The European Parliament's influential legal affairs committee ( JURI ) yesterday began a re-consideration of the draft Directive on computer-implemented inventions, after the draft was returned to the Parliament for a second reading.
The draft was finally approved by the Council of Ministers in March, after a 10-month delay and intensive lobbying by groups on both sides of the debate. Much of the concern relates to wording in the draft Directive that opponents think will bring a liberal regime of software and business method patenting to the EU, similar to that found in the US.The European Parliament, which last year extensively amended the draft, now has to consider the draft again. The process, which is due to end around 6th July with a Parliamentary vote on the Directive, has a much shorter timescale than that provided by the first reading.The process began yesterday, with a hearing before the Parliamentary legal affairs committee. The committee is due to vote on the draft on 20th June.At the meeting, the Parliamentary rapporteur on the draft Directive, former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard, introduced the debate. He has also published a working document setting out his position on the draft, promising to publish a full report on the Directive and his proposed amendments as soon as possible.The working document focuses on the problem of "delimiting what is patentable and what is not."The document says that the immaterial nature of software makes it difficult to define in terms of patentability, because one of the requirements is that an invention for which a patent is sought must have a technical character."'Technical character' is defined as the ability to provide a technical solution to a technical problem, that is to say to belong to a technical field and have a technical effect. But the word 'technical' is not defined, except by 'the use of technical means' or worse still, by the mere need for 'technical considerations'," says the report.This lack of clarity has led to abuses of the system, and the patenting of software that many say should not have been patented.Rocard therefore puts forward his own definition:
"'Technical field' means an industrial field of application requiring the use of controllable forces of nature to obtain predictable results in the physical world."
This, he says, "covers every possible way of sensing the immaterial data produced by the computer while the software is running to produce an effect perceptible and usable by a machine or human being."Lobbying group the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure welcomed the report."Rocard's outline contains all the necessary ingredients for a Directive that achieves what most member state governments say they want to achieve: to exclude computer programs from patentability while allowing computer-controlled technical inventions to be patented," said FFII President Hartmut Pilch.But EICTA, a European industry body representing Microsoft, IBM and many other tech companies, expressed concern over some of the proposed amendments."While it is acknowledged that there may be room for further improving the definition of 'technical contribution' as it stands in the Common Position, any definition or test based on 'controllable forces of nature' or 'physical forces' would exclude patents for intangible inventions, e.g. speech coding, communication protocols, radio signal handling, error correction, data compression etc., all of which are currently patentable and traditionally have been patentable for decades," said EICTA, in a statement.
We are processing your request. \n Thank you for your patience. An error occurred. This could be due to inactivity on the page - please try again.