Talk:Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

In general, can people please "sign" their comments (you can do this automatically with four "~" characters in a row). It makes it easier to see where a question ends and the answer begins, apart from anything else. - Paul 18:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Neutrality

The article sounds rather non-NPOV compliant, e.g.:

"Unfortunately for direct democracy, the Council is essentially comprised of civil servants from national ministries of governments rather than elected parliamentarians (...)."
This is not even true! The Council is composed of national government ministers. Of course they have their civil servants who do the details for them! but they are still responsible for the political decision.

--- the problem of direct democracy lack is known, in this case there is an institutional mixup of forces: The national executive branches are the legislative branches in the council. In the case of strong institutionalised interests as here patent body intrests it means that the institutions write their own laws. I don't think this is biased as it describes the hostile takeover in a very precise way.

Well, the EU Commission (the Council didn't write the proposal but the Commission) acts as the executive body of the EU. There are few countries, if any, where executive bodies are directly elected, so the expression "Unfortunately for direct democracy" is weird and unbalanced.

and it still overstates the powers of the Commission. Although they might like to be a Government, and often behave as if they are, the legal reality is that they are only civil servants. They produce the initial drafts of the laws but they have no powers to decide. And after the laws are ratified, they get to police them. Read the relevant Wiki articles!
The Commission is the administrative body. It is the Council that is the executive body. This is not the USofA: it does not have an elective monarchy like the US does. --Red King 12:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Non-NPOV compliant as well according to me (it isn't based on facts but feelings):

"This means the Council is completely isolated from the grassroots activism of the campaign for limits on patentability, and even further away from the national constituents. The goverments are more atuned to the position of organisations such as the Business Software Alliance (BSA), than the Parliament and the constituents. Letter writing campaigns, coalition building and reinforcement of the scholarly case against unlimited patentability, may nonethless "trickle up" through governments to the Council."

-- Edcolins 21:28, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But democracies elect the effective head of the executive, the US president or UK prime minister. Everyone on the commission is an appointee, a significant distinction
See above. The Commission is not the executive. It is only the secretariat. The EU is an association, not a federation. --Red King 12:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[And also] not true, not all prime ministers are directed elected. For instance, Canadian prime ministers are not directly elected. That does not make Canada a lesser democracy. -- Edcolins 22:09, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
--> pls mind the principle of devision of forces! In a western democracy not the governments make their own laws. This principle is infrigend by the EU-Council.
Many executive bodies, i.e. governments, in Western Europe have some legislative power when it comes to enacting laws which have a lesser impact on society. The European Commission initial purpose with the directive was only to harmonize national patent laws, according to which computer programs are nowadays exclude from patentability only to the extent to which the application relates to such subject-matter or activities as such [1]. I don't think the Commission purpose has ever been to totally overrule what happens in practice in European countries. --Edcolins 20:16, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


Regarding the nature of the reverted proposals:

The agreed version permitted patenting of computer-implemented inventions to a certain extent (providing the inventions have a technical character), and overturned most of the Parliament's amendments.

seems to understate the changes. My (limited) reading suggests that the "technical character" requirement is very week - it excludes a program as such, but seems to include a program that is run on a technical device like a computer. If this is actually true, then that edit seriously underplays the significance of the changes, and the extent to which software would become patentable. Can anyone comment more authoritatively? -- Paul 16:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's easy to be confused by the discussion of "technical character" requirements. The essence of it is that the Council's version is that any kind of algorithm, software idea or informational process can be patented if the patent is drafted correctly. In contrast, the Parliament's version precluded most of these patents. -- pde

[edit] Moving towards a more balanced and correct article

Thanks to Edcolins for his clarifications on Business Method Patents. I think we're moving towards a more balanced and correct article, on the whole.

A few reservations:

I'm a little concerned that the characterisation by an opponent of one side of the debate, moved to the start of the article, is too much PoV. I believe that, after the actual issue is discussed, it may be in order to give one side's view of the other side - but that is hardly the way to start a discussion of an issue. Accordingly, I'll move the opinion below the debate. I'll defer to other editors on the appropriateness of the PoV statement itself.

Can we have a similar summary (Edcolins? Pde?) of the groups "lobbying" favour of the Commission's version? Perhaps in the "Reactions" section? I know it's not all the big players in the computing space (not Sun or HP, for example). Also, I'm not sure of the academic opinion in favour (Economics, IT, and Librarians, for example, tend to be against)...

"Patentable... ...to a certain extent" - on consideration, this qualification seems to obscure rather than clarify the broad patentability of software under the Commission's reversions (and perhaps current patent office practice).

The parliament's changes prevent patentability of "any invention which is somehow related to signal processing" - I have not seen this claim made outside the single, somewhat partisan reference quoted. The article goes on to say that the Parliament's changes "would throw Europe's patent landscape back to the world of the 19th century with its steaming coke-fuelled and oil-contaminated work machinery" - we should be careful not to quote polemic as if it were an authoritative source. I'll use a more measured claim, and state that it's an argument, not an authoritative legal opinion". -Paul 12:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Paul, I added a small paragraph about the position of EICTA, in favour of the Commission's version (more on this can be found on http://www.patents4innovation.com/). But the article still needs more balanced information I think. And the whole structure of the article is getting messy... What do you think? The "Reaction" section does not suit me before the history of the directive... Mmm.. --Edcolins 07:16, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] EICTA and critics

I removed this part:

EICTA has in turn been characterised by opponents of software patents as a classic example of an organisation which has been captured by the IP departments of its largest members, especially US multinationals.

Please cite your sources. I can't find the exact sentence on the web or something close to it, with such strong words like "captured by the IP departments of its largest members, especially US multinationals" [2]. --Edcolins 20:27, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

You might like to consider this [3] from FFII's Hartmut Pilch:
"Their positions on software patents have been dominated by patent lawyers from the patent arms of large corporate members, such as IBM's Fritz Teufel"
Or this [4] from AEL's site on software patents:
"That is only 15 of the 49 members of EICTA have "mainly European interest".
or this [5] from NoSoftwarePatents.com's Florian Mueller:
"The patent policy of EICTA .. is tailored to the special interests of a few large corporations that are particularly influential there".
The charge was also several times at FFII's conference in Brussels this November.
Wouldn't you say that I had fairly and succinctly summarised that position? --User:jheald 19:10, Nov 25, 2004 (GMT)
Okay, thanks, I reworded your part to include the sources. Is it alright for you? --Edcolins 21:22, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Clash of cultures?

Recently, I have heard anecdotal claims from relatively reliable second/third-hand sources, suggesting that culture clash has played a significant role in motivating the Commission's perserverance with software patentability. The claim is that various eurocrats, who are used to doing things in a relatively subtle and "respectful" manner, have been deeply offended by the effrontery of free software activists. Clearly this is hearsay but it's also not that hard to believe that this factor works alongside other, more political ones (Eurocrats have been known to find US trade negotiators offensive, let alone hackers).

So, can we find an appropriate way of mentioning this theory? Can anyone involved in the campaign shed more light on it? -- pde 00:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I must admit, this theory rings true. I don't want to be influenced by personal feeling, but I have long felt a certain antipathy to Hartmut Pilch and his colleagues, one of whom was given speaking time at a very productive conference that I attended on this subject a while ago, only to accuse all IP practitioners (of whom there were many amongst the delegates) of being no better than child killers because it was their actions that had led to shortage of drugs in Africa. This type of extreme rhetoric, based on bizarre extrapolation from the facts, tends to harden opposition, rather than stimulating debate.
On a less personal and emotive point, I would also refer to the GE and Honeywell fiasco. This is documented in Jack Welch's own book and in others' commentaries on the story, so I would think that most of it is true. The idea was that GE and Honeywell would merge. Welch, using his political clout and fairly hard-nosed approach, got this through the relevant authorities in the US. Problem solved, he thought. He failed to appreciate the power of the EU to veto the deal, and then failed to understand the conciliatory nature of politics over here. He was by this time fighting an uphill battle, and didn't realise that not everything can be got by hardball. I think that the free software movement has found the same thing.
I'm really disappointed that we didn't get a Directive. To my mind, there was a real opportunity to clarify the position once and for all. Unfortunately, when the whole thing was being promoted through the European Parliament by M. Rocard - who admits to not owning a computer - there was no chance. The vote against was not just led by those annoyed by the high handed attitude of Council (which is, after all, representative of the national governments) but also by increasing disquiet by those who are generally in favour of codifying the current precedents at the EPO but felt that this Directive was a complete mess. Baggie 7 July 2005 11:22 (UTC)

Maybe something like "the strong feelings and aggressive debating style of some members of the computing community, their lack of expertise in the technicalities of IP law and practice, and their all-too-evident lack of respect for the procedures and institutions of the EU may have gained them a less than sympathetic hearing from some of the EU Council's civil servants, and reduced the effectiveness of their critiques of the proposals"? -- Paul 18:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

-- In fact it is a accusation where the horse becomes the rider. As the word civil servants suggests they have to serve. So a statement like this (without a source) only reflects abuse. The primat of politics is clearly violated by the fact that in the council civil servants with close ties to the patent system write their own rules and disinform the lawmaker and the responsible minister about the content.

I would rather say: diplomatic rule or democratic rule. The problem within the EU is that because of lack of public surveillance in media for EU issues, only few citizens taking part on the eu level, because of many organised interest group, a large executive apparatus a kind of diplomatic culture dominates the EU institutions that reflects the lack of democracy.

Then there is the Council constitutional problem: In the Council the national executive branches become the lawmaker, an infringement of the principle of division of powers.

Programmers are usually the guys who seek for a solution of a problem. If A does not work they try B. So they regard politics like programming. They are not intrested in socialising or status or nice speeches, they just want a rule that produces the wanted results. And they never give up.

-- said "217.229.114.." on 24 January 2005

[edit] Reactions

I'm faintly concerned that the "Reactions" section has hardly any analysis, and only ad-hominem comments on the protagonists. Maybe it's enough that the rest of the article has a fair amount of discussion of the issues? -- Paul 18:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moved from article for discussion (with context, unclear part in blue)

The way the European Commission decided to ignore all requests for further discussion on the directive led to debate over how much power the Commission should have compared to the Parliament and member states. Some members of Parliament believe that the affair is part of a power struggle between the Commission and the Parliament, and describe it as an abuse of the system. However, other observers remark that the final decision is actually made by a collective decision of member state Ministers and thus that the relevancy of this debate is doubtful.

what I would like cleared:

  • which final decision is made by ministers
  • in what way decision-making by ministers relates do doubtfulness of the debate
  • I assume that the debate in the blue part relates to how much power EC should have, not is EC struggling for power with EP and abusing the system. If that is so than placing the sentence at the end makes the whole section unclear.

--matusz 10:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The original text was very PPoV; this was aimed to balance it. Perhaps the whole para needs to be rewritten, because the original assertion has missed the point: the real struggle is between the Council and the Parliament (not the Commission and the EP). The Governments of the member states will not concede that Parliament is supreme: the EU is an association, not a federation. It is clear that the large majority of Governments want the Patent law to pass: that is why they rejected the Parliament's amendments and reverted to the original text. So, in answer to Matusz:
  • which final decision is made by ministers
because the Ministers (in Council) rejected the Parliament's amendments and reverted to the original text. The law will now go through, because not enough MEPs see the importance of this issue to bother to turn up for a vote. So, as usual, the national governments (especially the UK) will get the EU (CEC/CoE/EP) to do their dirty work and then blame "Europe" for the outcome.
  • in what way decision-making by ministers relates do doubtfulness of the debate
because it is a false debate. The Commission cannot decide, it can only propose. To put it another way, it is the wrong debate.
  • I assume that the debate in the blue part relates to how much power EC should have, not is EC struggling for power with EP and abusing the system. If that is so than placing the sentence at the end makes the whole section unclear.
both. Each assertion is only looking at the pawns on the chess board and failing to see who is moving them. Here is the proof: if by some miracle the Parliament does achieve absolute majority on the second reading, the Commission will withdraw the proposal. The member governments will go back and renegotiate the European Patent Convention [Treaty] and argue that it was never an EU Convention anyway, what about Switzerland.
yes, I agree that the section is unclear becuase it trying both to rectify an error and indicate the contrary view. I'd welcome proposals to rewrite this block completely. --Red King 12:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Now, your explanation is quite clear, but it collides with the initial section of European Union, which states that EU is neither federation nor confederation but a mix of both. From the whole article I get the impression that it is even more complicated, together with the statement that it is an entity sui generis. Also the relations between the administrative bodies seem more even complicated than you explained. The existence of other European, out-of-EU organisations, does not help either.
But we can report the reactions of MEPs, regardless of their being POV or not. The comment that they are mistaken about the role of the Commission and that EP is irrelevant as far as the Directive is concerned, because it shall be decided by the biggest national governments anyway, can be safely put in separate paragraph. That will make it both balanced and clear. BTW, I have often found myself in a position of being unclear, because I tried to put too much information in too little space. Let's give the explanation as much space as it deserves.
--matusz 14:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I agree with all of that. But it doesn't change the fact that the Commission is far more the Secretariat of the EU than its Executive [The Council has that function]. So the statment The way the European Commission decided to ignore all requests for further discussion on the directive is valid only up to the point of the First Reading: after that, it is far more relevant that the Council ignored the amendments and reverted them all back to the Commission's original. To me, that makes it clear that the Commission was "made aware" from the beginning of what was expected and drafted accordingly. Therefore to say that this led to debate over how much power the Commission should have compared to the Parliament and member states. is fundamentally missing the point: there may well be a debate (sources, please) but it is a false debate. The Commission in this case is very clearly obeying its real masters, the national governments. If some members of Parliament believe that the affair is part of a power struggle between the Commission and the Parliament, and describe it as an abuse of the system. then they are very gullible indeed to have fallen for such an simple diversion. Who are these MEPs? Have they forgotten how (UK) Raporteur McCarthy tried to shuffle this through a minor committee as if it were no more important than the dimensions of baked beans tins. So my argument is that the original text just reads as opportunist Eurosceptic point scoring and doesn't belong in a serious analysis of this issue. If it belongs anywhere, then it should be a commentary on the Codecision procedure. It's just noise here. --Red King 00:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Council of Ministers

The main problem with the Council text is the introduction of program claims. This goes beyond all previous proposals.

Pls note that the Council text is not adopted yet.

-- said "217.229.114.." on 24 January 2005

[edit] Supermajority?

Majority, absolute majority, two-thirds majority, majority of members, majority of members voting... Anyone care to give a definitive account of what sort of majority is required in the parliament to modify the directive at the second reading? The article seems to vary... --Paul 18:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A majority of all MEPs, whether voting or not, for whatever reason.

[edit] McCreevy 8 May 2005 confirms "software patents"

http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+AGENDA+20050308+SIT+DOC+XML+V0//EN&LEVEL=2&NAV=S&LSTDOC=Y&L=EN

Commission communication - Services in the internal market/Patentability of computer software Commissioner: Charlie McCreevy

From the Commissioner's Speech:

"Well, ehh, to the wide ranging ehh a issues raised I could possibly not contribute to all the point. But on the software patents - and I clearly indicate software patent - the ball is in the court of the European Parliament."

[edit] international impact

This obviously has international impact far beyond the EU's borders...the article doesn't seem to clarify on this? -- Natalinasmpf 6 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

If you can suggest some, feel free. There is a new section called Consequences. --Red King 6 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)


[edit] Picky point of grammar

"apparently none would have been successfully enforced yet".

This sentence seems grammatically suspect. Should it perhaps be "apparently none have been successfully enforced yet". TomH 7 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

[edit] Great article! However, suggestions for improvement

However, could I ask for some clarifications?

  • However, opponents of the original directive claimed that it was a thinly disguised attempt to make all software patentable
    Who were the main opponents?
  • An advocate of the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, however, stated a concern that the Parliament's wording might extend the ban on software patents to inventions potentially implementable in software, such as signal processing equipment
    Who was this advocate?
  • It has been argued that the Council of Ministers and its advisors in this instance are generally 'pro-patent', and more strongly influenced by the concerns of business organisations than by the views of constituents and the MEPs they have elected. For instance, the Council in this case is composed of the Competitiveness Ministers from each of the Member States. The deciding Ministers themselves appear to be advised by those with strong connection to the juridical world, which benefits from software patent litigation.
    Furthermore, the Committee of Permanent Representatives which assists and advises the Council is comprised of civil servants from national ministries of governments rather than elected parliamentarians. Furthermore, the members of the patent working group that works on a common position which the national ministries can adopt are civil servants from the national patent offices and other pro-patent people.
    In summary, it is widely claimed that the Council is less aware of the concerns of those who advocate limits on patentability, such as academics, individual developers, and small to medium software developer companies. It appears to be fairly isolated from (national) individual constituencies, and more closely attuned to the concerns of organisations such as the Business Software Alliance (BSA).
    I have real concerns about this paragraph. Though I can well believe it to be the case, no real hard evidence has been produced. There are no citations to sources, and appears to be based on speculation and conjecture.

Other than these things, I would like to see the use of {{ref}} and {{note}}, instead of just inline external links in the main body text. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 04:09 (UTC)

I suggest moving parts which are not supported by proper sources to the talk page, until sources are provided. --Edcolins July 8, 2005 07:41 (UTC)

I have moved the following to the talk page:

It has been argued that the Council of Ministers and its advisors in this instance are generally "pro-patent", and more strongly influenced by the concerns of business organisations than by the views of constituents and the MEPs they have elected. For instance, the Council in this case is composed of the Competitiveness Ministers from each of the Member States. The deciding Ministers themselves appear to be advised by those with strong connection to the juridical world, which benefits from software patent litigation.
Furthermore, the Committee of Permanent Representatives which assists and advises the Council is comprised of civil servants from national ministries of governments rather than elected parliamentarians. Furthermore, the members of the patent working group that works on a common position which the national ministries can adopt are civil servants from the national patent offices and other pro-patent people.
In summary, it is widely claimed that the Council is less aware of the concerns of those who advocate limits on patentability, such as academics, individual developers, and small to medium software developer companies. It appears to be fairly isolated from (national) individual constituencies, and more closely attuned to the concerns of organisations such as the Business Software Alliance (BSA).
Letter-writing campaigns by opponents of the directive, coalition building, and reinforcement of the scholarly case against unlimited patentability all appear to have failed to "trickle up" through national parliamentarians to the Council.

Please cite the sources for this information and the parties who have said this. Until this is done, the material should remain out of the article. Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 07:45 (UTC)

[edit] Ref and Note templates

Have started this off, was wondering if anyone could finish it? I have shown how to add the notes properly. If the note is not a newspaper or magazine article; or if it is not a book reference, then just add it to the note without putting it into references. Thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)

[edit] General comments on consequences

What a relief that that law didn't get passed. Wikipedia would have definitely been communism (and so would "free software") if that happened. Nazism isn't cool 22:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You need to read the article again. That comment suggests that you've really not understood what was going on. The consequence of the vote collapsing is that there is now nothing to stop individual member governments giving patents on ideas, as is already the case in the USA. The amended version of the Directive would have limited the scope of what can be patented strictly to processes. Its defeat has been a pyrrhic victory. --Red King 12:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • This is what some, especially the pro-lobby, would want you to believe. In reality however, the current practise is that, while the EPO and national patent-agencies may indeed grant patents, those are not valid, or, at least, their legal value is in dispute. This makes companies very unwilling to actually sue someone for swpat-infringement, because they have a good chance of being overturned by the national courts - who usually have a far more restrictive interpretation of the 'as such' clause - as has been the case (relative recently) by the German and UK courts. Considering that the directive, as suggested by the commission, would actually have allowed sotwarepatents to be uphold, it is easy to comprehend why a status quo is preferable, and even seen as a victory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.144.64.17 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Is the source reliable?

There has been some sort of revert war relating to the inclusion of this reference: http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/2005/07/software-patents-manifesto.html. Please could you briefly make your point here on the talk page so that other wikipedians may participate to the debate. Wikipedia articles should cite reliable sources for their information. --Edcolins 12:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll start with my opinion. Google returns 14 hits for "software patents manifesto", 13 being from the original blog [6]. At first sight, it does not seem reliable enough (see especially the definition of a primary source here and when they could be used). But I may be wrong. --Edcolins 12:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've made some points for consideration on your page,as you may have noticed. As for 'reliable', I would like to point out that in his last blogentrance, the author has clearly demonstrated the proof of his activism, as well as the use of his manifesto (unless one would argue it's all imaginary and the scanned letters of the reaction of the EU Directorate General are forgeries).
    • I have stopped the reverts for now, because all compromises as yet have been rejected, it is clear the childish behaviour of some posters would simply continue, and it's unclear whether or not there is still the necessity of the citation. If it is still deemed necessary, however, I would be inclined to put the link back, since it is clearly from a directive-oponent (yes, also of the 'first' directive), and the claim made is almost an exact replica of what is mentionned (and asked for a citation) on the wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.144.64.17 (talk • contribs) .
    • edcollins, congrats with your sysop. But, on the matter at hand; are you still in doubt of the reliability of the author in question, even with the scanned proof? Is there still a need for the citation? These questions should be answered to decide whether or not to edit the article along the lines of earlier changes, or not. I think the discussion-timeperiod here has lasted long enough, and aparently, those that deleted it don't feel the need to make any extensive justification or argumentation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.144.64.17 (talk • contribs) .
  • The annotation that most reverting editors have added is that the reference is {{not notable}}, that it is to a very personal opinion piece in a personal blog, written by someone who seems to believe (a) that he single-handedly defeated the proposal and (b) that everybody else involved was obstructive or irrelevant. If he ever got an ID, it would be possible to have a discussion on his talk page rather than than to conduct megaphone diplomacy here.
  • So we move from the particular to the general: is there a Wiky Policy about citing blogs? Because, to my mind, that is a way to side step the policy of Wikipedia is not a soapbox and bump the google citation index of the blog. Citing articles in reputable journals and newspapers, or the websites of organisations with many members is reasonable since they themselves are notable. Personal blogs must pass the test of notability. This one doesn't. Reliability is irrelevant (though I doubt that it passes that either). --Red King 17:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Once again, I would like out the POV statement in the arguments given by Redking and Iancjclarke; the statement that the author claims he has 'single-handledly defeated the proposal' is their (very) subjective interpretation, it is nowhere mentionned by the author himself - but even if it were the case, it would be totally irrelevant. 'Notable' doesn't even enter the picture, when asked for a citation of swpat-opponents, as was the case here (see history). The movement of swpats-oponents was a grass-root movement; there *is no* 'represenative' which can speak for the movement. 'Notable' in that case, is as higly subjective as it comes: how can anyone measure how notable someones actions are, who has been actively involved against the directive from before the first reading more then 2 years ago, who contacted dozens of politicians, who made a manifesto on the directive of more then a dozen pages, who made an official and formal petition, to which the Directorate Generale of the EU has responded positively? How many swpat-oponents does one know, I wonder, who can say the same? If even the EU Directorate General noted it, how can it not be notable? And how can one measure the importance of it? Aparently, by arguing about irrelevant issues. Because 'that everybody else was obstructive or irrelevant', is likewise a totally unsubstantiated claim bordering on the absurd; as far as one can read objectively, of the 15 pages he devotes to the swpat-issue on the blog, he only makes one mild criticism of one particular area of efficiency of the FFII, meanwhile acknowledging they do a good job (hardly consistent with the claim the author would assert 'everybody else was obstructive'). But, once again, even if that completely subjective interpretation of the text were true, it still would be irrelevant. The fact that by mentionning the site, it could get a higher rating in google is equally irrelevant; this is a truism: *every* link mentionned on the wikipedia could lead to that. If that were a reason to prohibit links, then no links should be allowed. Since they clearly are (including links to blogs), the fact that it could lead to a higher ranking is completely irrelevant, once again.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.144.64.17 (talk • contribs) .
  • The only thing to consider is if the link is relevant to the topic at hand. In the case of the citation (which was asked for, see history), it is rather obvious it is: the quotation is of a swpat-oponent, and is almost an exact example of the citation asked for. So, indeed, taken in this context (of the citation), it could be considered relevant if the author in question is truelly a swpat-opponent... what is *not* relevant however, is what some persons subjectively consider him to have claimed - or whether they liked his criticism (or not). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.144.64.17 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] TRIPS lie

Trips 27 is often misinterpreted by lobbyists, i.e. they mix up colloquial and legal wording.

Software is no "field of technology" (in the meaning of patent law). The wording technical has a special meaning in patent law. This also the Parliament confirmed.

Furthermore researchers doubt whether TRIPS 27 defines what has to get patented. TRIPS is a trade agreement with the goal to combat IPR abuse in trade policy, that is that patents were used as non-tariffic trade barriers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.129.107.131 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] This statement does not make sense..

This statement does not make sense: "The proposal became a major focus for conflict between those who regarded the directive as a way to codify the case law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office in the sphere of computing, and those who asserted that the directive is an extension of the patentability sphere, not just a harmonisation, that ideas are not patentable and that the expression of those ideas is already adequately protected by the law of copyright."

You cannot put "a way to codify the case law" in opposition to "extension of the patentability sphere" because it is the same thing. Similarily you cannot say "a way to codify the case law" is the same as "harmonisation". This article thus represents the view of e.g. Swedish Enterprise, who were of the opinion that the directive was "a way to codify the case law", and at the same time said the directive was not about extension of the patentability sphere, but indeed only about "harmonisation".

Further, the introduction of the "ideas are not patentable" concept has nothinhg to do with the directive, but belongs to a discussion on different theories on what a patent is.

I would mark this artickle as "under construction" or "debateable" or something.

//Erik

Can't say I agree with this comment. Firstly, I am 100% certain that the statement being discussed is factually correct. Many of those who wanted the directive through said that it was trying to codify the case law of the Boards of Appeal and to harmonise the law across Europe. Whether or not it was is irrelevant since that is what was said. Similarly, it is totally true that there were opponents who said that the Directive was trying to extend patentability to computer programs and that part of their argument was that "you can't patent ideas". So, the statement stands as an accurate representation of what the different sides in the debate were saying.
Then there is the separate question of whether the different sides in the debate actually made sense. However, if they made non-sensical statements, it is not a fault in the article! Personally, as someone who followed the development of the Directive from start to end, I understand perfectly what both sides were getting at and can recognise how both sides used propaganda and misinformation to try to make their respective points. Because of these underhand (or maybe just honestly misguided) statements, the debate as reported in the article looks a bit messy. But that's because it was messy... and fractious, and heated. In the end, it was probably best for everyone that the Directive got thrown out because it was a horrible mess of a thing once it had been pulled in 15 different directions by the different lobbyists.
Anyway, my point in writing this is to make a vote in favour of the article as a whole. It doesn't need to be marked "under construction" at all. I think it is excellent. As well as getting across the points of view of the proponents and the opponents, it also explains some of the misunderstandings and sticking points on both sides of the debate.
GDallimore 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Talk:Software patents directive

Every time I look for the software patents directive in wikipedia I'm redirected to a page with a name that is highly disputed and controversial. I don't know what to compare it with, but maybe it's similar to that if someone looks for "Free software" ends up on pages called "Open_Source". There must be hundreds of examples where a word in itself conveys a biased meaning that shape the understanding of what is described, so I'm not saying this is a geek matter, but a serious and well known problem (particularly for historians).

To substantiate my claim, I refer to the comprimise amendment tabled by all political groups changing the name to computer-aided inventions. Here is the amendment and it's justification:

           Council common position                                 Amendment by Parliament
                                             Amendment 135
                                                 Article 1
 This Directive lays down rules for the                    This directive lays down the rules
 patentability of computer-implemented                     concerning the patentability of computer-
 inventions.                                               aided inventions.
                                                                                              Or. en
                                              Justification
 This replacement is to be performed at all places in the text where the expression “computer-
 implemented invention” is used.
 The expression “computer-implemented” is not suitable, because it implies that an invention
 can be wholly realised by means of a computer, which would mean that pure software is
 patentable. Since both the Commission and the Council agreed that software should not be
 patentable, the terminology used in the directive should not imply the contrary. The scope of
 the directive is thus the one of the patenting of devices that use software in order to aid the
 performance of the claimed invention.
 The concept of a computer-implemented invention is not used by computer experts either, and
 in fact is not in wide use at all. It was introduced in May 2000 by the European Patent Office
 (EPO) to justify the patenting of "computer-implemented business methods" and bring EPO
 practice into line with Japanese and US practice. The term “computer-implemented
 invention” implies that solutions involving only generic computers are patentable inventions.
 This idea is contrary to Article 52 of the European Patent Convention, which states that
 algorithms, methods for doing business, and computer programs do not constitute inventions
 within the meaning of patent law.The directive can not be intended to declare computer
 programs to be patentable inventions by presenting them in some other wording.

I don't know how to solve the problem in wikipedia, but to me redirecting Software Patents Directive as done now is not a good solution IMHO.

//Erik

The statement above was posted by someone on the talk page for [[Talk::Software patents directive]] and I have moved it here. Someone complaining about the title of this article it seems. I say the current article title is correct since it was the official name of the proposed directive. What other people called it is irrelevant. GDallimore (Talk) 14:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi GDallimore, I'm sorry to post here, but I don't know where else to reach you. You just moved my post on Talk:Software Patents Directive to the bottom of this page that I claim (and justify) has a biased name. It seem to me that you did not read my argument. I can only ask you to read it again because your opinion "I say the current article title is correct since it was the official name of the proposed directive" misses my point completely. As you can see from the justification to the amendment to change the name of the directive, the name itself is controversial, even to the point of being a "propaganda term".

I actually have even one more argument: Many directives get names like "the Bolkestein Directive" (also known as the Services Directive), "IPRED2", and "REACH". These directives all have long and formal names, but they are still "named" something else. The Software Patents Directive is the name this directive got, and opposing that is, in my opinion, not the role of wikipedia editors. I'd rater see a balanced solution, but I have none to propose.

Maybe two pages: "The Software Patents Directive, formally known as the directive directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions" and "Directive directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, also known as the Software Patents Directive"?

Best regards.

//Erik