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.
164 lines
5.2 KiB
164 lines
5.2 KiB
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?> |
|
|
|
<html> |
|
<version>1</version> |
|
|
|
<head> |
|
<title>EU: the unitary patent</title> |
|
|
|
<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> |
|
<description>Information about the EU's unitary patent.</description> |
|
|
|
</html> |
|
<!-- |
|
Local Variables: *** |
|
mode: xml *** |
|
End: *** |
|
-->
|
|
|