[Discussioni]sunto della seduta del parlamento europeo

[Francesco Potorti`]

Ecco un sunto ufficiale:

http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+PRESS+DN-20030923-1+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&L=EN&LEVEL=2&NAV=X&LSTDOC=N#SECTION1

Arlene McCARTHY (PES, North West)
Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions
(COM(2002) 92 √ C5-0082/2002 √ 2002/0047(COD))
Doc.: A5-0238/2003
Procedure : Codecision (1st reading)
Debate : 23.09.2003
Vote : 24.09.2003

Commissioner Frits BOLKESTEIN opened the debate by reminding the House
that computers have become evermore ubiquitous in our everyday lives. He
added that microchips are essential to every day gadgets, such as mobile
phones and microwaves. He pointed out that patentability of computer
implemented inventions was already covered to some extent by the
European patent system. "The aim of this directive is neither to abolish
nor to extend the patentability of pure computer programs", he said.
"But it is to firstly clarify the scope of patentability of software.
Secondly, the aim was to harmonise on the base of existing practises, he
added. The Commissioner went on to stress that "nothing would become
patentable which is not already covered by existing patent law". 

Commissioner Bolkestein also noted that opponents of the directive had
mounted a vocal - and sometimes personal - campaign based on half-truths
and misconceptions, raising delicate issues such as the competitiveness
for smaller firms. He clarified that the legislation aimed to tighten up
already existing rules.

He expressed his concern on a number of the House's amendments, which
were "unacceptable to the Commission". For him, two consequences,
unforeseen by some Members of Parliament, may arise and cause further
inconveniences. Firstly, the Commissioner believed that in the complete
absence of harmonisation at Community-level, European as well as
national patent offices would continue to issue patents to software. As
a result, this would not only maintain legal uncertainty but also push
back from the general objective. Secondly, he reminded the House that,
as a result of the European patent office, there was a supranational
patent system that could already act independently of community
legislation. He warned Members that if the directive was not adopted,
there may well be renegotiations of the European Patent Convention,
which would not require the contribution of this Parliament. "Either we
use the community method or we take a back seat and watch Member States
go through the negotiation of an Intergovernmental Treaty", he
concluded.

Arlene McCARTHY (PES, North West), the rapporteur, began her remarks by
making it clear that her report was not about introducing a new patent
law, not about patenting software and not about extending the scope of
patents. This despite much lobbying to the contrary.

Mrs McCarthy pointed out that computer implemented inventions play an
important role in all our lives - from washing machines and microwaves
to computers. She stated that she was against going down the US route of
patenting software and cited the "one click" Amazon patent as an example
of a bad patent law. Mrs McCarthy rejected the criticisms from small and
medium sized enterprises, stating that she had received letters from
SMEs calling for such legislation to be introduced. A company from the
South West of England, specialising in voice recognition technology, had
written to her welcoming her report. She stated that her report was
well-balanced and it was in fact about limiting patents to certain
implemented inventions. This would ensure interoperability, and she
underlined that this was not just about big business. The introduction
of affordable patents and the protection of open-source community formed
important parts of her report.

Speaking on behalf of the Industry Committee, Elly PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL 
(ELDR, NL) stated that in her nine years of working in the European
Parliament, she had never been lobbied in such an aggressive way. For
her, the aim was to harmonise but she argued that there was legal
uncertainty to what is patentable to software. 

For the Culture Committee, Michel ROCARD (PES, F) stressed that the
debate is complicated both in legal and computer terms. "What is at
stake is tens of billions of euros", he reminded the House. He explained
that copyright rules try to protect the inventors, whereas software is
built on the creation and human knowledge of the past. He believes that
the multiplications of patents were highly dangerous for SMEs and
individual inventors. "We accept the Commission's proposal, but some may
think, such as Members of my group, that it doesn't go far enough", he
concluded. 

Joachim WUERMELING (D), for the EPP-ED group, broadly supported the
rapporteur, and he alluded to the technical and legal difficulties
surrounding the issue. He regretted the sometimes personal and
irrational lobbying that had taken place. His groups' aim was to ensure
all business, including SMEs, could benefit from the legislation. He was
also particularly concerned that the directive would properly protect
the open-source community including Linnux. His group, he stated, was
against any patenting of actual software. 

For the PES group, Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA (PES, E) also underlined that
the proposed legislation was not about patenting software, a common
misconception of some in the IT industry. The US model of allowing
patents for computer software, he stated, was not a model that the EU
should follow. It was clear that the EU needed a directive as there was
now a trend towards too many patents and too much protection which had
had damaging consequences on research and development.

Toine MANDERS (NL), for the Liberals, underlined that it was difficult,
but necessary, to make a distinction between copyright and patenting. He
spoke in favour of a proposed amendment offering grace period. The
reference to a grace period, he stated, overlaps with an on-going debate
in general patenting law, as a similar concept exists in some legal
systems (in particular the US), but not in the European Union
legislation. Specifically, elements disclosed by the applicant for a
patent over a period of six months before the date of the application,
he outlined, should not be considered to be part of the state of the art
when assessing that particular claim.

On behalf of the EUL/NGL group, Pernille FRAHM  (DK) wondered why SME's
were not demanding to pursue the directive, but rather doing the
opposite. "It leaves some doubts, as our intention is to create more
development for SME's in this area", she added. Arguing that this
incentive could involve too many costs for the SME sector, she called on
Members to listen more to what SME's were saying.

Raina Mercedes  ECHERER (A), who spoke on behalf of the Greens/EFA
group, stated that "in the market, if someone wants to use a patent to
abuse a dominant position, they can do that". 

For Antonio MUSSA (I), who spoke on behalf of the UEN group, "computers
are the backbone of development in all countries of the world and
innovation is predicted through patentability". He stressed that the EU
did not need more rules and pointed out that his group does not support
the draft report.

Bent ANDERSEN (DK), for the EDD group, stated that he had worked as an
architect for most of his life and he could see many comparisons between
the IT and architectural industry. He understood the need for protection
of copyright but did not see the need for introducing patents for actual
computer software. 

Marco CAPPATO (I), a non-attached Member, stated that he was broadly in
favour of the rapporteur's position. The small dividing line between
patenting computer software and patenting computer implemented
inventions could lead, he warned, to much confusion. It was about
protecting genuine inventions rather than patenting software.
Symphonies, mathematical equations and formulae could not be patented
and computer software, he said, fell into the same category.

Neil MacCORMICK (Greens/EFA, Scotland) warned against possible "leakage"
from genuine protection of computer implemented inventions to companies
being able to patent computer software. He stated that the present
system, where genuine inventions are patentable and software is
protected by copyright worked well. The responsibility, he underlined,
lay with the Commission to find a balance between over and under
protection for inventions.

Malcolm HARBOUR (EPP-ED, West Midlands) stated that patents played an
indispensable role in making the EU the most dynamic knowledge based
economy in the world. Patents, he said, help to stimulate investment and
encourage invention. Protecting genuine invention and creativity would
help business to develop products that people want to buy.

Proinsias DE ROSSA (PES, Dublin) quipped that those Members without a
legal or technical background may find this issue difficult to grasp.
What is clear, he said, that "doing nothing was unacceptable." Legal
certainty was essential for the IT industry, he stated.

Commissioner Bolkestein concluded the debate by thanking the Members for
their remarks. He added that many reflections made by the European
Commission had been prompted by the European Parliament. However, he
remained concerned over a number of tabled amendments that introduce "a
special regime for computer related inventions". The Commissioner argued
that inventions should be assessed in a neutral manner, regardless of
the technology used. He added that this principle was enshrined in
international law. Furthermore, he observed that some amendments do not
respect the scope of the directive and could prove to be too broad in
their effects. 

Arlene McCarthy regrettably added that in all the years that she had
been an MEP, she had not been treated in such an aggressive manner. She
said she and her staff had been bullied and harassed.

Vote Wednesday midday.