The defeat of the CIID is a "second best" result for F/OSS. While it's
certainly better than the proposal which would have allowed all kinds of
software patents, the ideal situation would have been to pass a modified
directive that explicitly rejects patenting of pure software,
algorithms, business methods etc.
In fact, the pro-patent lobby itself started telling MEPs to reject the
directive yesterday 5th July at a morning press conference. Until then,
the EPP was generally in favour of the directive. What happens next is
less clear - with no explicit law, the EPO could simply do whatever it
wants and continue to issue software patents. Or the EP could try to
take things in its own hands (if it can initiate new legislations etc).
Or each government could go ahead and grant sofware patents individually.
Below are a couple of posts from the Greens mailing list on the issue
(the European Greens have been actively involved in this for quite some
time):
*Patent lobby MEPs calling for rejection of the directive*
Brussels, 5 July 2005 - At a press conference this morning at 9:00, the
coordinator of the European People's Party group in the Legal Affairs
Committee explained that he is putting together a majority of MEPs who
will vote for a rejection of the Council's "Common Position" right at
the beginning of tomorrow's vote, even before any amendments are voted
on. Lehne also explained that there is no longer a majority in the
Council for the "Common Position".
The announcement comes at a time where similar calls have been launched
by the large companies with big patent departments and big lobbying
budgets who have, during the last months, been the main supporters in
Lehne's campaign in favor of the "Common Position". Other patent lobby
MEPs, such as the Liberal group's legal affairs spokesman Toine Manders
from the Netherlands, have also started to call for rejection of the
Directive.
Manders explains his motives as follows: "A chaos is threatening... in
Strasbourg. Because of the large number of amendments, the directive
could shoot in all kinds of directions like a firecracker and we want to
prevent this."
Lehne called for withdrawal of the directive already in February, giving
as a reason that the Parliament was unlikely to agree to a favorable
(pro-patent) directive at this stage.
The move by Manders and Lehne is coming at a time where a majority of
367 votes for 21 cross-party amendments is in sight. These amendments
have garnered support from large groups of MEPs in the camp of Lehne and
Manders, alongside with nearly total support among all other parties.
The Parliament now still has the chance to vote for a coherent
counter-position to the Council and Commission. CEA-PME (including FFII)
has called on MEPs to vote for the 21 cross-party amendments, so as to
form a coherent counter-position, and to reject only if these amendments
fail to receive the needed support by 367 votes. If the Parliament
succedes in forming a coherent counter-position, the Council or the
Commission are still free to withdraw the directive.
Commissioner McCreevy has today once more demonstrated that he is more
than willing to do this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*THE GREENS/EFA IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
PRESS RELEASE *– Strasbourg, 6 July 2005
_Computer-implemented inventions directive scrapped_
Greens/EFA welcome rejection of software patents report
Reacting to the European Parliament's overwhelming rejection today of a
directive on computer-implemented inventions by 648 votes to 14, the
Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament welcomed the move as the
second best option available to MEPs. Speaking after the vote, Austrian
member of the legal affairs committee, *Eva Lichtenberger* said:
*/"MEPs have given the software patents directive a third class burial.
Today's rejection was necessary but, in itself, insufficient. The
Parliament must now take the initiative for a community-wide patent.
Questions of patentability can only be solved in a wider framework. Many
MEPs became aware in the run up to today's vote that small and medium
enterprises, which are the backbone of Europe's economy, need freedom –
not a corset of patents – for creativity and development."/*
*/ /*
*/"The European Patent Office must now accept that there are no
majorities in favour of software patents. The office must halt its
current practice of granting patents for software, a practise for which
there is no legal basis. The EPO should think now about creating
policies that benefit not only big business."/*
*/ /*
*/"Before today MEPs were bombarded by a fierce and, in cases, deceptive
lobbying campaign. We can only guess the identity of the people lurking
behind the scenes. It is clear that we now need to create a system to
control lobbying in the EU. The system must be transparent and make
public the interests and funding of the respective lobby groups. We call
upon the commissioner for administrative affairs, Siim Kalla,s to
investigate these problems and make proposals for the necessary action
to take./*
*Monica Frassoni*, co-president of the Green/EFA group, added:
*/"The European Commission and Council today suffered a very
well-deserved defeat. Parliament has used its powers to reject what was
a very flawed legislative proposal. The Commission sided with big
business and refused to listen to the voice of the Parliament. In
rejecting outright our first reading position, which considerably
clarified that software should not be patented, the Commission and
Council must take the blame for today's failure. Following the rejection
of Parliament's first reading position by Council in May last year, our
group always favoured the idea that no directive is better than a bad
directive."/*
*/ /*
*/"Parliament's role in making legislation requires that the process is
open and public. All interest groups – not only big business – but small
enterprises and civil society as well, can have their voices heard. But
such a process is flawed unless we have full disclosure of interests.
The current system of minimal disclosure, which allows members with jobs
at patent-law firms and software development companies to have a major
influence on related parliamentary legislation, must be reformed."/*
