Source files of fsfe.org, pdfreaders.org, freeyourandroid.org, ilovefs.org, drm.info, and test.fsfe.org. Contribute: https://fsfe.org/contribute/web/
https://fsfe.org
You can not select more than 25 topics
Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
163 lines
5.2 KiB
163 lines
5.2 KiB
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
|
|
|
|
<html>
|
|
<version>1</version>
|
|
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>EU: the unitary patent</title>
|
|
<meta content="Information about the EU's unitary patent." name="description" />
|
|
<meta content="computer implemented inventions software patent law copyright ideas computer program compatibility and interoperability companies software developers users non-free Free Software legal uncertainty costs pay smartphones unitary patent" />
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
<body>
|
|
<h1>EU: the unitary patent</h1>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="about">What is the unitary patent?</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Currently, a person or company who wants a monopoly on an idea across
|
|
the European Union must apply for a patent in all 27 member states
|
|
individually.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
A single market where people and goods can move freely across borders
|
|
is one of the central ideas of the European Union. In practice, many
|
|
restrictions still exist. The need to apply for a patent in each
|
|
member state, rather than just once, is often seen as such a
|
|
restriction. Patent holders resent the need to have their applications
|
|
translated into each member state's national language, and comply with
|
|
the different rules in each country.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
For years, the European Commission and others have been trying to
|
|
build a patent system that covers the entire European Union, known as
|
|
the "unitary patent".
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
This process has proved surprisingly difficult. EU member states have
|
|
argued about all sorts of things. For a while, a row about which
|
|
languages patent applications could be filed in under the new, unitary
|
|
system held things up.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Another stumbling block was removed in June 2012, when the European
|
|
Council finally agreed on where the new system's offices should be
|
|
placed.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="problem">Why is the unitary patent a problem?</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
A single European patent system would presumably make things more
|
|
efficient for patent holders, and for people applying to them. But the
|
|
devil is in the details.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
The current proposal has the following problems:
|
|
|
|
<dl>
|
|
<dd>
|
|
No due process: Under the current proposal, the EPO not only awards
|
|
the patent, but also gets to make the final decision on whether
|
|
it remains valid when someone complains. The EPO court also lacks
|
|
a broader perspective of the social costs of patents.
|
|
</dd>
|
|
|
|
<dt>
|
|
We demand that the European Court of Justice must be the final
|
|
court of appeal for patent complaints.
|
|
</dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd>
|
|
Patents on software: Software patents are seriously hurting
|
|
Europe's technology companies. The EPO has been granting software
|
|
patents for decades, even though they are illegal under the
|
|
European Patent Convention. The unitary patent would make this
|
|
problem worse.
|
|
</dd>
|
|
|
|
<dt>
|
|
We demand that the current
|
|
proposal should explicitely
|
|
exclude computer programs from
|
|
patentability. A computer program
|
|
is not a patentable invention just
|
|
because it runs on generic data
|
|
processing hardware.
|
|
</dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd>
|
|
Giving up on innovation policy: Patents are a tool to promote
|
|
innovation. Europe needs a more active innovation policy. Under the
|
|
current proposal, the EU is handing over part of its sovereignty to
|
|
an organisation that it has no control over - the EPO.
|
|
</dd>
|
|
|
|
<dt>
|
|
We demand that the power to set Europe's innovation policy must
|
|
rest with the democratically elected European Parliament.
|
|
</dt>
|
|
</dl>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="action">Take action</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
While our concerns remain unchanged, the unitary patent is no
|
|
longer on the agenda of the Legal Affairs committee for its
|
|
meeting on September 17 and 18. We expect the issue to be
|
|
discussed later in the autumn of 2012.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
We will continue to provide updates on this issue.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3 id="call-mep">Call an MEP</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Doing this is easy. Find an MEP from your country in the Legal Affairs
|
|
committee, and tell them about our demands. You can use <a href="
|
|
http://call.unitary-patent.eu/campaign/call2/unitary-patent-juri-2012?setlang=en">this
|
|
website</a> to identify and to call them. Here, you will also find
|
|
call scripts to help you along.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3 id="letter-company">Companies: Share your concern about the unitary patent with your MEPs</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Please consider supporting a <a
|
|
href="http://unitary-patent.eu/content/companies-get-involved-against-software-patents-and-current-proposal-unitary-patent">resolution</a>
|
|
against software patents and the current proposal for the
|
|
unitary patent.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
If you want to contact an MEP to tell him/her about our demands and how the
|
|
unitary patent might harm your activity, you can find a <a href="/activities/swpat/current/model-letter-companies.html">model letter
|
|
here</a>.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="reading">More articles on this topic</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="https://blogs.fsfe.org/gerloff/2012/09/05/how-the-european-patent-system-works/">
|
|
How the European patent system works</a> by Karsten Gerloff. September 5, 2012</li>
|
|
<li><a href="https://blogs.fsfe.org/gerloff/2012/09/04/software-patents-in-europe-game-on/"
|
|
>Software patents in Europe: game on</a> by Karsten Gerloff. September 4, 2012</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
|
|
</html>
|
|
<!--
|
|
Local Variables: ***
|
|
mode: xml ***
|
|
End: ***
|
|
-->
|