[Fsfe-ie] IP-Watch: Industry Readies For Round Two Of EU Patent Directive
teresahackett at eircom.net
teresahackett at eircom.net
Thu Jan 19 16:05:08 CET 2006
A new entry has been posted to the Intellectual Property Watch weblog.
Prague—Patent-dependent industries that spent heavily for lobbying on a
failed directive on the patentability of computer-related inventions are
learning from their mistakes as they prepare for the possible
resurrection of the issue.
Lobbyists attending a Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) in Prague on
17 January signalled they will move early on the patent directive issue
following the European Commission’s release this week of a questionnaire
asking for views on the patent system. Comments received by the 31 March
deadline could lead to the formulation of a new proposed directive.
“It’s starting again,” said Guenther Schmalz, director of IP for Europe
for software maker SAP. “And I hope this time we will be better prepared.”
Schmalz, who lobbied on the directive last year, said industry “started
very late” last time and will not let it happen again. He told
Intellectual Property Watch that industry representatives developed
informal networks last summer which are being revived. The networks are
specific to each industry but also cut across industries that use patents.
Schmalz added that the difficulty in getting cross-industry consensus on
specific positions led to favouring informal networks rather than formal
coalitions. For instance, companies that make software can have
different purposes for patented products. His company is the third
largest independent software maker in the world after Microsoft and
Oracle, but other companies develop more software than SAP. Siemens has
twice the number of software developers that SAP has, but Siemens
develops the software embedded in its machines rather than for retail.
Schmalz said opponents of the directive had a three-year start on
industry. He described the opponents’ arguments and tactics, such as
protests and an effective door-to-door campaign to convince parliament
members of the problems with the directive. Schmalz called for a
“bridge” between positions on the directive, and posed questions to be
answered about the need for special rules for the protection of
He identified some areas of disagreement with opponents that will need
to be resolved, such as interoperability and whether a requirement that
a software patent solve a technical problem would limit frivolous patents.
Jonathan Zuck, whose Association for Competitive Technology includes
4,000 large and small companies, said patent quality is “key” to getting
support for a directive. Zuck, along with Stephen McGibbon, Microsoft’s
representative for Central Europe, and others at the meeting
acknowledged a problem with frivolous patents. Zuck said they can never
be entirely eliminated, but fears can be lessened by taking the quality
problem “head on” and showing it can be addressed. He also said more
emphasis should be placed on letting small businesses speak for
themselves on the issue.
Schmalz also mentioned an effort to develop a European community-wide
patent, but said the requirement to put every filing in all 25 EU
languages makes it more expensive than obtaining a patent. Zuck said
industry “desperately wants” community patents.
Despite SAP’s call for a bridge, some meeting participants fed distrust
of the directive’s opponents. PFF’s James DeLong asked how the
opposition got its funding, and whether it came from foundations.
Schmalz replied that it came from open-source software companies.
Speaking to the like-minded business audience, Schmalz also said that
some industry representatives reported being personally threatened
during the debates last summer.
Meir Pugatch of the University of Haifa (Israel) and the pro free market
Stockholm Network, warned industry representatives that this is not time
for a “vacation” in the aftermath of last summer’s defeat. If there is a
need to be filled, he said, it will be filled by one side or the other,
so industry would be advised to act quickly.
Microsoft’s McGibbon said EU Internal Market Commissioner Charlie
McCreevy sees the patent directive as “fundamental” to Europe’s
productivity and competitiveness. Later, PFF President Ray Gifford said
fear of lost competitiveness is an effective argument with policy
makers. Schmalz also raised the spectre of Asian software developers
taking jobs from Europeans if measures are not taken to improve the
European patent system.
Highlighting the need for improvements in the patent system, DeLong said
that in the United States, each patent application gets about 20 hours
of review, but that because of the backlog it takes two years for the
decision to come out.
Czechs Lean Toward Support for Directive
Dana Berova, minister of informatics for the Czech Republic, predicted
the discussions over EU software patents “will continue for years.” She
made clear that her country backs the patent directive, which she said
should not change Czech law.
In response to questions, she said the Czech government is not under
pressure to oppose intellectual property protections, and that the
education of lawyers and others needs to take place to improve the
environment for patenting.
Berova also said that in the debate over a development agenda at the
World Intellectual Property Organisation that smaller economies should
not have different levels of intellectual property rights appropriate to
their size and conditions. Differing levels of development should be
addressed in other ways, she said.
Karel Cada, president of the Czech Industrial Property Office, said
Czech innovators do not recognise the advantage in obtaining patents for
their work, and that the number of patent filings in the country is far
below its height in the 1930s. The Czech Republic joined the European
Patent Office in 2002 and the European Union in 2004.
Cada argued against several concerns that had been raised by opponents
of the software patent directive. For instance, he said it would not
give patents to pure software, that only technical solutions would be
patentable, and that no trivial patents would be granted.
More information about the FSFE-IE