[Fsfe-uk] Need help transcribing patent debate.

[James Heald]

This morning's patent debate is online (Real Player) at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/ebs/schedule.cfm

(Go up to 9am-10am, and click on  09h43'58'' on the left)

Attached is the start of an attempt at a transcript -- but it's very 
sketchy, with lots missing, lost, paraphrased or just wrong.

I've re-done the first two speeches properly, but it's a slow business, 
and we need the transcription asap for journalists to be able to read.

Could anyone who has any time, please choose a speech, mail this list to 
let everyone else know which one you've checked out, do a proper 
transcription, and then email that speech back to the list.

I'd be really grateful; and it could be really useful.

It shouldn't take too long -- most of the speeches are only about two or 
three minutes, so together we should be able to get this done really 
quickly.

8.49  Bolkestein (EU Commissioner)
8.59  McCarthy (PSE: Rapporteur for JURI)
9.04  Plooij (ELDR: Draftswoman for ITRE)
9.07  Rocard (PSE: Draftsman for CULT)
9.11  Wuermelling (PPE)
9.15  Ortega (PSE)
9.17  Manders (ELDR)
9.21  Framm (United Left)
9.24  Echerer (Green/EFA)
9.28  Boussa (UEN)
9.31  Andersson (EDD)
9.33  Capatto (Independent)
9.38  Fiori
9.41  Gebhardt (PSE)
9.44
9.46  Coutrand
9.48  McCormick (Greens)
9.51  van Damme
9.53  Gormich
9.56  Harbour (PPE)
9.59  Berenguer Fuester
10.02  de Clerck (ELDR)
10.03  Fless
10.06  Denn (Green)
10.07  (PPE)
10.09  Gilladotte
10.12  Figaredo
10.13
10.16
10.17  Niebeling
10.20
10.21 Thyssen (PPE)
10.23 Pasolina
10.25 Kauppi (PPE) -- not present
10.25 Darossa (PSE)
10.27 Bolkestein

08:49:03

Bolkestein:

May I start by thinking Mrs Arlene McCarthy very much indeed. 

She is the rapporteur on this complex and important file, and on behalf of the 
Commission I would like to thank her in particular for the excellent work on 
this dossier. 

I would also like to thank in a similar way the rapporteurs of the industry 
committee and the culture committee who have also made a major contribution to 
the work of the parliament on this important issue.

Computers are becoming ever more ubiquitous parts of our everyday lives.

And quite apart from the box which sits in almost all of our offices, and quite 
a few of our bedrooms, microchips are commonplace in all sorts of everyday 
gagets such as electric razors, cars, and microwave ovens. 

The question of how to define the patentability of computer-implemented 
inventions is thus becoming steadily more important especially as such 
inventions are estimated to cover 15% of new patent applications. 

All the more so as the acceptance of the potential patentability of 
computer-implemented inventions has already developed in the current practice 
of the European Patent Office. 

The proposed directive does not aim to abolish this practice nor to extend it.  

Neither to abolish it, nor to extend it to cover the patenting of pure computer 
programs, as many detractors have complained.  

Not the intention of the directive to cover the patenting of pure computer 
programs.

Indeed many have claimed, and claimed equally falsely, that the directive is 
introducing the notion of patentability of software inventions into the 
European Union's patent practice for first time. 

that is not the case. 

And I am therefore all the more pleased that rapporteur has been able to steer 
past these misconceptions, and has produced a highly constructive report, which 
seeks to build on the objective of the commission in proposing its original 
text: namely to clarify the scope of patentability of inventions which 
incorporate software, and to harmonise across the European Union on the basis 
of existing practice.

The proposal seeks to harmonise and to clarify; but nothing will become 
patentable which is not already patentable now.

And it is in this spirit that the commission would welcome the amendments 
proposed in the report by Mrs McCarthy as a further step to clarifying that 
objective.

Now opponents of the directive have mounted very vocal, at times even personal 
campaign, based on half truths and misconceptions, and which have played on the 
legitimate concerns over competitiveness especially for smaller firms.

But the fact is that the proposal does not introduce software patents, and 
won't have all the terrible effects that the doom-mongers would have you 
believe.

It is a prudent, it is a cautious measure which will clarify and if anything 
tighten the rules which already exist. 

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 fundmenal, and there is the veryr eal 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, thr 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 
fpr 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 persue 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.

Thank you, President.

I believe that at the end of the debate I may have the floor again for some 
further remarks.

Thank you, President.


8.59  McCarthy

Thank you.

The Commission proposal before the Parliament on the patentability of 
computer-implemented inventions is not as some opponents of the directive have 
suggested a new phenomenon.

Neither does it argue for the patenting of software, nor for the extending of 
the patentability and scope of protection in this area.

The fact is that some 30000 patents for computer-implemented inventions have 
been  already handed out by the European Patent Office, and indeed national 
patent offices.

Computer-implemented inventions are present, as the Commissioner in everyday 
household appliances, from safety devices such as airbags in cars to mobile 
phones, washing machines, the list is endless, and the relevance goes well 
beyond the traditional computer industries to the heart of our manufacturing 
sectors.

Let us be clear: without this directive, patents will continue to be filed.

Out of over 110,000 applications received at the EPO in 2001, 16000 dealt with 
inventions in computer-implemented technologies.

I have to say that in the US and increasingly in Japan, patents have 
unfortunately been granted for what is essentially pure software; and an EU 
directive by setting limits in this area could stop the drift towards a US 
liberal style of patenting software as such and indeed pure business methods.

One often quoted example of such a bad patent is the Amazon one-click shopping 
method.

Clearly this technology is not new, nor is it unique, and I believe that the 
patenting of software business methods such as this is not good for innovation 
and competition.

But it is unfortunate that the EPO has granted a patent on this and therefore 
that is an example of bad EPO practice.

Without a doubt, computer-implemented inventions -- genuine, not trivial 
inventions --
which in some cases are the result of ten to fifteen years of R&D investment 
are important for the European economy.

At a time when many of our traditional industries are migrating to China and 
the far East, we do need to rely on our innovation and inventiveness to earn 
our living.

I have seen letters from small companies across Europe who are supportive of 
this directive.

A small Belgian company employing some 12 people has written to me saying that 
they need patents to get a return on their investment, and to grow their 
business and to be sure that their technology is respected by others.

For many European companies, it is important to grow their business through 
revenue secured by patents and licensing of them.

This is also the case for a 10 person company in the south-west of England, 
located in an economic blackspot with high unemployment.

This company granted a licence to a US multinational for its 
computer-implemented voice-recognition patents, which shows that in the world 
of global patents, there can be David beating Goliath examples.

Without patent protection the small company could have found itself in a 
perverse situation where its R&D efforts would have been free for the 
multinational company, who with its team of patent lawyers would have gained a 
patent in this area and of course the European company would not have reaped 
the benefits, or indeed  been in infringement of a patent owned by a 
multinational.

But in my report, Commissioner, I want to stress that I have tabled amendments 
to underline my opposition to the patenting of software as such, computer 
methods, algorithms, mathematical models -- this is in a new article 4 -- which 
we want to specifically exclude from patentability.

I have attempted to produce balanced legislation, which takes account of the 
needs of all sectors of the industry, not just of one vocal sector who are 
against this directive.

I would be the first to agree that we need to have more debate on refinement to 
the proposed legislation, and I do therefore ask the Commissioner to now look 
at the crux of this debate: how do we get good patent law, which rewards our 
most innovative companies for their investment in R&D, while at the same time 
not allowing companies to use patents to abuse a dominant position, lock up 
technology and stifle innovation and competition.

I ask you therefore, Commissioner, to look at these amendments tabled to 
plenary today, they are very clear in suggesting that we need to limit 
patentability to genuine inventions in article 2 and article 4. 

We want to ensure interoperability, to enable computer programmers to 
reverse-engineer, decompile programs for experimental purposes without risk of 
infringement or legal action.

It is vital that we address the perception that patents are not only for big 
business.

Small companies can and do gain from patent protection.

But to have a fighting chance in such a competitive business, they need access 
to affordable patents, and assistance with legal fees to protect their patents 
and enforce them.

Other amendments seek to ensure that the granting of a patent doesn't allow 
monopoly or abuse of a dominant position.

We also want to protect open source community, who are a vital contribution to 
competitiveness in the area of software development.

So I would ask the Commissioner to give serious consideration to the amendments.

Please recognise them in the spirit in which they have been tabled, as a 
genuine attempt to ensure Europe develops good patent law in the field of 
computer-implemented inventions.

This does not mean rubber stamping bad practice in Europe, but developing good 
practice for the future, good law, good patent examiners, quick death for 
applications which are clearly not inventions.

And I think we also want to make sure that there is no dominance for 
multinationals in our EU markets, and that is why at the end of the day we do 
need patents, because we need to protect our own companies, and our own 
investments to be an effective global player in this fast changing and rapid 
developing software development market.

Thank you.


09.04 plooij

In the 9 years I have been working for the parliament I have never been lobbied 
in such an improper and agressive way.  clearly a lot at stake.

problem. epo not checked. itre welcomes...

illusion that no patents arre granted over 30000 would restrict epo practice

itre thinks directive should be limited to unequivocal cases.

need to patent inventions, not just idea. not US.

interoperability. seek support for itres amendment on article 6a, and grace 
period for inventor.

09.07 rocard

thank you president

comissioner, incredibly complicated -- doubly: l;egally and in computer termms. 
 But vital: 10 millions of Euros, and human aspect.  Products of human 
knowledge have to be freely available. copyright tries to protect the inventor 
without imperilling this principle.

software builds on tens, even hundreds of previous contributions.

until now banned under convention But now a multiplication of patent s which 
have occurred. smes threatened. commisiion proposal a good start.

commissioner we accept your motivastion.  but a lot of people, including my 
group think that you

technical provisions don;t guarantee this.

provision to clearly define invention from a product of the human spirit.

This....

09.11  Wuermellung

Thank you for excellent piece of work done by our rapporteur.

2 major difficulties, not many would have tackled.

Aggressive, irrational lobbying. had to be in constant dialogue, even though it 
must have been very difficult for you, as it was for many of us.

Don't wan't SMEs to be risked, Don't want open source, linux damaged in any way.

Sensible division -- pure software can't be patented.  In the past patents have 
been granted too easily by the EPO.  But this damaging tendency can be braked 
only by legislation. So I don't understand how anyone could be against this 
directive -- current practice would only continue.

On the other hand it is also true that an invention in the classical case 
deserves the protection, and it is not right for the state to look on if

If any software element means an invention is no longer patentable, bad for 
competitiveness.

JURI proposal brings in big improvements.  New article 4 a waterproof 
exception.  Business methods, algorithms will not be patented.

...

9.15  Ortega (PSE)

We in PSE do not believe that JURI amendments reflect present situatuon.

Need to start from the point of view that this is nt an attempt to protect 
computer programs. These protected by (c).  Industrial different.

Attempt to produce monopoly over computer programs. Rightly raised worry of 
those in industry.

US companies can practically prevent work going on in some sectors of computer 
programs,

EPO has stood out against

need to deal only with Industrial applications, not computer programs.

9.17 Manders.

difficult subject.  big difference between copyright and patent law. difficult 
distinction.

aggressive lobbyiosts here have interpreted in a different way.

EPO Munich already using American method, already granting patents for computer 
programs as such.

Lobbyists trying to reject the directive would ensiure US-style practice 
continues. A bad thing.

I have tried to set down amendments. Many already adopted in legal affairs 
committee, in juri report. many seek to rotect smes, some improve defintiions. 
now we have a balanced report. some improvements. grace period. hope commission 
will take this further, so all inventors benefit.

Another amendment.  Inventions which are in software. Non-discrimination in 
trips.

Interoperability.  Need to make a clear distinction between


9.21 Framm (United Left)

Thank you to commisiion, rapporteur.

Seems we have the same intentions. Intention is to create more development in 
SMES.

So why aren't we happy ?  Why aren';t SMEs praising this directive ? Why are 
they doing the opposite.

That leads to sme doubts as to the extent that we are doing what we say we're 
doing.

Involves so much costs that SMEs feel there is no way ahead for them -- cases 
involve 1 million Euro.

We have a legal basis. Convention says not patentable. But EPO has pushed it 
bit by bit. And now we're trying to legalise this...

Sio question is: how pure does the software have to be before it is pure ?

Need to think hard, listen to SMEs


9.24 Echerer (Green/EFA)

Fully support what M. Rocard said (culture)

Support the purpose of this directive, like Framm.

But commission has made a sense of threat to opponents of this directive.

You say opponent have used half truths.

We have all tried to balance out aggressive lobbying we have received on this.

But unanswered questions:

If one component of software is patented, you cannot make any further use of 
this...

Report should be the basis for our decision here.

We're trying to achieve the same objectives, but I think we've thought it 
through bettwe.

We all know what the real position is in the maket. abuse. domination.

Revise copyright instead ?

Had we started from EPC, you would have had my support.

And I do think that some of the amendments would help us to this.

Finally future patents are responsibility of signatory states.


9.28  Boussa (UEN)

The Computer is going to be the backbone of the development of any country in 
the world.

Any hardware invention can be patented.  But software can enjoy a copyright 
which only protects its intellectual property.

Analogy music.

Instrument.

But what if you could copyright scales, chords ?

The whole world's symphionic pattern would alter.

Same thing could happen in the world of computers ?

Impossible if all programs in the world no enjoyed patentability.  SMEs would 
find themselves pushed out of the market by the big companies.

You can't patent a book, or a painting.  You have to protect the author's 
rights, while ensuring that it is circulated as widely as possible.

Software market bubvling over with creativity.  Does not need more rules.

Does not need to drawback on creativity.


9.31  Andersson EDD

I have worked as an architect throughout my life.

The problem here is the same as if we had a patent on staircases -- so that you 
had to pay a royalty to design a house with a staircase.  Good in one way, we 
wouldn't have all these massive high-rises.  But a big company within my sector 
would be able to put a brake on any development.


In the design architecture I've done you have to have the protection of
copyright, which prevents work from being plagiarised.

It's the same thing with software, and any other artistic work: the design is 
protected by copyright.

Serious negative consequences for consumers, SMES, open source.

We should be naive to think we help innovation in the EU, if US companies can 
patent anything in this sector, or that it would benefit SMEs to invest in a 
department for patent law before anything could be developed.

Neither software or pure software ought to be able to be patented.


9.33  Capatto

Thank you president.

I would like to thank the rapporteur and the commission for the work they have 
carried out, work that was tough.

The radical members of the (?)Buanino list will vote favour of amendments which 
restrict leeway for software patentability.  We will vote against the overall 
proposal if the substance of these proposal are not reflected in final version.

This is because we are against European harmonisation, some would say.

But in fact we agree with the commission, rapporteur.

The EPO has de facto received thousands of software patents.  The problem is 
that faced with such -- I might say -- patent violation of the EPC, that which 
what is was and will remain essential is to confirm the non-patentability of 
software. Full stop.

The distinction between software as such and software as part of a 
technological invention is a subtle distinction. so subtle, that it runs the 
risk of creating confusion. But the solution is very simple.

If software is part of an invention, the invention should be patentable. But 
not the software.

Sodtware is excluded from patentability for a very precise reason -- 
mathematical formulae, theorems, symphonies, pieces of musis They belong to the 
realm of ideas, organisation and processing of ideas.

We are aware that ...

That is why software patenting is very dangerous, becuase a software patent can 
last for twenty years. That's geological time, as far as software is concerned.

software qua software, software qua technological inventions.

We sh

Support those amendments on interoperability and on forces of nature as being 
necessary.

Also I think we should not adopt this proposal because member states will 
simply do their own thing. it's our job to decide on legislation. thousands 
have contacted us

9.38  Fiori

In tackling many issues in the lifetime of this parliament, I have to say that 
today's issue is the one of the most complicated of all.

...

I don't really have any answers.  I can understand why the commission has acted 
as it has, Mr. Bolkestein has made it very clear.

We are dealing with an issue where the identification of an object in legal 
terms -- the translation of computer terms into legal terms -- is something 
that could already make things very complicated.

Secondly we run up against a very complicated international problem -- not just 
in Europe, I'm thinking in particular of the United States. Patenting systems 
are already showing how very limited they are. Particularly limited

So directive answers a problem.

We need to move away from US posiition, and we should I think need to advocate 
a different approach to our partners, looking at software in a different way 
until up to now.

Patents TRIPS 

We have seen a huge number of software applications in 

Need to make sure . So we should stick to the concept that software patents 
will only be granted on a solid basis.

Further if there is an explosion of patents, it would make it virtually 
impossible to check whether we are really  dealing with something new or not.

There are some aspects which from a legal standpoint could probably be improved.

Some differences with directive 91/250

There is also the question of Article 52 and the EPC.

But one thing is certain. We are going to have to come back to this, because 
things change so rapidly in this area, that the Union is going to have to 
revise its position, whatever it is, in the next few years anyway

9.41  Gebhardt

Thank you president.

Colleagues, It is rare that our legislative job at an early stage has attracted 
such great public attention as has Mrs McCarthy's report.  

That hasn't made her job any easier.

But there has been a flood of information and arguments coming in. Many things 
for the rapporteur and us were very important and informative. But these 
mountains of papers -- many of these mountains of paper were ready for the 
wastepaper basket.

Our work has led us to the compromise and I think it ought to be adopted, and 
my group agrees with this.

It tries to get us out of the trap of articles 2 and 4, where a new definition 
of "technical applications" threatens to open up the floodgates to 
patentability.  

Dear colleagues, now this hole has to some extent been stopped.

I think that in particular SMEs would have wanted to see more.

[Problems with the Real Player stream jumping back to Wuermelung at this point]

It is not clear enough to me that software patents should not just be limited, 
but ought not to be granted at all in future. swpats make life difficult for 
SMEs, and we want to grant particular protection and to nurture such companies. 

Put another way, if you patent software, you are playing big capitalism, but 
it's not very intelligent. 

Therefore we want to keep well away from software and patenting.



9.44  Mrs 

President, colleagues

share the view of rocard, cappato. should not be patentable.

article 52

ideas should not be patentable, only technical inventions.

crux of the problem.

EPO has decided that all computer programs run on an apparatus  are by 
definition technical, and that has led to the patent office granting over 
30,000 patents even though some of them would not be dependable legally.

Mr Rocard has said that you have to have an invention which is based on the use 
of natural forces and not a product of the human mind.

I think that we should support some of the amendments that were tabled to itre, 
cult because I think they tighten up the definition and mean that pure software 
could be excluded.

otherwise I will vote against.

colleagues, there is a huge amount of concern amongst smes and the open source 
movement about what is happening here

Dissemination of human knowledge is a great wealth and we should retain that.

more competitive than the u.s.

9.46  Coutrand

Mr. President, Colleagues,

This morning's debate is coming after a stormy period where the users, 
inventors and computer innovators have defended tooth and nail their rights to 
difference their right to freedom their right to creativity.

At the heart of the debate are the patent with its plusses when it protects the 
inventor, and its major drawbacks
often conservative monopolies which support 

I have and continue to support the movement which

both sides have put forward points which considerably improve this proposal

industrial application is going in the right direction
Saying that patents cannot be authorised for mere computer programs.
not mere computer programs is important too

still subtle amendments vagueness.  do not 

So I am going to be very careful when the vote comes round, and I am going to 
be ready to vote against the report if the amendments are only superficial
and are simply hiding an attempt by big companies to hold up the creative minds 
of young minds of Europeans.

And wasn't Mr Bolkestein trying a little blackmail this morning with his final 
sentence ?

But he won't convince me.


9.48  McCormick

Many of the amendments and certianly all those at which my aimed at trying to 
bolt the door that will stop a leaking

prevent a leakage into patenting of computer software itself

a body of law which protects computer software by copyright and leaves patents 
for other purposes is a body of law which works well from the point of view of 
the software industry, from the point of view of the creative minds that 
develop software.


nobody wants to have a leakage so there is patenting of pure software.  There 
is evidently a risk that some inventions 

burden of proof is with the commission.
to show us which of the amendments which the parliament is minded to put forward
which amendments would over-protect against the danger that we see, and 
under-protect against the danger that the commission is anxious to avoid, 
namely the danger of real inventions, if I may call them that, being adequately 
patentable in the European Union.

strategy of those of us who are amending this directive is to prevent leakage 
over into software 

lobbyied heavily because we have very many hard working constituents who see 
the threat to their livelihood of the leakage which I have mentioned.

So let us make absolutely sure that what we send back from this debate and 
tomorrow really does bolt the door and lock it with a key

the danger that so many of us have been taught to apprehend by our constituents.


9.51 van Damme

Our point of departure is that we think patents are not the right way to 
protect ciis

Copyright has provided adequate protection up until now.  And we think that 
allowing patents in this areas  will probably have a negative impact on 
invention and SMEs.

But unfortunately the discussion is coming too late in the day.

EPO granting such patents for years already, and these have been maintained at 
the highest levels in the member states.

Emergency action we are taking here.

But I wonder is there any point.

EPO has already granted 30,000 patents which go further than wthe proposals in 
this directive.  So I really think this directive is coming a little late in 
the day.

It is true that the directive will mean greater harmonisation and clarity.

But neverthelessSMEs will not be able to compete.  Inherent in patents system.

We are worried about the position that the commissioner and the rapporteur have 
taken on this.  They have taken a very lax approach on this, and I think it a 
shame for SMEs.



9.53  Gormich

What are we talking about this morning ?

Protecting

There are two different legal ideas here -- patenting and copyrigfht.

Most of us think that the normal way of protecting would be copyright.

A journalist would allow his text to be copyright, but couldn't allow grammar 
and syntax to be copyrighted - or patented.


Language shouldn't be patented.  Nor should software.

Commissioner. threatening.  shouldn't take us for fools. directive ambiguous.

The definition that you yourself give of computer-implemtented 
2a could apply to software.

4 industrial application.  But don't define exactly what you mean.

We all know that some US multinationals have had very trivial patents granted.
the use of a click to close a window on the screen. warning a user he or she 
has received an email or underlining those words that are to be corrected in a 
particular colour.
.. internet trading.

Young creative people have even started using the 35 hour week imposed by a 
previous government in my country.

The EPO is financed by the number of patents they receive, so are they partly 
behind it ?

A strategic choice needs to be made.

Either

Do we follow US ?

Or defend the unique characteristics of European Law and refuse any kind of 
illegal patent.  You have not gone that way, and I think we should say that you 
directive is not in line with the interests of the creative community in Europe.


9.56 Malcolm Harbour.

In all my time on the legal affairs cttee, this is the first time one of our 
directives such prominence in the agenda.

apologise to both the commissioner and the rapporteur for not being here to 
hear their speeches.

I just want to reflect at this stage in the debate on what this is all about.

we have an objective: to create the most dynamic and competitive knowledge 
driven economy in the world.

now patents are an indispensible part of that.

I want to remind all of you here, and everyone else who is listening this debate
100s of 1000s of people employed working on inventions that have been protected 
by patents.

What we are talking about here, colleagues, is a regime that will legitimately 
encourage innovation in all fields.

Part of the problem we have had here

One particular direction of creativity, to do with.  Writing elements of 
computer programs.

Patents are about protecting genuine inventions, a new way of doing things.

something which is susceptible of industrial 
When you apply and get granted a patent it doesn't necessarily have all the 
In today's world almost every kind of industrial and technical contribution 
requires some sort of computer-aided activity of some kind,

Now why should we deny patent protection to somebody working in that field of 
research ?

Commission has made a persuasive case, supported by a lot of research, that we 
need a consistent framework

discourage them from applying from trivial business process patents which 
should not under any circumstances be patents.

Difficult,



She has consistently seen importance of this in knowledge-driven economy.

has directed us in that direction

has not allowed herself to be diverted by all the noise around, she has gone 
for that.

But I hope above all that you will entirely resist some of the complicating and 
abstruse concepts that have come from other people that will make an inventor's 
life far harder.

It is invention and creativity we are here to support, and nothing else.

9.59.30 Berenguer Fuester

This is a political discussion, and as politicians the first thing we should 
ask ourselves is and the commisssion should ask themselves too is 

Why has this caused such a fuss, this proposal ?

Not correct to say that anyone who is against this has been got at by the 
lobbyists.

Not true. those people who got in touch with me, some of them were university 
computer professors, experts in issues of intellectual property and sme

Bot agression. concern.

Those who are in favour of this are saying that the only thing it is trying to 
do is to unify practice in national patent offices, in an area where there have 
been contradictory rulings.  That is true.

But what is not true, or at least not certain, if we have an intellectual 
doubt, is that it

Not certain this directive will sort out all of the problems it claimed that it 
will sort out.

EPO is breaking European law, adopting a practice very similar to that in the 
US.

Everybody knows that to be patentable, something has to have some sort of 
industrial application or character. In American law it just has to have a 
useful application.

That has led to certain programs and certain software patents.
juri and commission say they can sort this out.

but if it is to sort this out, needs the amendments passed in the industry and 
culture committees.

So if those amendments are not carried, it would be very difficult for my group 
to support this directive.

10.02 de Clerck

will we be able to use our computers in future without paying patent royalties ?

What we don't want is a US-type situation here 

all agree we need some restrictions.

we.re lagging behind developments, you just habe

can't wait longer.

We need to have a clear line between what is patentable and what is not.

right balance in itre, and in mrs plooij and mr manders' amendments.

All forms of software should be excluded explicitly from patents, and only 
where there is a real invention should 

invention must be a thought out technical proceess, not just an idea or a 
language. 

The technology which is used for the new technical process should be protected, 
re


10.03  Mrs Fless

There are a certain number lots of things I don't understand here.

I'm not sure I've followed what gave rise to this proposal or directive ?

so many patents ?

Nor can I understand why the commission, which is so keen to oppose industrial 
concentration, is now proposing here support for industrial concentration.  
That seems to be contradictory to the goals the commission says it has.

already have a directive on the patentability of human beings. 

Can you patent the cells in a leaf but not the leaf in the tree.

Programs, software, technical contributions 
disastrous. nobody understands it.

This legal uncertainty that exists on the patentability of human beings is now 
being repeated.

not clearly defined in directive.

difficult to understand what is going on ?

Mr Rocard mentioned pre-history

are we in a position to follow this accelerated rate of evolution ?

The situation is very bad and is probably getting worse.

In the pharmaceutical sphere it is easy to see who is doing what.

Publishers and teachers say the information society and transparency 
threatened,.

And I have no idea what is going on.


10.06  Denn (Green)

There is a lot of heat around this report because there is a lot at stake.

well meant

threat to SMEs in Europe.

They might lose patent rights.

these are small businesses we should cherish and nurture.

innovation

innovation is what will help us retain our position in the world market.

over-regulation

copyright enough

We Greens are often criticised -- people say we want to legislate for 
everything.

This shows the opposite.

Now in the United States, people are talking about watering down patent 
protection.

So why are we implementing a law which is already out of date ?


10.07  PPE 

First of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur

The protection of inventions implemented by computers nothing new

Standards to extend patent protection

So we are extending the protection offered by patents to computer-run programs.

Patentability of inventions by computer. So this is something very specific.

We are trying to encourage interoperability. We do not want programs which are 
not going to be able to communicate with each other.  Now I think this is 
something which will have to be revised in the directive in a few years.

Have to explain to laymen.

We need to ensure that people applying for patents

Therefore very important that people describe their inventions properly.

attackedthis proposal saying that it will create red tape for smes.

patent protection is extended to smes patents have led to increases in research 
and development market better organised. 

This means that we can have more patents , more developments



10.09.45  Gilladotte.

I would also like to thank the rapporteur, because I do think that this subject 
is a very complicated one and a very sensitive one

Software plays a fundamental role in development. Software is also a highly 
specialised engineering sector. More than 10 million software designers exist 
across the world.

Software designers who work in small companies and who work independently

Europe is at the cutting edge of computer technology.

100s of thousabnds here- only 13% in the sates.

So we don't want a monopoly 

What we are trying to do here is to ensure that knowldge and innovation are in 
fact free, following the spirit of Lisbon. 

knowledge based society

want to avoid monoply of software production and marketing.

Need improvements to commission proposal,

many things

product not just the method.

And that is why commissioner Bolkestein worried that amendments proposed

Worried because if they are not approved, I don;t see that we can support the 
directive being discussed today.

10.12 Mrs. Figaredo

Important not just for software designers in Europe but all people concerned 
about knowledge.

human beings can be the possession of large companies, like Microsoft.

It's obvious that we must have a free software supply.

must develop this furher,

Therefore scientists and software designers are very much against this 
directive.

I hope plenary will send out a very clear signal by rejecting this amendment as 
my group intends to do.


10.13

A directive which aims to

in the interest of the ineternal market in order to avoid so we should welcome 
it.

don't want to make life more difficult for smes either. We need to create legal 
certainty.

need to make


some concerns lie in misinterpretations. and some views are because of the 
American realities, and not the contents of this directive.

Some arguments I share,

EPO infringing,

technical contribution too vague.

That is why I support some of the amendmnets which have been tabled compromises 
between Wuermeling and rapporteur.

I also Echerer

I also Kauppi

108 defines 

112
114
117 definitions of what do not

also con

116
mr wurmeling's compromises.
getting rid of the adjudication by the board of appeal of the patent offices.

And it says that business methods are not patentable, so I think everybody 
should be a ble to live with that.

10.16

Growing use and serious lack of

privatisation of the human being.

cannot have privatisation of knowledge. We must ensure there is a clear 
demarcation

common heritage.  

There are certain interests which have to be protected -- scientific interests, 
general interests, and not just economic interests.

protect legitimate interests, but not sure patentability

compromises socialist acceptable.


10.17 Niebeling

First of all I

Now do we really need this directive ?

Like other colleagues

take expressions of concern very seriously.
Nobody wants to hinder innovation in Europe


Tomorrow we will be taking the right decision if we adopt this directive.

harmonising exisiting practioces

imposing stricter criteria

First of all the directive will mean that we won;t
won't get an american-style situation

pure software will not be patentable in europe.
The directive makes this clear

a technical innovation of some sort, and I am glad that Mr Bolkestein has made 
that clear today.

if anybody has anything to say against 

some very small inventions or innovations .  trivial software should not be 
given patent protection either.

So I hope


10.20  Mrs Frain

we want to bring forward innovation in the European Unionby simplification

this directive represents a retrograde step

maximises patentability

we say no to this directive.

we think informatics is a cutting edge technology

intellectual property
independent researchers, and a patent isn't good for them, it's
too expensive, too cumbersome

economic rivalry with united states.

big companies to retain their dominant position


10.21 Thyssen

if it were up to the EPP there would be no software patents, and if it were up 
to you commisioner I think the same would be true.

In our group there are many who support the commission

hope you can give your support to a number of amendments

more clearly delineate the whole thing 

stubborn view prevailing which states that this is bad for small businesses

don't agree

smaller businesses don't have a particular problem with this directive
small businesses have a more general problem with the system of patentability

when they have patent protection themselves

and of course also when they are confronted with patent claims from third 
parties

a more comfortable seat in patent land.

politically I think it is important enough to make the suggestion here and now
very much appreciate an answer now

10.23  Pasolina

If we seek to have open source work in favour of small firms, but then put 
obstacles in their way by extending patentability, then we are destroying the 
whole basis of the information society.

examples such as linux help everybody

narrowing of the digital divide.

copyright of course is already there to protect software and their codes

programmer doesn't always know he is breaching patent law.

used to prevent competition. 

We support small enterprises in this sector.

10.25  Kauppi

not present

10.25  Mr Darossa

This is one of those areas where those of us who are neither legal expert or 
technically expert address debates like this with our fingers crossed behind 
our back.

perhaps the commission is right to some extent, perhaps the parliament is right 
to some extent.

doing nothing is not an option.

hope the commissioner can accept some of the many amendments from arlene.

Arlene who has done such tremendous work

important open source is encouraged,

not right that we should allow the current legal uncertainty to continue


10.27  Bolkestein (EU Commissioner)

Since there are many amendments, I would not propose to go thorufh them all 
indicating the commission's response one by one.

Will provide a list by number.

On this understanding I would like to confine myself to remarks of a general 
nature.


-- Commission prepared to accept most of McCarthy amendments

We are favourably disposed to most of the amendments which are made 

-- Interoperability:  at first sight this looks reasonable; but on closer 
examination however it might empty some patents of their value; it might even 
make them totally worthless; and may be contrary to international obligations.  
Commission could look favourably on a compromise if these two points were 
recognised -- and the wording used at the end of amendment 76 (PSE) might form 
the basis of a compromise becasuse it invokes the TRIPs agreement,

-- Program Claims:  Commission was originally against, and this was not an 
oversight, but something we considered long and hard.  But after reflection, 
and let me not disguise that a lot of the reflection
due in part to the views expressed by the Parliament, it is now ready to 
reconsider.  A clause to allow program claims might work if re-worded carefully 
and cautiously.

-- Unfortunately I cannot be so positive about them.   

they introduce a special regime for computer-related technologies

Patents should be examined in a neutral manner, the type of technology on which 
they require.

problem.  Patent examiners  must not have preconceptions about an invention 
they are considering because of the technology it uses.  TRIPS requires this.

-- Amendments on monitoring:  Commission has less of a problem with these, but 
its resources are finite, cannot accept unreasonable demands.  Some of the 
proposed demands were way too broad, much wider than scope of the directive.


Responses to particular individuals

Rocard: Proposal does not guarantee no swpat
Bolkestein:  It lays down a specific hurdle: non-obvious technical contribution

McCormick, de Clerk:  similar

Echerer:  If a small part of a problem was patentable, this would make the 
whole problem patentable
Bolkestein: Patent has to cover the whole solution to a problem, not a little 
part.  Patenting the whole solution does not monopolise the use of component 
parts.

SMEs: if they are patent users, nothing is made patentable which is not already 
patentable.  If they are inventors, this will help protect them.

Finally he quoted Wuermeling: whoever opposes this directive must know that 
without it the present practice will continue.

The McCarthy report would achieve the right balance.