[ILUG] Fwd: Mary Harney's Answer on Software Patents

[Justin Mason]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Disappointing.  That's the exact same "party line" that Arlene McCarthy
was using last year.

See Ciaran O'Riordan's mail regarding the two key loopholes: namely, the
use of the terms "as such" and "technical effects".   The FFII website, in
last September's news entries, has more details.

Unfortunately, it does look like those two textual loopholes will be used
to derail any questioner who isn't familiar with the intricate details of
the issue, and they really do obfuscate the issue quite effectively :(

- --j.

Conall O'Brien writes:
> Below is the written statement from Mary Harney in response to the
> question (also below) Ciaran Cuffe asked.
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from ccuffe at oireachtas.ie -----
> 
> Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 10:28:20 +0100
> From: ccuffe at oireachtas.ie
> To: conall at conall.net
> Subject: PQ
> 
> Hi Conall,
> 
> Here is the answer to the parliamentary question which I put in on your behalf.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ciaran Cuffe
> 
> Ciaran Cuffe TD
> Dun Laoghaire Green Party
> Justice, Equality and Law Reform Spokesperson
> Housing, Planning and Heritage Spokesperson
> Dail Eireann, Kildare Street, Dublin 2
> http://www.GreenParty.ie
> http://www.CiaranCuffe.com
> W 01 618 3082
> F 01 618 4341
> 
>    To ask the Tanaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she
>    proposes to allow the patenting of software implementations for computing; if
>    her attention has been drawn to the difficulties that this may raise in the
>    educational and other sectors; and if she will make a statement on the
>    matter.
>                                                                  - Ciaran Cuffe.
> 
>    *    For WRITTEN answer on Wednesday, 19th May, 2004.
> 
>    Ref No:   14674/04
> 
>                                    R E P L Y
> 
> Tanaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Ms Harney);
> 
> It  is  important  to  note  that  computer programs "as such" are excluded from
> patentability  by  Member States' patent laws and the European Patent Convention
> (EPC) which applies to the operation of the European Patent Office (EPO).
> 
> However,  computer  implemented  inventions  may  be  patentable  under  certain
> conditions and many such patents have already been granted within the EU.
> 
> The  position  facing  the Community is that the application of the case law and
> the  administrative  practice  of Member States in this area is divergent.  As a
> result,  it  is  currently  possible to patent a particular computer implemented
> invention in one Member State and not in another, with negative consequences for
> the efficient functioning of the Internal Market.
> 
> For  this  reason,  the  Commission  brought  forward, in 2002, a proposal for a
> Directive  of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of
> computer-implemented  inventions, the aim of which was to rectify this situation
> and  to  make  the  conditions  for  patentability  more  transparent  ? to give
> innovators  and  enterprises  the  ability  to compete effectively in the single
> market.
> 
> In  September,  2003,  the European Parliament adopted a number of amendments to
> the proposal.
> 
> On 18th May, the Competitiveness Council reached political agreement on a common
> position,  based  on  a proposal put forward by the Irish Presidency, which took
> account  of  discussions  at  EU  Council  Working  Group,  and the Committee of
> Permanent  Representatives.   The  final text agreed took account of a number of
> amendments  put  forward  by delegations to further clarify the conditions under
> which  a  computer implemented invention might be patented.  It will now go back
> to Parliament for second reading, the next stage in the co-decision process.
> 
> I  am satisfied that the agreement reached represents a good balance and will be
> beneficial  for  both  innovators  and  users of computer implemented inventions
> throughout the Union.
> 
> I  would  mention  that  Article  6  of  the  agreed position provides that acts
> permitted under Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection
> of computer programs by copyright, and, in particular, the provisions in respect
> of  decompilation  and  interoperability  are  not  affected by the rights to be
> conferred  by  the  proposed Directive.  The proposed Directive also makes clear
> that  the  provisions  of Articles 81 and 82, which relate to competition rules,
> and, in particular, abuse of a dominant position, apply.
> 
> In  addition,  the  text  as agreed makes it explicit that a computer program as
> such  cannot  constitute  a  patentable invention, and that inventions involving
> computer  programs,  whether  expressed as source code, object code or any other
> form, which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce
> any  technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program
> and  the  computer,  network  or other programmable apparatus in which it is run
> shall not be patentable.
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFArgNuQTcbUG5Y7woRAiwoAJ9ESZ0ErZPskHfE1ydOKgkNE7ry7QCdGRYg
uHPD1IIyEwUVl0YVqPmvG84=
=BVlL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----