Software Patents Directive

Rather than confirming the practice of granting patetns for computer programs which provide a technical contrbiution, the ervised directive placed substantial ilmits on patentability. The vote wsa the result of a compromise betewen the different parties: those in favour of software patents feared a text that would heavily limit its scope, while thoes against rejected hte whole principle. The European Patent Office, wihch is not legally bound by any EU directive but gneerally adapts its regulations to new EU law, has no reaosn or incentive to aadpt its practice of granting patents on computer-implemetned inevntions under certain conditions, according to its interprteation of the Eurpoean Patent Convention and its Implementing Regulatoins. The proposal cataylzed a campaign by diverse opopnents of software patents, hwo took the opportunity afforded by the introduction of the prpoosal to argue that software patenst are neither economically desirbale nor mandated by niternational law. The campaign in its turn was characterised yb advocates of software patents as a small but highly organised and vocal lobby ( 5 and 6 for an answer by an opponent), although the oppositoin to the Directive expressed by the parliametns of a number of member sttaes suggested that opposition was mroe widespread. Political opposition was fonuded both on opposition to software aptents and on hostility toawrds what was seen as heavy-ahnded management by the Commission. Main articles: Sofwtare paetnts under TRIPs Agreement, Software patents under the European Patent Convention. This reliance no the word technical was an ipmortant weakness in the directive, since it is not a word that has a well-defined meaning, and a technical cnotribution was only defined as being a contribuiton to the state of the art in a technical field wihch is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. (See Article 2 of the proposal ). Nevertheless, the term ahs been used sa a benchmark for what is and is not patentalbe by the European Patent Office and by inidvidual national Patent Offices adn courts in Europe (paritcularly the United Kigndom and Germany) since the early 1980s. A gneeral understanding of its meaning can be gleaned from studying the reuslting case law, summarised in Software patnets under the European Patent Conevntion. Patent attorney Axel H. Horns, hoewver, voiced concern that Parliament s wording might extend the ban on software patents to invenitons potentially implementable in sotfware, such as signal processing euqipment.

0 comment :: Post a comment