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.

news-20121211-01.en.xhtml 4.7KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596
  1. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
  2. <html newsdate="2012-12-11">
  3. <head>
  4. <title>European Parliament adopts deeply flawed unitary patent, gives up
  5. power over innovation policy</title>
  6. </head>
  7. <body>
  8. <h1>European Parliament adopts deeply flawed unitary patent, gives up
  9. power over innovation policy</h1>
  10. <p newsteaser="yes" id="introduction">
  11. Today, the European Parliament has adopted a proposal to create a patent with
  12. unitary effect for Europe. This decision will leave Europe with a patent system
  13. that is both deeply flawed and prone to overreach. It also ends democratic
  14. control of Europe's innovation policy.
  15. <br />
  16. <blockquote>"We are disappointed that so many MEPs were prepared to throw
  17. Europe's researchers and innovators under the bus just to achieve a deal, any
  18. deal" says Karsten Gerloff, President of the Free Software Foundation Europe.
  19. "It is natural that after nearly four decades of discussions on a single patent
  20. system for Europe, most of those involved simply want the debate to end. But we
  21. would have expected more of our elected representatives."</blockquote>
  22. </p>
  23. <h2>Intense criticism from all sides</h2>
  24. <p>
  25. In adopting the proposal, MEPs chose to disregard intense criticism of the
  26. proposal from all sides of the debate. <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.de/2012/12/unitary-patent-deja-vu-council-debate.html">Patent lawyers</a>, independent <a href="http://www.ip.mpg.de/en/pub/publications/opinions/unitary_patent_package.cfm">legal experts</a>, <a href="http://www.april.org/en/against-software-patents-460-companies-demand-improvement-unitary-patent-europe">SMEs</a> and civil society groups such as FSFE all voiced their concerns to MEPs ahead of the vote.
  27. FSFE recognises the important work done by some MEPs, in particular the
  28. Greens/EFA, in informing their colleagues about the serious flaws in the proposal.
  29. </p>
  30. <p>
  31. With this decision, the European Parliament has essentially given up its power
  32. to shape Europe's innovation policy. That power will instead fall to the European
  33. Patent Office, which has a track record of awarding monopoly powers on the widest
  34. possible range of subject matter.
  35. <br />
  36. <blockquote>"We are alarmed to see both legislative and executive power in the
  37. hands of a single agency" says Karsten Gerloff. "The separation of powers is a
  38. fundamental principle of democracy. We regret that in today's vote, many MEPs
  39. were prepared to give this up in exchange for an ill-conceived compromise."</blockquote>
  40. </p>
  41. <h2>Software patents, fragmentation and confusion</h2>
  42. <p>
  43. The text adopted today will lead to fragmentation of jurisdiction and of
  44. jurisprudence across the European Union. Creating divergence and confusion,
  45. the text will make the patent system much harder to navigate for small and
  46. medium enterprises. The European Patent Office will have much greater leeway
  47. to continue its practice of granting patents on software. This will harm competition
  48. and innovation, and create unnecessary risks for businesses and software
  49. developers. It is also likely that the adopted text will lead to more intense
  50. patent litigation in Europe, including by patent trolls.
  51. </p>
  52. <p>
  53. FSFE is also concerned about the lack of a research exception and of a provision
  54. for compulsory licenses. According to the Max Planck Institute for "Intellectual
  55. Property", the envisioned patent court is <a href="http://www.ip.mpg.de/en/pub/publications/opinions/unitary_patent_package.cfm">incompatible with European Union law</a>. These
  56. fundamental flaws mean that considerable uncertainty remains about the way in
  57. which the patent system will operate in future.
  58. </p>
  59. <h2>Next steps</h2>
  60. <p>
  61. According to the <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20121210IPR04506/html/Parliament-approves-EU-unitary-patent-rules">European Parliament's website</a>, "the international agreement
  62. creating a unified patent court will enter into force on 1 January 2014 or after
  63. thirteen contracting states ratify it, provided that UK, France and Germany are
  64. among them. The other two acts would apply from 1 January 2014, or from the date
  65. when the international agreement enters into force, whichever is the latest.
  66. Spain and Italy are currently outside the new regime, but could decide to join
  67. in at any time."
  68. </p>
  69. <h3>More information:</h3>
  70. <ul>
  71. <li><a href="http://fsfe.org/campaigns/swpat/current/unitary-patent.en.html">Overview
  72. of issues with the unitary patent package</a></li>
  73. <li><a href="https://www.unitary-patent.eu/">Resources on the
  74. unitary patent package</a></li>
  75. </ul>
  76. </body>
  77. <tags>
  78. <tag>front-page</tag>
  79. <tag content="Software Patents">patents</tag>
  80. <tag>eu</tag>
  81. <tag>Policy</tag>
  82. <tag content="European Parliament">EuropeanParliament</tag>
  83. </tags>
  84. </html>