Brussels, 08/03/2005 (Agence Europe) - European Parliament reactions at the adoption by the Competitiveness Council of the common position on computer implemented invention patents, were not long in coming (EUROPE yesterday p 9). The Commission regrets that the European Parliament request for starting up the legislative process again is a central reason for the tension between the two institutions. Parliament has four months to proceed to a second reading.
Monica Frassoni, co-president of the Greens/EFA said that the decision of the Council was a slap in the face for the very prosperous European information technology industry, as well as for the European Parliament. In a press release she added that the Council was bending to pressure from Microsoft and Co and had betrayed the interests of European software developers. “The Council had also ignored the increasing opposition of this directive in the numerous national parliaments that were concerned, quite rightly, about the future of their software industry”. Frassoni promised that the Greens would be increasing pressure so that the directive did not get through in its present form to the second reading.
Zuzana Roithová (EPP/ED, Czech Republic, vice president of the internal market and consumer protection committee) considered the most recent developments in this dossier as “scandalous”. In a press release she said that she was very disappointed by the adoption of the common prostitution, “the draft is very discriminatory to Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in the information technology sector…the European Commission has not carried out any evaluation of the real impact of the directive in new Member States”.
According to the two MEPs, the fact that the Council and Commission had not taken into consideration Parliament's demand to relaunch the procedure, provoked an inter-institutional conflict. In February, Parliament asked the Commission to start the legislative procedure from scratch (EUROPE 18 February). Monica Frassoni declared that the Council had ignored Parliament's wishes and had created a serious conflict between Parliament, Commission and Council. Zuzana Rothaová stated that
“serious procedural problems”, as well as a possible conflict between the institutions, even if common sense wins out in the end.
On 7 March, the Competitiveness Council therefore formally adopted its common position on the so-called draft “software patent” directive. President of the Council, Jeannot Krecké indicated at the end of the meeting that he was assuming responsibility for having refused to reopen discussions on this very controversial dossier. He considered that the Council, after having identified the political agreement on a legislative dossier, “could not change its mind” because there was no other way to proceed from an institutional point of view. Krecké was keen to reassure Member States that had significant difficulties in formally reiterating their agreement that the common position would not be adopted as it currently stood. This will be the role of the second reading.
Divergent reactions from sector concerned
Several European associations representing companies reacted with enthusiasm or scepticism at the formal adoption of the Council's common position. The European Information and Communications Technology Association (EICTA) warmly welcomed the Competitiveness Council's decision. Mark MacGann stated in a press release that the common position established a balanced legal framework for protecting and encouraging innovation in Europe. The Director General of EICTA saw the decision as an important success for the Luxembourg presidency and was committed to doubling its efforts to show that patents were good for innovation, for the economy in Europe and for consumers.
The Business Software Alliance (BSA) was also pleased with the adoption of the common position. Over 300 patents have already been submitted for computer-implemented inventions in Europe during the last decade, a press release points out. These patents concern products used on a daily basis such as braking systems and global positioning systems, the BSA notes, regretting that, despite their contribution to European innovation and competitiveness, computer-implemented inventions receive “unacceptable criticism”. The organisation hopes therefore that a public debate will be opened on the fundamental stakes of patentability in Europe and on access to the European patents system by small and medium-sized enterprises.
The European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise (UEAPME) is not at all of this opinion. Speaking through its General Secretary, Hans-Werner Müller, it expresses its “disappointment” on this decision which “ignores the European Parliament's call in favour of a new legislative proposal”. In its current form, the directive would be harmful for SMEs, Hans-Werner Müller states, because it would “strengthen monopolisation of the software sector and would be an obstacle to innovation for SMEs and micro-enterprises”. Mr Müller therefore calls on the European Parliament to introduce the “necessary changes” during second reading in order to prevent patents being submitted for software alone. Without making an apology for free software, UEAPME considers that the system of copyright for software is a success and allows the sector concerned to flourish.