132 lines
5.2 KiB
HTML
132 lines
5.2 KiB
HTML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
|
|
|
|
<html newsdate="2012-12-08">
|
|
<version>1</version>
|
|
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>First, do no harm: European Parliament must delay vote on unitary patent</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<h1>First, do no harm: European Parliament must delay vote on unitary patent</h1>
|
|
<p>
|
|
The European Parliament is about to vote on a "unitary patent" for
|
|
Europe in its plenary session on December 11. The proposal currently
|
|
on the table is widely known to have serious legal and practical
|
|
problems. In the light of these problems, Free Software Foundation
|
|
Europe urges the Parliament's members to delay the vote until a better
|
|
solution can be worked out.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
Under the current proposal, the Parliament would agree to give up its
|
|
power to shape Europe's innovation policy. This is a dangerous
|
|
proposition. Knowledge and innovation are crucial to our future, and
|
|
we cannot simply delegate their management to a technocratic body such
|
|
as the European Patent Organisation. Europe's political institutions
|
|
have to have the final say over innovation policy. This is a
|
|
responsibility which MEPs cannot shirk.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
"MEPs must not saddle Europe's innovators with a rotten compromise.
|
|
Innovation is a key part of our common future, and it is too important
|
|
to be gambled away in a hasty decision," says Karsten Gerloff, FSFE's
|
|
President.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
The political process that has led up to the current proposal has
|
|
suffered from a marked lack of transparency. The European Parliament
|
|
still has not published the text of the inter-instutional agreement
|
|
which it reached with the Council on November 19.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
"We are deeply alarmed that such a crucial text may be ramrodded
|
|
through Parliament before MEPs and the interested public have had a
|
|
chance to properly consider the text," says Gerloff.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The most important <em>practical problems</em> with the current package:
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Instead of providing uniformity and transparency for market
|
|
participants, the current proposal will create <em>divergence and
|
|
confusion</em>. It will be hard for anyone to obtain clarity on how a
|
|
patent may be used, or where its powers end.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><em>Lack of limitations and exceptions</em> puts Europeans'freedom to
|
|
innovate at risk. There is no provision for compulsory licenses,
|
|
posing a grave danger to public welfare. The lack of a research
|
|
exception puts a millstone of risk around the neck of Europe's
|
|
scientists.</li>
|
|
|
|
- <li><em>Small and medium-sized enterprises</em> are the backbone of
|
|
Europe's economy. If this wrong-headed compromise is accepted, they
|
|
will bear the brunt of the resulting problems. This is not
|
|
something that Europe can afford, much less in the midst of an
|
|
economic crisis.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
The most important <em>legal problems</em> with the current package:
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>The compromise would lead to a <em>fragmentation of the internal market</em>,
|
|
as patents would not be uniformly enforceable across all EU member
|
|
states. Additionally, there would be four overlapping levels of
|
|
patents existing side by side. This will inevitably create
|
|
substantial confusion and business risks for innovators and
|
|
companies.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>A proliferation of courts that may handle patent litigation will
|
|
inevitably lead to a <em>fragmentation of jurisprudence</em>. This
|
|
will even further confuse anyone who comes into contact with the
|
|
patent system, increase the costs of litigation, and make patent
|
|
risks even harder to calculate for businesses.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>The envisioned Unified Patent Court is <em>incompatible with European
|
|
law</em>. Europe's policy makers have failed to address the problems
|
|
highlighted by the European Court of Justice in its Opinion 1/09
|
|
(March 2011). Even the Parliament's own Legal Services department
|
|
has doubts about the package's legality.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
A package which leaves such significant problems unaddressed is not
|
|
fit to be adopted by responsible lawmakers. Policy makers are keen to
|
|
put this hotly contested issue behind them. But this desire must not
|
|
lead them to rush into an ill-considered compromise with numerous
|
|
known problems, in the face of widespread opposition from the patent
|
|
system's stakeholders.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
FSFE joins large parts of the innovation community, and in particular the
|
|
<a href="http://www.ip.mpg.de/en/pub/publications/opinions/unitary_patent_package.cfm">Max-Planck-Institute</a> in urging the Parliament to reconsider the
|
|
unitary patent package. Until a better solution can be achieved, MEPs
|
|
should heed the age-old principle: First, do no harm.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>More information:</h3>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="http://www.ip.mpg.de/en/pub/publications/opinions/unitary_patent_package.cfm">Max
|
|
Planck Institute for "Intellectual Property" and Competition Law: The Unitary Patent Package: Twelve Reasons for Concern</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="/activities/swpat/current/unitary-patent.html">Overview
|
|
of issues with the unitary patent package</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="https://www.unitary-patent.eu/">Resources on the
|
|
unitary patent package</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
<tags>
|
|
<tag key="front-page"/>
|
|
|
|
<tag key="swpat">Software Patents</tag>
|
|
<tag key="european-union"/>
|
|
<tag key="policy"/>
|
|
<tag key="european-parliament">European Parliament</tag>
|
|
</tags>
|
|
</html>
|