Arlene McCarthy's software patent "factsheet"

Arlene McCarthy's software patent "factsheet"

From the so-called fact-sheet :

"The proposal applies strictly to inventions which must satisfy the conditions of any invention; must be new, involve an inventive step and must make a technical contribution providing a technical solution to a problem."

Thus the fact sheets carefully uses the term "computer-implemented inventions" to describe that.

Despite that definition, that sound fair at first reading, I have doubts on many points :
1) must be new : with the enormous amount of contribution in the field of computers (free software, students projects etc ...) how can anyone prove that he is the first to have invented something. It will always be easier for big companies with a lot of money to patent things, and thus spoil other people who have aleady found the solution from even continuing to use it.
2) involve an inventive step : as it is well known there is little invention in most of what comes in the field of computer programing. The fact is that facing a problem there is often very few solutions that apply, and patenting them will prevent everyone else to use them, even if we are perfectly capable of inventing those solution ourselves without the help of anyone else.
3) technical contribution : I guess it must not be a trivial one isn't it?

I find indeed that patent for "computer-implemented invention" is pointless, since there has been no such thing created ever. I really would like to see good examples from McCarthy of such invention (there must be some since she argues that 30000 such inventions have been handed out by European Patent Office). I think a good example should be presented and show such an invention that there would nothing to arguee against it.

Finally I also want to say that the European Parliament has to take fair decision. If really software patents is fair, then they certainly have to go on. Sometime the parliament can not take good decisions because a "statu quo" is imposed by European Nations, but at least I hope it will not take too much unfair decisions, because it would spoil the trust we need to have in it.

For the point of fairness I want to mention that Free Software often brings to the market really good and bright pieces of software. Those pieces of software could even be considered inventions according to some people standards, but as they would qualify for such inventions under McCarthy theory, they do so without locking anyone out of using them.

To the contrary companies with patent could attempt to lock out Free Software from certain field of use. I find it is quite unfair when considering what free software brings to the market. I hope this unfairness will also be taken into consideration by those who take the decisions, without always having to assume the consequences.