Germany and Software Patents

BMJ: Ängstlicher Vorreiter der Patentinflation in DE und EU: Für alle Gesetzgebung im Bereich des Patentwesens ist innerhalb der Bundesregierung das Bundesministerium der Justiz (BMJ) zuständig. Das BMJ unterhält in seiner Abteilung für Industrie und Handel ein eigenes Patentreferat. Zum Geschäftsbereich des BMJ gehören ferner das Deutsche Patent- und Markenamt (DPMA), das Bundespatentgericht (BPatG) und der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH). Zu all diesen Organisationen und auch zum Europäischen Patentamt (EPA) hin bestehen innige personelle Verflechtungen. Das BMJ-Patentreferat ist personell schwach ausgestattet und verlässt sich daher auf EPA, DPMA und andere Patentbewegungs-Institutionen. Die Karierre der BMJ-Beamten verläuft häufig innerhalb des Patentwesens. Sie folgen im allgemeinen (aus Gewohnheit) wortgetreu deren (von wenigen Instanzen beschlossener) herrschender Meinung und beschränken die argumentative Auseinandersetzung meist von vorneherein auf grammatische Fragen. Innerhalb der Bundesregierung und des Europäischen Rates vertreten sie energisch die Interessen der Patentanwälte führender Großkonzerne und in zweiter Linie der Patentinstitutionen. Sie verbitten sich Einmischungen "fachfremder" Personen (einschließlich BMWi, Abgeordnete) in ihren Kreis und begegnen diesen durch Ignorieren oder sonstige Diskussionsverhinderungsstrategien. Auch von tausenden von Personen unterzeichnete Briefe an das BMJ-Patentreferat (Dr Welp) blieben bisher unbeantwortet.
Deutsche Position zu Software-Patenten im Ministerrat: The german government's position on software patents has been determined by patent officials who are loyal to the patent movement but not to the government. Unlike most members of the European Parliament, these officials do not need to be reelected. Yet there are ways of putting them in the limelight and influencing them. Christian Cornelssen and others are doing this work and collecting instructions to help you do it.
BMJ-PE 2003-09-26: Nur ABS, nicht Software als solche: In a statement on the European Parliament's Vote, the patent law department of the German Ministry of Justice (BMJ) evades the question of whether the EP drew the right kind of limits. Instead the BMJ says that the term "software patents" is misleading because "pure source codes are not patentable" and only "computer-implemented inventions" are patentable. As an example of a "computer-implemented invention", the BMJ mentions the "anti-blocking system". The BMJ does not answer the question of whether a system and method involving only general-purpose computing equipment is a "computer-implemented invention". But it becomes clear from the text that they want nothing to be excluded from patentability and they imply that the EPC should be interpreted in this way. However they fail to clearly say that, thereby misleading less attentive readers. The BMJ's only contribution to the debate has so far consisted in attempts to impose misleading terminology, so as to be able to justify whatever the patent judiciary may chose to do.
Den Rat beeinflussen: Collect and Provide Information on who makes the policies of the Council on patents and information infrastructure issues and how to best contact these people.
Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt und Softwarepatente: Das Deutsche Patentamt griff selten sichtbar Initiativen für die Absenkung der Patentierbarkeitsstandards. Es überließ dies meist dem EPA oder dem BGH. Doch seine Vertreter feuerten in Fachzeitschriften die inflationäre Entwicklung an. In seinen Presseerklärungen feiert das Patentamt wiederum die Ergebnisse dieser Inflation unkritisch als "positives Signal für den Standort Deutschland". Das DPMA steht im Wettbewerb zum Europäischen Patentamt (EPA) und muss um des eigenen Überlebens willen bei jeder Absenkung der Patentierbarkeitsstandards mitziehen. Es ist offensichtlich diesem eigenen Überlebensinteresse viel stärker verpflichtet als dem Interesse der Innovation in Deutschland. Organisatorische Inzucht fördert diese Tendenz: praktisch alle hohen Funktionäre des DPMA stammen aus der Patentbewegung, so z.B. aus dem BMJ-Patentreferat oder aus dem DPMA selber.
Fraunhofer/ISI 2001: Vkonomisch-Rechtliche Studie |ber Softwarepatente: In 2001-01, the German Federal Ministery of Economy and Technology (BMWi) ordered a study on the economic effects of software patentability from well known think tanks with close affinity to the German patent establishment: the Fraunhofer Institute for Innovation Research (ISI.fhg.de), the Fraunhofer Patent Agency (PST.fhg.de) and the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Patent, Copyright and Competition Law (MPI = intellecprop.mpg.de). The study was largely concluded in 2001-06 and preliminary results were presented to a selected audience. The final report was published by the BMWi on 2001-11-15. The study is based on an opinion poll answered by several hundred software company representatives and independent software developpers, conducted by Fraunhofer ISI. Most respondents have had little experience with software patents and don't want software patents to become a daily reality like in the US. The poll also investigated the significance of open source software for these companies and found it to be of substantial importance as a common infrastructure. Based on these findings, the Fraunhofer authors predict that an increase in the use of software patents will put many software companies out of business and slow down innovation in the software field. The study then jumps to conclude that software patents must be legalised and SMEs must be better informed about them. This surprising conclusion is drawn by the patent law scholars from MPI. The MPI's legal study does not explore any ways to redraw the borders between patents and copyright but just takes the EPO and USPTO practise as an inevitable reality. They find that the EPO's caselaw is contradictory and chaotic and blame this on Art 52.2c EPC, which they say has failed to provide clear guidance and should therefore be deleted. Business related algorithms are, they say, less likely to be patented at the EPO than algorithms that "stand in a tradition of engineering". The MPI writers however do not try to provide a clear rule for distinguishing the two, and they oppose the idea of drawing a line between the physical and the logical ("technical inventions" vs "rules of organisation and calculation") as done by lawcourts in the 70s and 80s, asserting that information is also a physical phenomenon. They propose that all legislative power concerning the limits of patentability be handed over to the EPO, which should then, at its discretion and as far as Art 27 TRIPs allows, consult experts of interested parties for regular rewriting of its Examination Guidelines. Art 27 TRIPs demands that patents be "available in all fields of technology", and the MPI understands "technology" as "the useful arts" and is careful not to mention Kolle and other European theoreticians of the concept of technical invention. Summarily the study can be summarised as "Fraunhofer: software patents are unpopular in the software industry and dangerous to innovation and competition. MPI: Fine, so let's legalise them quickly."
Sicherheit in der Informationstechnologie und Patentschutz f|r Software-Produkte - Kurzgutachten von Lutterbeck et al im Auftrag des BMWi: Prof. Lutterbeck of Berlin Technical University, his assistant Robert Gehring and Axel Horns, patent lawyer in Munich, figuring under the name of "Internet Governance Research Group", received an order from the German Ministery of Economics and Technology in late summer of 2000 to work out this "short expert opinion" which was published in December 2000. A large part of the 166 pages is dedicated to reiterating the well-known legal opinion of Horns. Horns states that Art 52 EPC was a misconception from the beginning, and that patent law will be seriously impaired unless any innovation that is implemented through a computer is patentable. However he warns that software patents can have a very negative impact on open source software and proposes that patent law at least in Germany should be amended in such a way that the publication and transmission of source code does not violate the law, even if the excecution of object code on a computer does.
Lutterbeck & Gehring 2003/09 zur Swpat-Problematik: Den neuen Text von Lutterbeck und Gehring, 3 Jahre nach ihrem von der Bundesregierung bestellten "Kurzgutachten" geschrieben, durchzieht erneut eine nicht unbedingt realistische Verehrung des Reellen (oder bessergesagt eines f|r autoritdtsbeladenen Ausschnittes desselben). Der naturalistischen Fehlschluss von der Praxis der Patentjustiz auf die zu etablierenden Regeln steht diesmal in merkw|rdigem Kontrast nicht nur zu zahlreichen von Lutterbeck und Gehring offenbar nicht gesichteten Gerichtsurteilen, sondern auch zu Beschl|ssen und inzwischen verabschiedeten Gesetzesentw|rfen des Europdischen Parlaments. Neben diesem grundlegenden Fehler zeit der Text einige recht originelle Ansdtze.
Geschichte der Patentinflation in Deutschland: The patent system was established in 1877 in Germany against a very critcial public opinion. It prevailed only because its proponents were able to limit it to a core domain, in which its restriction on freedom is not widely felt and its usefulness is often highly valued: inventions with an "industrial application". Not only were abstract logical and mental activities excluded, but also agriculture, mining and other not strictly industrial areas. Later it was clarified that a "new teaching about the use of natural forces" had to be at the core.


Software Patents > Players > Organisations > gugde > United Kingdom > Germany
United Kingdom	Germany	BMJ	Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit (BMWA, früher BMWi) und Softwarepatente	BMBF	CDU/CSU