STOA is an official organ of the European Parliament, but its work is carried out in partnership with external experts. These can be research institutes, universities, laboratories, consultancies or individual researchers contracted to help prepare specific projects. The European Parliament defines its position on these issues through reports prepared by its Committees. If Committees decide that it would be helpful to their policy making role to seek out expert, independent assessments of the various scientific or technological options in the policy sectors concerned, then they have STOA at their disposal: the Parliament's own Scientific and Technological Options Assessment unit.
The STOA report mentioned above is concerned with the assessment of how the European patent system best fulfils the objective of balancing the exclusive rights granted to inventors with the overall societal concern of maximising technological innovation and distribution of knowledge. The report progresses from the starting position that the European patent system may be operating in certain ways and within certain sectors in a way that improvements can be made.
In yesterday's meeting (which was not in any way formally related to STOA but only sharing participants with the former STOA working group on patents), also representatives from the industry were involved (Mr Jonathan Sage, Governmental Programmes, and Mr Roger Burt, Head of IP EMEA, both of IBM).
The meeting had been scheduled in order to launch some sort of a cross-disciplinary evaluation on certain potential issues of future patent politics involving academia, industry, and patent practitioners in the fields of law and economics.
In particular, the "Soft IP" approach launched by IBM earlier this year served as a starting point for the discussion. IBM's proposal is in essence a proposal to re-vitalise the EU Community Patent project in the form of a patent without provisions for injunctive relief but with an intrinsically built-in Licence of Right. Most recent political processes in Brussels were discussed, and the conclusion was that there is a lot of doubt as to the real chances of IBM's undertaking: The EU Commission in fact has decided to launch a re-vitalisation attempt of the EU Community Patent of their own, based on the Common Political Approach dated 3.3.2003, except with an overhauled system of patent litigation. This attempt was recently endorsed by the EU Council, and it does not come as a surprise that any attempts to re-open a debate on substantive law of the EU Community Patent appear to be quite unwelcome there.
In view of these developments the core of the IBM proposal can be seen, as Mr Lotz put it, as the transfer of the exclusive right into a remuneration right, and that the core issue to be investigated accordingly is whether this makes sense for any patent applicants. Or, framed in terms of society, can an Licence of Right scheme improve the functioning of the markets for technology?
This question does not have simple answers. It is planned to do further work, resulting in one or more publications.