weird.
While I was reading all those amendments and drafting my comments, FFII published their amendment comments: http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/plen0309/
Weirder still is that they used an almost identical ranking system (+++ ++ + o - -- ---). I'll concede that FFII have more authority on this matter and will generaly side with them on the amendments where we differ. Also, their comments include some of the non-english amendments.
Importantly, they comment that "real tabled amendment numbers will likely be different". So we have to tell the MEPs what amendments we want by giving them the text rather than just the number. (silly system.)
My take is that the most important amendments are:
Art 2(b): defining "technical contribution" (amd 107 very good, 69 good)
Recital 11: software is not a "field of technology" (amd 33)
Article 3 (a) (new): excluding data processing (amd 45)
Article 2 (ba) (new): defining "technical field" (amd 37, 97, 55, 108)
Article 2 (bb) (new): defining "invention" (amd 39, 43)
Article 2 (bc) (new): defining "industry" (amd 38, 118, 44)
Article 4.4 (d) (new): currnt swpats no enforcable (amd 46, 83)
Nice extras: Article 6 (a): interoperability (FFII have this as +++) (amd 50)
Article 5 (a) (new): Free Software always exempt (amd 62)
Proposal title: add words "limits of" (amd 29, 59, 41)
anyway, I'll get working on that email/fax. ciaran.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 04:30:06AM +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: [...]
My quick review of the amendments: (+=good, ++=brilliant, 0=not great, -=lethal, ?=I don't understand) 29-35 + 36 ? 37-39 ++ (38 is of questionable practicality. These three define "technology", "industry", and "invention" respectively) 40-41 + 42 ? 43-45 ++ (43 & 44 are duplicates of 39 & 38) 46 + (duplicate of some previous amendment) 47-49 0 (possibly written with good intentions, it's wording opens loopholes) 50 + (the "interoperability" patent excpetion clause.) 51 0 52 ? (amends the proposal to reject itself?!?) 54r1 ? (amends the proposal to reject itself?!?) 55 ++ (defining "technical field") 56-58 + 59 + 60 0 61 + (!acknowleging the social value of free software!) 62 ++ (!patent *exemption* for Free Software! weird. ++ or +, not sure) 69 ++ 70 ? 71 - (aims to lower patent costs for SMEs. We'd rather reject patentabiltiy) 72-73 + 76 + (another interoperabiltiy clause. good, but we should aim higher) 82-85 + 86 ? 87 ++ ("Exclusions from patentability") 88 ? 89 ? (probably ok, definitely not great. Not enough context, no justification) 90 0 91 - (tries to sound pro-SME, but it's more pro-swpat) 92 - (not much context given. The author doesn't seem to understand TRIPS) 93 - (lacking purpose. MEP annoyingly doesn't give justification) 94 - (lacking purpose. Fluff. same MEP as 92 & 93) 95 ++ (doesn't alter the directive, but it calls for a review of EPO practices) 96 + (or maybe 0. This amendment changes very little) 97 ++ (defines "technical field", and "technical", excludes date processing) 98 + 99 ? 100 - (claiming to be pro-SME, it simply extends the power of patentability) 101-102 + (I'm not 100% certain but I think these are good for us) 103 ++ (seems dodgy, kinda overly broad, but it's in our favour) 104 ++ (or maybe 0. requires unrestricted source code to accompany patents) 105 + (another interoperability clause. okay but we should aim higher) 106 + (7 year term for "computer-implemented inventions")