seems to be unavoidable.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005EU-CREST Committee on "IPR and Research"The Committee for Scientific and Technical Research (Crest) is the advisory committee to the Council and the Commission. CREST has an advisory role, informing the Commission and the Council. Its mission is to issue reports at the request of either of the two bodies or on its own initiative, on subjects relating to scientific and technical research and in particular, on the co-ordination of national R+D policies.From the UK-PTO website:"[...] The Committee de la Recherche Scientifique & Technique (CREST) is an advisory Committee to the European Council and is tasked with acting as the operational interface to define and oversee the implementation of a soft governance tool called the "Open Method of Coordination" to achieve the goal set at the Barcelona European Council 2002 of research investment approaching 3% of GDP by 2010. This "Open Method of Coordination" involves mainly benchmarking & peer group review.The CREST Report is available on-line as Document CREST 1206/04. Some Highlights from this paper:"[...]First cycle recommendation 11Sounds quite interesting, really.
Monday, February 14, 2005Reform of German Law of Employee's Inventions has failed.The deliberations of the German Government and other stakeholders (Industry, Trade Unions) concerning a reform of the German law of employee's inventions are said to have failed. The industry has argued since long that this field of German law is overly bureaucratic and constitutes too much of 'red tape'. One of the basic ideas of a reform was to move payments for employee inventors from a detailed clearing based on the actual amount of utilisation of the invention by the employer towards payments in form of a lump sum. Although some particular results could be achieved, the project failed due to numerous differences concerning the gory details of such an undertaking. In particular, the Trade Unions intended to strengthen the position of the workers' council when negotiating company-specific remuneration schemes. For details, see off-line in the GRUR Journal 2005, issue 2, page 132, in a report by Ms. Henrike Vieregge [In German]. It is now no longer expected that a reform bill will reach the Parliament during this election period ending in 2006.
Sunday, February 13, 2005WIPO 'Enlarged Novelty' Proposals.From theCIPA website:"[...]WIPO has recently published, as part of its discussions on patent law harmonisation, a paper proposing an enlarged novelty arrangement, which would help to alleviate US concerns that the present European novelty requirements lead to double patenting, and be part of a package of measures under which the USA would move to the first-to-file regime.The WIPO paper says: "[...] 1. The present initial study is submitted upon request of the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) at its tenth session, held in Geneva from May 10 to 14, 2004, in order to provide a basis for discussion concerning a possible new novelty concept applicable to the prior art effect of unpublished earlier applications under Article 8(2) of the draft Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT). The study aims at providing broad background information and at facilitating further substantive discussion in the SCP, and thus addresses not only national and regional laws and practices regarding the prior art effect of earlier applications, but also the policy objectives underlying these different practices.At present, Article 54 (3) EPC in conjunction with Article 56 EPC provides a "Strict novelty" approach for the European Patent Office (EPO).
Friday, February 11, 2005Directive on Patentability of CII: Turmoil Everywhere. A couple of days ago it was thought that the Draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions would be formally adopted by the EU Council on February 17, 2005. In view of this much anticipated event the Secretariat of the EU Council had published Document 16120/04 ADD 2 exhibiting an additional statement for entry in the minutes of the Council meeting at which the above-mentioned common position will be adopted. The effective date of this Document should read February 08, 2005. The statement reads:"[...] Poland – having regard to the necessity of further work on the draft directive in order to strengthen legal certainty and to protect economic interests, particularly of small and medium sized enterprises, as well as activities in research and technological development – notes, despite the reservations submitted, the fact of reaching political agreement at the 18 May 2004 meeting of the Competitiveness Council concerning a common position leading up to a second reading of the draft directive. [...]So, what do they mean with the phrase "legal instruments guaranteeing that computer-implemented inventions will be patentable but a computer program or its fragment will not – beyond any doubt – be patentable"? Of course, if patents on computer-implemented inventions are allowable, then commercially tinkering around with a piece of software enabling just a certain patented invention will constitute a risk of (contributory) patent infringement. This effect seems to be just unavoidable. Could please someone explain to the Polish government the basics of patent law? Anyway, as it looks today the EU Council is not in in a position to formally adopt the Draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions next week. Heise Newsticker writes:"[...]The plans of the EU Commission and the EU Council of Ministers to officially adopt the controversial position of the Council of Ministers prior to the EU Parliament's formal motion to restart the whole legislative process from scratch are running into considerable difficulties. After the Spanish Senado [Senate], last Thursday the Dutch Twwede Kamer [Second Chamber] also insistently demanded of its government that it keep the shaky position of the Council of Ministers of May of last year shelved for the time being. The Commission was to respond first to the motion put forth by the members of the European parliament to restart the legislative process on the directive, the Chamber declared.And Reuters writes:"[...] BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union has delayed plans to approve disputed rules on patenting computer inventions, the EU executive Commission said on Friday, in a setback to legislation seen as vital by big software companies. [...]So, the battle will rage on and on. ENN.ie writes:"[...]Few on either side of the argument have stood up to say that the software patents debate boils down to something as simple as "European social democracy vs. American capitalism," but everyone has hinted at it. Since there seems to be no compromise - the EU either allows software patents or it doesn't - then anyone concerned with the matter must join one side or the other. If you did not take sides this last time around, don't worry, the bloodiest battles are still ahead. [...]"
Tuesday, February 08, 2005UK to lead Working Group on IP and Development.The UK-PTOreports:"The United States Patent and Trade Mark Office recently invited representatives from the European Commission, the European Patent Office, and a number of national patent offices to discuss how to make progress on patent law harmonisation and issues surrounding intellectual property and developing countries. The meeting agreed the following Statement of Intent:This clearly seems to be an attempt staged by the U.S. to outmanoeuvre the WIPO which is increasingly perceived as being hampered by certain WIPO Member States (Brazil, Argentina) and NGOs increasingly obstructing the emerging global system of Intellectual Property protection. And it looks as if this attempt was, at least for the beginning, quite successful. We'll have to wait and see.
German Bundestag to vote on Resolution concerning Patentability of CII. On February 17, 2005, the lower house of the German Parliament ("Bundestag") will have a pleanary vote on a multi-partisan Draft resolution on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. Now Official Document 15/4787 is available [in German only, sorry] conveying the minutes of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Parliament recommending adoption of the Draft resolution as originally filed.
Monday, February 07, 2005EU demanding Disclosure of Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (TK) in Patent Applications.WIPO is reporting having received a certain proposal from the EU Commission:
Sunday, February 06, 2005France still blocking London Agreement.The Chartered Institute of Patent Agents (CIPA) is a professional body representing Patent Attorneys in the UK. With regard to the London Agreement they recently wrote:"[...] CIPA strongly supports the London Agreement and would like to see it ratified and implemented as quickly as possible so that users of the patent system can benefit from the significant cost savings that it will bring. However, CIPA is not in favour of the UK abolishing the requirement for translations unilaterally or giving effect to the Agreement in UK law in advance of the Agreement entering into force. [...]I think that there should still be some hope that one day France will eventually let the ratification of the London Agreement pass through her national legislation. UK-CIPA on Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions (CII).The Chartered Institute of Patent Agents (CIPA) is a professional body representing Patent Attorneys in the UK. Concerning the fate of the Draft EU Directive on patentability of computer-implemented inventions they wrote:
Playing with the Concept of a required "Technical Contribution". The debate on that what the concept of a 'technical contribution' should mean in the patent law of the future accelerates its pace. No surprise that some anti-patent campaigners want to make sure that this concept is defined in a way to render the range of patentable subject-matter as small as possible.
As reported earlier, the anti-patent campaigners surely will be inclined to assume that the phrase from the 1969 "Red Dove" decision should play a decisive role in determining the meaning of technicality:"Technicality is to be attributed to a teaching for a methodical action utilising controllable forces of nature for achieving a causally predictable result which is the direct consequence of said utilisation of controllable forces of nature without interposition of action of human brain."Recently I stumbled over a 19th century description of the probably very first implementation of a mechanical (not optical) telefax device called "Teleautograph" (see the figure above). It worked electro-mechanically sensing the position of a pen writing on a piece of paper by measuring the change of length of two thin threads of silk caused by a pencil writing on a sheet of paper. Each of the silk threads is wound around a rotatable drum. The pulling out of the two threads of silk during writing cause small rotations of the drums which trigger switches creating electrical pulses. On the receiver's side the pulses are electromagnetically translated into proportional rotations of respective rotatable receiver drums acing in the same way on two silk threads mounted at a writing pen. Perhaps one now can play with the concept of 'technical contribution' without being caught in nasty discussions on computer-implemented inventions. Assuming that the Morse telegraph was known before the invention of the 'Teleautograph': Would the difference between the Morse telegraph and the Teleautograph justify the assumption of a 'technical contribution' sufficient to establish patentability? Transmitting information my electrical pulses was known from the Morse telegraph. Hence, the Teleautograph might be seen as merely a means for encoding human writing to electrical pulses. So it could be argued that, compared with the Morse telegraph, it merely transforms the representation of some bit of information from a hand-written autograph into a sequence of electrical pulses. How should a proper discussion be conducted in order to determine the "technicality" of the difference between the Morse telegraph and the Teleautograph? If this difference is considered sufficient to provide a significant difference to establish a 'technical contribution', would this also hold for a PC equipped with a digitiser tablet input device for measuring the movement of a writing pen? If not, why not? Anyway, if applying any emerging doctrine of a required 'technical contribution' doctrine would render the original non-computerised Teleautograph unpatentable over the Morse telegraph, then probably something is wrong with that doctrine. The Patent System and the European Crisis. As everybody with eyes open can perceive, the industrial decline of 'old Europe' is in full swing. In the 18th and 19th century, England, and later on also Germany used to be leading nations in terms of innovative technologies (See some example of a successful 19th century European high-tech product on the image on the left). Now, after two disastrous 20th century wars (both of them caused by German simplemindedness and delusions of grandeur), Europe is on the decline. Germany today has registered more than five millions of unemployed persons, an order of magnitude which is known from the times of the Republic of Weimar. Britain and some other EU countries (in particular in eastern Europe) seem to be better off, but compared to the United States and in particular to some of the dynamic economies in Asia they all look somewhat pale. More and more high tech products, in the consumer sector and increasingly also for industrial purposes, from personal computers to machine tools, are cheaply manufactured in Asia. Their prices can't be undercut by European vendors, in particular due to (but not limited to) comparatively high wage levels. And European (in particular German) customer service today isn't that what it used to be for centuries. Ground-breaking innovative concepts tend to come from the United States and are increasingly manufactured on workbenches in the far east.
No doubt, Europe's industry is in a deep crisis. So, also the various anti-patent campaigners start looking at the statistics. And what do they discover? They infer from the figures that foreign companies file for more patent applications - in particular in the sector of computer-implemented inventions - than domestic enterprises based in Europe or, in particular, Germany. Hence, according to some of those activists, the benefits of the patent system go to those foreign countries, not to European entities. They therefore conclude that the patent system should be cut back, at least in those fields where there is a superiority of foreign non-EU companies. From a FFII Statement:"[...] Wird eine den USA ähnliche Patentierungspraxis, wie sie das EPA seit Ende der 1990er Jahre verfolgt, in Europa zugelassen, so geht der Wettbewerbsvorteil, den deutsche Unternehmen auf dem Europäischen Markt gegenüber amerikanischen Unternehmen haben, verloren. Da die meisten Softwarepatente von amerikanischen Unternehmen gehalten werden, würden die zu erwartenden zusätzlichen Lizenzzahlungen insgesamt einen Aderlaß für die deutsche Wirtschaft bedeuten. [...]"I would like to offer my English translation as follows: "[...] If a practice of patenting similar to that in the U.S. and as aspired to by the EPA since the end of the 90s would be admitted in Europe, then the competitive advantage of European companies on the European market vis-a-vis American companies is lost. Because of most software patents are owned by American companies the additional licence payments to be expected would in their sum constitute a blood-letting for the German economy. [...]"The old song of the protectionists: If the industry at home is too weak to stand one's ground, then erect barriers against the foreign competitors. This concept is as wrong and misguided as ever. And in this particular case, the guys from FFII e.V. even go as far as to bluntly put advantages and handicaps for German companies against those for European companies, respectively. What will anti-patent campaigners from other EU Member States think of such nationalistic escapades of the German branch of FFII e.V.? Would the anti-patent campaigners be inclined to think that patents on computer-implemented inventions to be more desirable if European or German industries were on the edge over their competitors from outside the EU? Such thinking does not fit well into a globalised capitalistic economy. It looks as if the anti-patent campaigners are deliberately and purposefully mixing up cause and consequences. European and, in particular, German companies arguing against the patent system do not benefit on the same scale from the patent system than their competitors from outside of the EU because of in too many fields of technology they are lagging behind. Not vice versa.
Friday, February 04, 2005UK Residents only: Computer-Implemented Inventions Directive Technical Contribution Workshops.From theUK PTO website:"Following the meeting about the Directive Computer-Implemented Inventions Directive on 14 December 2004, we are now arranging workshops to discuss 'technical contribution'. Europe's Ministers are planning to push ahead with Draft Directive on Patentability of CII.Mr. Simon Taylor, IDG News Service, and Mr. Kieren McCarthy, Techworld,write:Um, so, in fact the European Parliament as a body within the context of the EU has not yet taken any formal decision. But if the re-start is formally adopted by the competent decision-makers of the Parliament then we would have something like an institutional crisis between the European Parliament, on the one hand, and the EU Council, on the other hand.
Thursday, February 03, 2005AIPPI publishes Report of Mr. Dariusz Szleper on Pan-European IP Summit.AIPPI has published a very interesting report authored by Mr. Dariusz Szleper on the Pan-European IP summit held on December 2-3, 2004 in Brussels:So, there seems not to be very much sympathy for the EU Commission's proposals concerning the EU Community Patent and, in particular, for the related Proposal for a Council Decision conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Justice in disputes relating to the Community patent. The EPLA seems to be much better off than expected.
Mr. Klaus-Heiner Lehne MEP: "Commission should Withdraw its Proposal".Mr. Klaus-Heiner Lehne MEP (CDU EVP) has recently argued as follows:Mr. Lehne is right with his proposal to cancel the entire project on the Commission's side. After a moratorium of some couple of years, perhaps another attempt could be launched to deal with that matter. It is good to hear that Mr. Lehne is not buying the propaganda of the anti-patent campaigners but insists that a restrictive patentability would harm innovative industries especially in the areas of medicine, automotive production, technical components and household goods. I am delighted. JURI voted on Procedures to deal with Draft Directive on CII.The Legal Auffairs Committee ("JURI") has voted on the proceedings how to further deal with the Draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.Groklaw writes:"[...]It's true. JURI has voted to restart the procedure regarding software patents. From scratch. I heard it first from an email, and now Heise has it up online. Here is the FFII press release. Jan Wildeboer tells me that by invoking Rule 55 of the Rules of Parliament, JURI is now asking for a completely new directive. He says the proposed directive on so-called "computer-implemented inventions" was under heavy fire from the beginning of the intense meeting. By throwing away almost all amendments of the Parliament, the Council tried to push through a "compromise" that was not ultimately accepted, making a restart the only viable way left. So, says Jan, the proposed directive is /dev/null. [...]"I think the best thing would be if the EU Commission simply cancels the Draft Directive (they have the power to do so). Any anti-patent Directive would be worse than no Directive at all. [UPDATE_0] 2005-03-03 18:30 From EUROPARL News Report:"[...] Although a large majority of the committee called for a fresh proposal under Rule 55, some MEPs, notably Klaus-Heiner LEHNE (EPP-ED, DE), stressed that the Commission is still at liberty to decide what to do. That observation was made in reply to Mr Rocard's impassioned plea against a new referral, which he feared would result in a long delay in the adoption of legislation which is necessary - even if unacceptable in its current form. While some Members clearly thought that the proposal has no future, others argued that a compromise solution can be found, as long as the Council and Commission are willing to work on a fresh draft, incorporating the Parliament's first-reading amendments. [...]"
Wednesday, February 02, 2005Charlie McCREEVY: "The Protection of Intellectual and Industrial Property is at the Heart of any Knowledge-Based Economy."Charlie McCREEVY, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services,addressing the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament:So, I'm looking forward to see the Draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions approved by the EU Council soon. Moreover, the EU Community Patent does not look as dead as it did last year; however, I would not be overly optimistic because of the language issue will be even harder to resolve than the disputes over the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. Mr. Barroso on Patent Law and the Lisbon Agenda.FT.com on Mr. Barroso, President of the European Commission, and on the Lisbon Agenda:
|
"The term of office of Mr Wubbo de BOER, born on 27 May 1948, as President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) is hereby renewed for the period from 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2010."
"[...] Nous n'avons jamais pu parler un langage commun avec les représentants des grands groupes que nous avons rencontrés - et notamment ceux de Microsoft. Leur parler de libre circulation des idées, de liberté d'accès au savoir, c'est leur parler chinois. Dans leur système de pensée, tout ce qui est ôté au champ du profit immédiat cesse d'être un moteur pour la croissance. Ils ne semblent pas pouvoir comprendre qu'une invention qui n'est qu'un pur produit de l'esprit ne peut être brevetable. C'est tout simplement terrifiant. Beaucoup d'entre nous, au Parlement, conviennent que jamais ils n'ont eu à subir une telle pression et une telle violence verbale au cours de leur travail parlementaire. C'est une énorme affaire. [...]"
"[...] The second part of the meeting on Thursday morning was devoted to the question of the evaluation of IP rights. The discussion related to the problem of enforcement of the patent rights in Europe and specifically to the anticipation concerning the attitude of the companies in the possible adoption of the Community patent. One of the speakers, Mr Ian HARVEY, underlined the fact that, due to the legal uncertainty which will be prevail long after the introduction of the new system, the Community patent will not be adopted in practice by the companies before 30 to 40 years. This opinion did not raise any particular opposition from the other members of the panel and from the attendants. - The next part of the morning meeting was devoted to patent management strategies inside Europe. The organiser of the meeting had managed to get the participation of representatives from several major world companies, such as GE, IBM, BAYER, PHILIPS and AIR LIQUIDE. The common opinion of all participants was that the current European system is, as long as it concerns the prosecution of the patents, very satisfying. And no speaker was strongly in favour of the Community patent. However, every speaker has strongly recommended the modification of the litigation system in Europe, underlying his preference to the EPLA Agreement. It seems that the industry 'BLUE CHIPS' are strongly in favour of EPLA and are not specifically keen to see the adoption of the Community patent at least under its current form (due to the translation solution as proposed by the Commission). [...]
"[...] The protection of intellectual and industrial property is at the heart of any knowledge-based economy and central to the Lisbon agenda. No appropriate protection of copyrights, patents, trademarks or designs for instance, means no incentive for authors to create and for companies to innovate. The EU legal framework on this area is already well developed but enforcement needs to be improved.
"[...] Visitors to José Manuel Barroso's 13th-floor office at the European Commission in Brussels soon ask themselves a question: what is this man doing here? The new Commission president speaks colourless, managerial language about facilitating co-operation in a Europe of nation states. He is also, as a 90-minute conversation confirms, an unashamed econ