| Author (Person) | McLauchlin, Anna |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.11, No.29, 28.7.05 |
| Publication Date | 28/07/2005 |
| Content Type | News |
|
By Anna McLauchlin Date: 28/07/05 The debate over whether to allow patents on computer-implemented inventions is likely to continue, despite the European Parliament's rejection of a specific directive, according to the European Patent Office (EPO). David Sant, head of the EPO's Brussels office, says the controversy is likely to influence the way in which the EPO granted future patents. "My feeling is that the open source sector will still put pressure on their governments to take action in this area, and what will happen is that the debate will take place in another forum," Sant says. He highlights an initial discussion during the amendment of the European Patent Convention - the treaty according to which European patents are granted - in 2000. At that time the UK wanted to lift the legal ban on patenting business methods and computer programs, but was overruled by other EPC members. During the discussions over the EU proposal on computer-implemented inventions (CII) - also known as the software patents directive - Poland, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands all expressed reservations about the law, which would have provided a pan-European legal basis for granting patents on computer inventions. The EPO has granted such patents for several decades based on jurisprudence. "The open source lobby saw the CII discussions as an opportunity to hit out at the patent system and reverse the policies of the patent office," Sant says. Supporters of open source software - which allows anyone to copy and modify the source codes as they wish - waged a fierce and partially successful campaign against the CII, arguing that patents gave big software developers carte blanche to wield a monopoly in the market. If opposition to such patents continues at national level there could be a move for concerted European action, but options are limited. Amending the European Patent Convention is theoretically possible but would be a difficult and lengthy course. The EPC 2000 revision will only come into force two years after the fifteenth EPC member has ratified it. So far only 12 members have done so. It would therefore be difficult for other members to form a coalition strong enough to push for another amendment. A more costly alternative is that patents might be challenged and overruled in national courts. As it stands, once the EPO has granted a patent, it is valid in all member states unless a court rules against it. The controversy over the CII has "sensitised" the EPO over the approval of computer related patents, Sant says. "We can only implement what's written into the Convention," he says, "but I think examiners will look at each case in light of what happened. And it is good that they are better informed." He adds that the EPO supported some of the open source sector's arguments on the CII. "Patents are an asset, and businesses will use their assets in any way they can," he says. Article features comments by David Sant, head of the Brussels office of the European Patent Office, who said that the controversy around the proposed and finally rejected Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions was likely to influence the way in which the EPO granted future patents. |
|
| Source Link | http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Business and Industry, Internal Markets |
| Countries / Regions | Europe |
