Strasbourg, 05/07/2005 (Agence Europe) - On the eve of its vote in second reading, MEPs held a debate on Tuesday on the draft directive on computer assisted inventions. Discussions again revealed the sharp differences of opinion among MEPs on delineating the field of application for patents. These positions at present appear difficult to overcome. Several MEPs from the EPP-ED group, generally in favour of the Council's common position introducing a wider definition of patentability, consider that the debate is still underdeveloped. A rejection of the Council's common position was not ruled out on Tuesday evening (the vote is at Wednesday lunchtime). The Greens/EFA and the United European Left submitted a joint amendment in this sense. The Liberals (ALDE) did likewise. On behalf of the Commission, Joaquin Almunia, supported the common position of the Council and indicated that in the even of rejection of the position by the EP, his institution did not intend to present another proposal. In a last ditch attempt of persuasion, lobbies from the two sides confronted each other in nautical jousting on the canals alongside the European Parliament.
“Silicon Valley was developed without a patent!” declared French Socialist Michel Rocard. He warned his colleagues against putting a patenting on everything and proposed that they got back to principles and law by refusing to adapt this in the current confusion that allowed for patents of “inventions where it is only the software that is new”. In the USA, this confusion led to the granting of 200,000 patents for such inventions and in Europe, the European Patents Office (EPO) had granted thirty thousand despite the European Convention of 1973, explained the rapporteur. Patents had been granted for “pedagogical methods, commercial methods and surgical guides”. He added that “the leading lights of industry were scared of not being protected any more”. But according to Rocard, faced with the regular increase in corporate legal costs, “the defence industry does better by being unfettered”. During a conference given later in the afternoon, the former French prime minister indicated that he was still not sure if he could obtain a majority for his amendments. He pointed out that everything could be swayed by five or ten votes. He thought that “it is preferable to have no directive rather than have a bad directive” which would validate “an excess of jurisprudence” from the EPO and asked what would happen to “political and legal stability from a hastily adopted law”. Asked about a possible rejection by the EPP-ED, Rocard referred to the fear of the “ political effect of a small majority” leading to a situation of “legislative anger”. The PES group is expected to adopt a definitive point of view on Tuesday evening.
The present proposal does not aid to “abolish existing practices” nor “patent pure software”, assured Commissioner Almunia, speaking on behalf of the Commission instead of the absent Charlie McCreevy. He added that “the Commission defends the line defended by the Council's common position” in which “the general equilibrium” has to be preserved. A “withdrawal” of the draft directive would in his eyes increase the legal uncertainty and would harm European competitiveness. Commissioner Almunia considers that interoperability of system had to be taken into account while protecting the rights of inventors. And that the Commission sought to promote this a “means of increasing competitiveness”.
During the vote tomorrow, it is important that the “Council's common position does not go through the EP without amendments” explained Piia-Noora Kauppi (EPP/ED, Finland) the shadow rapporteur on this dossier. She denounced the attitude of the Council and the Commission which had not taken the opinion of the EP in the first reading into account at all. She referred to the specific technical file from the SCADPlus data base the Commission had on European legislation. Amendments she is proposing are “moderate” and prevent the submission of patents for “software and management methods” as the EPO had gone too far and had granted patents on too lax a criteria. Kauppi added that in no case should they allow a bad directive to get through and expressed her hope that discussion on the Community patent would progress rapidly. During the EPP-Ed press conference at the plenary session, Kauppi said that she wanted general reform of the patent system in terms of procedures and costs. If the EP rejects the Council's common position on Wednesday she hopes that the EC will make such a proposal.
Very involved in the affair, Klaus-Heiner Lehne (EPP/ED, Germany) provided assurances that “nobody wanted to patent software…it's not about that at all…the aim is to prevent legal insecurity” which could happen if the same situation in the USA prevailed in Europe. According to Lehne, the Rocard report as adopted in the legal affairs parliamentary committee as opposed to the position of the rapporteur is “fair and balanced”. He then posed the question of choice of “making a third reading” or accept “a deteriorated and harmful directive”. “This is a question my group will have to look at and resolve”, he said. During the press conference for his group, Mr Lehne pointed out that Michel Rocard's original proposal contradicted relaunching the Lisbon strategy. “This is a nineteenth century concept of an age when they were building steam engines. Today we cannot protect knowledge as in the 19th century”, he explained. If rejection of the common position is voted, the Commission should make a new proposal, and, he said, they trust that it will suggest complete reform. “Patents are to protect the weak against the market holder, independently of whether they are SMEs or large companies”, Joachim Wuermeling (EPP/ED, Germany) said. He went on to add: “I have the feeling that this dossier is not yet ripe for a decision”.
Speaking on behalf of the ALDE, Graham Watson of the UK also evoked the possibility that the Council's common position might be rejected. He explained that only one amendment seems to have majority - that regarding rejection of the common position. One also sees “200 amendments on a single text”. As he sees it, the “risk” is that the future directive will become a “goldmine for lawyers specialised in patents, but a nightmare for companies”. Graham Watson then admitted that, within his group, a small majority of 60% of MEPs, especially French, Polish, and Spanish, could support the “Rocard” amendments, while the others, generally of British, Dutch or Scandinavian origin, would vote against.
“We shall decide whether we shall grant freedom to businesses”, Eva Lichtenberger (Greens/EFA, Austria) said, denouncing the situation in which “no-one states openly that they want to patent software”, and the attitude of those who are “in favour of the Council's common position and will decide in favour of wide open doors for patenting”. Responding to the way positions have developed, Eva Lichtenberger prefers there to be “no directive rather than a bad directive”. During his group's press conference, Helmut Markov (GUE/NGL, Germany) said rejection is not necessarily devoid of all prospect for success.