European Parliament Rejects Attempt to Rush Vote on Software Patent Directive

    European Parliament Rejects Attempt to Rush Vote on Software Patent
                                 Directive

                            Brussels 2003/06/26

                           For immediate Release

   The  European Parliament has postponed the vote on the software patent
   directive  back  to  the  original  date  of 1st of September, thereby
   rejecting  initially  successful  efforts  of  its  rapporteur  Arlene
   McCarthy  (UK  Labour MEP of Manchester) and her supporters to rush to
   vote  on June 30th, a mere twelve days after publication of the highly
   controversial  report  and  ten  days  after  the unexpected change of
   schedule.

Background

   Members  of  Parliament  from  all  parties had complained that it was
   impossible to react adequately within a timeframe of 10 days.

   Until  Wednesday,  leaders  of  the two largest blocks, the socialists
   (PSE)  and  conservatives  (PPE),  seemed  determined  to  follow  the
   recommentations  of  their "patent experts" and go ahead with the vote
   quickly.  They explained that there was no reason to wait, because all
   possible  amendment  proposals  had  already  been  submitted  to  the
   committees  and translated to all languages, and there was no need for
   new  amendments.  This  view  however became increasingly difficult to
   uphold,  as  more  and  more  MEPs  in all parties became aware of the
   schedule  change  and  pointed  out  that  they  wanted to prepare new
   amendments.  Within  the  socialist  group,  a large opposition group,
   possibly  the  majority,  gathered  around  Michel  Rocard  (FR), Luis
   Berenguer  (ES), Evelyn Gebhardt (DE), Olga Zrihen (BE) and other MEPs
   who had played a prominent role in resisting software patentability.

   On  Wednesday  the  climate change became apparent. More and more MEPs
   rumored that the schedule would not be upheld. Even [1]Arlene McCarthy
   was  quoted as saying that it might be too tight. A spokesman from the
   [2]General  Directorate  for  the  Internal  Market  of  the  European
   Commission,  which  has  been  pushing for the directive together with
   Arlene  McCarthy  and  other  allies  in the Parliament's Commitee for
   Legal   Affairs   and  the  Internal  Market  (JURI),  meanwhile  told
   journalists:  "Arlene  McCarthy  has  tried  hard  to  have  the  vote
   conducted  on  June  30th,  but as things now stand, this looks rather
   unlikely."

   On  Thursday  morning,  at  the meeting of the secretary generals, the
   representatives  of  all political groups voted for postponment. Their
   vote  was  confirmed  by  the  conference  of presidents (i.e. head of
   transnational  party  groups) during their session at 3 p.m. At 8 p.m.
   the decision was made public on the Parliament's [3]schedule webpage.

   Many  software professionals have been contacting their MEPs in recent
   days.  A  letter  by  [4]Tim  Jackson, operations manager for Internet
   Assist Ltd in Chelmsford, UK, reflects the mood:

     Almost  all  involved in software in Europe, bar a select few large
     corporations,  and  law  firms  who  make money from litigation and
     legal  complexities,  are opposed to software patenting. There is a
     huge  groundswell  of  opinion  amongst the real software engineers
     (who  understand  the  complex  process  and  history  of  software
     development)  which  favours  strong and unambiguous prohibition of
     patents  on  software.  Copyright  is  the  right  tool  to protect
     software,  not  patents.  By  using  grossly misleading and emotive
     language  such  as  "giving software innovators the protection they
     deserve"  the  proponents  are  trying  to give the appearance that
     software  developers and businesses are crying out for "protection"
     by  patents,  when  quite the opposite is true - we (and society at
     large) actually want and need protection from software patents!

     [...]

     If  any  of you intend to vote in favour of the proposed Directive,
     may  I  ask  you to be so kind as to explain to myself your reasons
     for concluding that this is in the interests of Europe? The eyes of
     many  IT-literate constituents are on you, and you will undoubtedly
     permanently  lose  many  of  our  votes  (certainly including mine)
     should  you  choose  to support this assault on our livelihoods and
     interests.

   The  groundswell  of  public  sentiment,  together  with  a  concerted
   lobbying  effort  by a group of 2000 software companies coordinated by
   FFII/Eurolinux,  has undoubtedly helped to raise awareness among MEPs.
   As FFII president Hartmut Pilch remarked:

     With  the big pressures in European institutions it might seem that
     only  deep  pocket  lobbies  would  be  taken into account, but our
     experience  shows  that  public  opinion, grass-roots efforts and a
     little  coordination  and organisation can still push the interests
     of the majority, at least for so evident cases.

     The  conference  which  we organised with the Greens/EFA in May and
     the  steadily  mounting  pressure  of  public  opinion have clearly
     created  a  sense  of  urgency  among  the  promoters  of  software
     patentability  in  the  Legal Affairs Committee. Now, thanks to the
     postponement,   we  have  three  more  session  weeks  for  raising
     awareness.

     The  Committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (JURI) was
     justly  [5]labelled  a  "legislative  sausage  machine" by its vice
     president  Willi  Rothley  shortly  before  its  misguided  vote on
     software  patents.  This  sausage  machine  has  been turning out a
     seemingly  never-ending  stream  of  poorly  crafted  and  shoddily
     reasoned  special-interest  legislation  for  many years, including
     directives  on  database  exclusivity,  gene  patents  and  copying
     prevention.  Now  perhaps for the first time the sausage machine is
     meeting  significant  public  resistance at a stage where there are
     still  chances  of  stopping  and questioning it. We may cautiously
     hope  that we are part of a process of change for the better in the
     culture of lawmaking in Europe.

Media Contacts

   mail:
          media (at) ffii.org

   phone:
          Hartmut Pilch +49-89-18979927

   More Contacts to be supplied upon request

About the Eurolinux Alliance -- www.eurolinux.org

   The  EuroLinux  Alliance  for  a Free Information Infrastructure is an
   open  coalition  of  commercial  companies and non-profit associations
   united  to  promote  and protect a vigourous European Software Culture
   based  on  copyright, open standards, open competition and open source
   software  such  as  Linux.  Corporate members or sponsors of EuroLinux
   develop  or  sell software under free, semi-free and non-free licenses
   for operating systems such as GNU/Linux, MacOS or MS Windows.

About the FFII -- www.ffii.org

   The  Foundation  for  a  Free  Information  Infrastructure (FFII) is a
   non-profit association registered in Munich, which is dedicated to the
   spread  of  data processing literacy. FFII supports the development of
   public  information  goods  based on copyright, free competition, open
   standards.  More than 250 members, 300 companies and 15,000 supporters
   have  entrusted  the  FFII  to  act  as  their  voice in public policy
   questions in the area of exclusivity rights (intellectual property) in
   the field of software.

Permanent URL of this Press Release

   http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/plen0626/index.en.html

Annotated Links

   -> [6]PSE pushes Parliament to rush vote on McCarthy software
          patentability directive
          Due to requests from the Socialist Group (PSE) of JURI
          rapporteur Arlene McCarthy, the European Parliament protracted
          the planned vote on software patentabilty from September 1 to
          July 1, just 13 days after McCarthy won the vote in the Legal
          Affairs Committee (JURI).

   -> [7]Vote in 8 days: 2000 IT bosses urge European Parliament to say
          NO to software patents
          A "Petition for a Free Europe without Software Patents" has
          gained more than 150000 signatures. Among the supporters are
          more than 2000 company owners and chief executives and 25000
          developpers and engineers from all sectors of the European
          information and telecommunication industries, as well as more
          than 2000 scientists and 180 lawyers. Companies like Siemens,
          IBM, Alcatel and Nokia lead the list of those whose researchers
          and developpers want to protect programming freedom and
          copyright property against what they see as a "patent
          landgrab". Currently the patent policy of many of these
          companies is still dominated by their patent departments. These
          have intensively lobbied the European Parliament to support a
          proposal to allow patentability of "computer-implemented
          inventions" (recent patent newspeak term which usually refers
          to software in the context of patent claims, i.e. algorithms
          and business methods framed in terms of generic computing
          equipment), which the rapporteur, UK Labour MEP Arlene
          McCarthy, backed by "patent experts" from the socialist and
          conservative blocks, is trying to rush through the European
          Parliament on June 30, just 13 days after she had won the vote
          in the Legal Affairs Committe (JURI).

   -> [8]JURI votes for Fake Limits on Patentability
          The European Parliament's Committee for Legal Affairs and the
          Internal Market (JURI) voted on tuesday morning about a list of
          proposed amendments to the planned software patent directive.
          It was the third and last in a series of committee votes, whose
          results will be presented to the plenary in early september.
          The other two commissions (CULT, ITRE) had opted to more or
          less clearly exclude software patents. The JURI rapporteur
          Arlene McCarthy MEP (UK socialist) also claimed to be aiming
          for a "restrictive harmonisation of the status quo" and
          "exclusion of software as such, algorithms and business methods
          from patentability". Yet McCarthy presented a voting list to
          fellow MEPs which, upon closer look, turns ideas like "Amazon
          One-Click Shopping" into patentable inventions. McCarthy and
          her followers rejected all amendment proposals that try to
          define central terms such as "technical" or "invention", while
          supporting some proposals which reinforce the patentability of
          software, e.g. by making publication of software a direct
          patent infringment, by stating that "computer-implemented
          inventions by their very nature belong to a field of
          technology", or by inserting new economic rationales
          ("self-evident" need for Europeans to rely on "patent
          protection" in view of "the present trend for traditional
          manufacturing industry to shift their operations to low-cost
          economies outside the European Union") into the recitals. Most
          of McCarthy's proposals found a conservative-socialist 2/3
          majority (20 of 30 MEPs), whereas most of the proposals from
          the other committees (CULT = Culture, ITRE = Industry) were
          rejected. Study reports commissioned by the Parliament and
          other EU institutions were disregarded or misquoted, as some of
          their authors point out (see below). A few socialists and
          conservatives voted together with Greens and Left in favor of
          real limits on patentability (such as the CULT opinion, based
          on traditional definitions, that "data processing is not a
          field of technology" and that technical invention is about "use
          of controllable forces of nature"), but they were overruled by
          the two largest blocks. Most MEPs simply followed the voting
          lists of their "patent experts", such as Arlene McCarthy (UK)
          for the Socialists (PSE) and shadow rapporteur Dr. Joachim
          Würmeling (DE) for the Conservatives (EPP). Both McCarthy and
          Würmeling have closely followed the advice of the directive
          proponents from the European Patent Office (EPO) and the
          European Commission's Industrial Property Unit (CEC-Indprop,
          represented by former UK Patent Office employee Anthony Howard)
          and declined all offers of dialog with software professionals
          and academia ever since they were nominated rapporteurs in May
          2002.

   -> [9]Transscript of Rothley's saussage machine speech
          German social democrat MEP Willi Rothley expresses frustration
          with the European Commission's proposal, saying that it is
          messy and unnecessary. The patent courts find the right balance
          by themselves and the legislator is hardly able to set any
          better rules than what the courts work out. However the
          legislative apparatus is like a sausage machine that has to be
          kept working. From time to time it just must spit out new laws,
          no matter whether needed or not, and we, the MEPs are caught in
          this machine and forced to somehow make the best of it.
          Rothley's speech struck a chord of resonance in JURI, as the
          laughter shows.

          see also [10]sound recordings of JURI sessions

   -> [11]FFII: Software Patents in Europe
          For the last few years the European Patent Office (EPO) has,
          contrary to the letter and spirit of the existing law, granted
          more than 20000 patents on what the law calls "programs for
          computers" and what the European Patent Office (EPO) started to
          call "computer-implemented inventions" in 2000: software in a
          context of patent claims, i.e. rules of organisation and
          calculation framed in terms of generic computing equipment. Now
          Europe's patent community is pressing to impose the EPO' recent
          practise by writing a new law. Europe's programmers and
          citizens are facing considerable risks. Here you find the basic
          documentation, starting from a short overview and the latest
          news.

Références

   1. http://swpat.ffii.org/players/amccarthy/index.en.html
   2. http://swpat.ffii.org/players/cec/index.en.html
   3. http://www3.europarl.eu.int/ap-cgi/chargeur.pl?APP=IRIS+PRG=REPRIEF+FILE=REPRIEF+SESSION=JUL|03+DAY=1+SES=ALL+LG=FR+BACK=NONE
   4. http://www.timj.co.uk/digiculture/patents/
   5. http://aful.org/wws/arc/patents/2003-06/msg00091.html
   6. http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/plen0620/index.en.html
   7. http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/epet0622/index.en.html
   8. http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/juri0617/index.en.html
   9. http://aful.org/wws/arc/patents/2003-06/msg00091.html
  10. http://www.digitalforbruger.dk/SWPAT/
  11. http://swpat.ffii.org/index.en.html