Réactions à la décision du 24 septembre 2003 du Parlement de l'UE

Now I am aware that the large number of amendments to the McCarthy report have been tabled. Many of those try to re-introduce ideas and themes which were already considered and rejected by the committee during the preparation of the report. There are some interesting points, but in the main, I am afraid that the majority of those amendments will be unacceptable to the Commission. And I must confess, to being very concerned about this situation. Many of these amendments are fundamental, and there is the very real possibility of the failure of the proposal if the parliament chooses to accept them. If that were to happen, there would I fear be two consequences, neither of which I suspect has been forseen by some mebers of parliament, and neither of which I can only assume would advance the objectives which seem to lie behind a number of amendments. Firstly, in the complete absence of harmonisation at the level of the community, the European and various national patent offices would be free to continue their current practice of issuing patents for software-implemented inventions which may blur or even cross the line in undermining the exclusion from patentability of software as such under article 52 of the European Patent Convention. And the result would be not only continuing legal uncertainty and divergence for inventors; but also erode the position which I think almost everyone in this room and above all the Commission itself wants -- namely to maintain the exclusion of pure software from patentability. That we do not want. That the proposal rejects. And secondly, in the absence of harmonisation at Community level, member states would be very likely to pursue harmonisation at the European level instead. And may I explain what I mean by that remark. Unlike many fields, patents are unusual in that as a result of the existence of the European Patent Convention, and the creation of the European Patent Office, there already exists a supranational patent system, which covers the whole of the European Union, and indeed beyond, and which can act independently of the Community's legislative process. Now if we fail in our efforts to achieve a harmonisation of patent law relating to computer-implemented inventions in the European Union, we may well be confronted with a renegotiation of the European Patent Convention. And if I may be blunt, President, the process of renegotiation of the European Patent Convention would not require any contribution from this parliament. So the situation is clear: there is a single objective but a choice of means. Either we proceed using the community method, or we take a back seat and watch while member states go via the route of an intergovernmental treaty. And I think it is clear which route would give European citizens a greater say through this parliament in patent legislation in an area which is so crucial to our economy.

the following are not inventions, unless in their inventive step they make a technological contribution to the state of the art

the following are not inventions unless in their inventive step they are inventions

The following are not inventions unless they are inventions