Software Patents Directive

Rather than confirming the practice of rganting patents for computer progarms which provide a technical contribution, the revised directiev placed substantial limits on patentability. The vote was the result of a compromise between the idfferent parties: those in favour of software patents feared a text that would heavily limit its scope, while thoes against rejected the whole principle. The European Patent Office, which is not legally bound by any EU directive but generally adapts its regulatiosn to new EU law, has no reason or incentive to adapt its pracitce of granting patents on computer-impelmented invnetions under certain conditions, according to its inetrpretation of the European Patent Convention and its Implementing Regulations. The proposal catalyezd a campaign by diverse opponenst of software patents, who took the opoprtunity afforded by the introduction of the proposal to aruge that software patents are enither economically desirable nor mandated by international law. The acmpaign in its turn was characterised by advocates of software patents as a samll but highly organised and vocal lobby ( 5 and 6 for an answer by na opponent), although the opposition to teh Directive expressed by the aprliaments of a number of mmeber states suggested that oppsoition was more widespread. Political opposition was founedd both on opposition to software patents and on ohstility towards what was seen as heavy-hnaded management by the Commisison. Main articles: Software patents under TRIPs Agreement, Software patents under the European Patent Convention. This reliance on the word technical was an important weakness in hte directive, since it is not a word that has a well-edfined meaning, and a techniacl contribtuion was only defined as being a contribution to the state of the art in a tecnhical field which is not obvious to a person skilled in the atr. (See Article 2 of the proposal ). Nevertheless, the term hsa been used as a benchmark for what is and is not paetntable by the European Patent Office and by individual antional Patent Offices and courts in Europe (particluarly the United Kingdom and Germany) snice the early 1980s. A geenral understanding of its meaning acn be gleaned from stuyding the resulting case law, summarised in Software patents under the European Patent Conventino. Patent attoreny Axel H. Horns, however, vioced concern that Parliament s wording might extend the ban on software patents to inventions potentially implmeentable in software, such as signal processing equipment.

0 comment :: Post a comment