Under the heading "The Rationale Behind the Directive", MEP Arlene McCarthy promises a "reasonable and subtle solution" to the confusion around the non-patentability of computer programs and the definition of the "technical invention" in Europe. Critics of McCarthy's text charge that she fails to deliver on this promise and instead adds to the confusion. During this meeting, various experts in the field of software and patent law will discuss the McCarthy draft and other proposals and measure them against McCarthy's promise of a "rationale" and against stated goals of the directive project, such as "to clarify what is patentable and what not", "to harmonise national practises", "to bring the EPO under EU jurisdiction", "to increase legal security" and "to create an environment which favors innovation and competition and benefits consumers".

• Time and Place
• 2003/04/09 10.00-16.00: Software Patent Law Proposals Decoded
• Relevant Reading

Wednesday 2003/04/09 10.00-16.00

FR / 6700 Strasbourg / Avenue Herrenschmidt

Hilton Strasbourg

phone:

+33 3 88371010

fax:

+33 3 88368327

Meeting organised by FFII/Eurolinux

Simultaneous interpretation is provided at least for DE-EN and FR-EN

2003/04/09 10.00-16.00: Software Patent Law Proposals Decoded

10.00	Introduction to EPO software patents: Examples, Statistics, Literature	N.N.
11.00	Means and Ends in the Proposals of the European Commission and of MEP Arlene McCarthy	Reinier Bakels (Amsterdam University and Munich Max-Planck Institute for Patent Law, Author of a Study commissioned by DG IV of the European Parliament)
12.00	The FFII/EuroLinux amendment proposals	RA Jürgen Siepmann (legal delegate of Linux-Verband.de)

Relevant Reading

Patentability Legislation Benchmarking Test Suite In order to test a law proposal, we try it out on a set of sample innovations. Each innovation is described in terms of prior art, a technical contribution (invention) and a small set of claims. Assuming that the descriptions are correct, we then test our proposed legislation on them. The focus is on clarity and adequacy: does the proposed rule lead to a predictable verdict? Which of the claims, if any, will be accepted? Is this result what we want? We try out different law proposals for the same test series and see which scores best. Software professionals believe that you should "first fix the bugs, then release the code". Test suites are a common way of achieving this. Pursuant to Art 27 TRIPS, legislation belongs to a "field of technology" called "social engineering", doesn't it? Technology or not, it is time to approach legislation with the same methodological rigor that is applicable wherever bad design decisions can significantly affect people's lives. McCarthy 2003-02-19: Amended Software Patent Directive Proposal Arlene McCarthy, British Labor MEP appointed by the European Parliament's Committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (JURI) to report on the European Commission's Software Patentability Directive Proposal (CEC/BSA Proposal), suggests that the European Parliament should enact the CEC/BSA version with additional safeguards to align Europe on the US practise and make sure that there can be no limit on patentability. McCarthy reiterates the CEC/BSA software patent advocacy and misrepresents the wide-spread criticism without citing any of it. Even economic and legal expertises ordered by the European Parliament and other critical opinions of EU institutions are not taken into account. McCarthy's economic argumentation consists of tautologies and unfounded assertions, such as that companies like Ericsson and Alcatel need software patents to finance their R&D, that SMEs need european software patents in order to compete in the USA, that patents are needed to keep developping countries at bay. McCarthy uses the term "computer-implemented inventions" as a synonym for "software innovations". These "by their very nature belong to a field of technology". McCarthy insists that "irreconcilable conflicts" with the EPO must be avoided. McCarthy says she wants to "set clear limits as to what is patentable" -- and that she wants to avoid the "sterile discussions" about "technical effects" and "exclusions from patentability". Yet her proposal stays confined to such discussions. McCarthy demands that all useful ideas, including algorithms and business methods, must be patentable as "computer-implemented inventions". McCarthy proposes to recognise the EPO as Europe's supreme patent legislator and to make decisions of a few influential people at the EPO irreversible and binding for all of Europe. Information Economy and Swpat Conference Paris 20020610-1 Institut Français des Relations Internationales (IFRI.org) and Center of Information Policy Research at Mariland University (CIP.umd.org) are organising a transatlantic conference on information economy and in particular on the limits of patentability as well as the problems in neighboring areas such as database exclusion rights and copyright. Hartmut Pilch is participating on behalf of FFII and Eurolinux on two of the panels. Swpat Conference Amsterdam 2002-08-30..1 (Columbanus Symposium) Hartmut Pilch is attending a conference hosted by Prof. Bernt Hugenholz and Reinier Bakels from University of Amsterdam about the typology of innovations in the software and business method area and the implications of various rules for defining what is patentable, including the European Commission's recent proposal for a directive and hopefully also our widely supported counter-proposal.