This section has not taken a position on the very controversial issue of computer assisted invention patents, for a simple reason: my technical knowledge on the matter is insufficient and what I have read and understood does not enable me to give an opinion. One could say that ignorance is never a valid reason. In my defence I would argue that Parliament itself, after months of analyses and discussions has not been able to offer an opinion on a text, given that almost half of it was in favour of the directive presented to it by the Council, while the other half supports sweeping amendments, which would have all but overturned it. I have a lot of consideration for those offering differing opinions, such as Michel Rocard and Klaus-Heiner Lehne. In listening to one of them, I think he's right and listening to the other, I don't think he's wrong.
Radical divergences remain but…The plenary session had nigh on unanimity (626 votes out of 648) and was put together to reject the compromise at the Council and which was accepted by the European Commission. It called on them to, in practice, start again from scratch (EUROPE 8985). We could conclude from this on a first glance that the thesis of non-patentability has won through, as no patent norm has been introduced but in reality none of the two parties feared that a detailed vote on the two hundred amendments submitted to the plenary could affect the draft by introducing provisions to the Community legislation, which could be considered dangerous to either side. The reasons for the rejection were completely contradictory but everyone chose to avoid the worse scenario. Michel Rocard, nonetheless spoke of the “relative success” of his thesis “as we are back to the current legal basis, the European Patents Convention signed in Munich in 1973 but there is more: the EPO (the European Patents Office) is aware that it is now under strict surveillance and that that it cannot grant software patents abusively anymore”. At the same time, those who supported the directive said that they were relieved to have avoided the approval of a text that risked “deteriorating” during the vote and becoming “damaging” and they vigorously deny that their intention was to make software patentable as it stood; which means that what they want is to eliminate or reduce the legal insecurity. The EPO, rejects, in cautious but clear terms, the accusation of having abused its position of responsibility for granting patents, as “going too far” or for having delivered too lightly, software or management method patents. The EPO affirms that it completely adheres to the texts in force, namely and mainly the Convention already mentioned. However, Michel Rocard, who isn't known for talking lightly of matters affirmed that 30,000 patents were granted “in an abusive manner”, for inventions “where only the software was new” and he denounced the anomaly of a national and European level patent policy made by experts and civil servants not by political leaders.
Three reasons (plus one) to welcome the results. Although I am highlighting an issue of which the technical aspects are beyond me, it's because of its institutional significance and because it involves priority aspects of European goals: the Lisbon strategy, the knowledge society, competitiveness of European industry, protection of SMEs. Three elements push me to believing that the European Parliament's use of its faculty for the first time of rejecting the Council's “common position” was the right choice: a) the interest groups concerned (which performed an impressive lobbying feat) said that they were now satisfied with the solution even though they take opposing positions; b) Graham Watson, president of the ALDE group, whose members are torn between the two positions, expressed his fear that the directive, if it had been adopted, would have become “a gold mine for patent specialist lawyers but a nightmare for business” (a situation in which the real economy is always a loser); c) most parliamentarians (as well as other observers) considered the current situation as providing a strong message in support of a genuine Community patent (although the Munich Convention only involves the body of national patents) and that it could therefore help step up the pressure for overcoming the final dissention holding up application, the question of language, the thorny problem which is in dire need of resolving.
According to the president of the European Parliament, Josep Borrell, the attitude of parliamentarians has strengthened the position of the parliamentary co-legislator by improving institutional balance in the Union. Another reason to welcome the 6 July vote.
(F.R.)