119 lines
3.5 KiB
HTML
119 lines
3.5 KiB
HTML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
|
|
|
|
<html>
|
|
<version>1</version>
|
|
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>Bullet Points on Saving the CII
|
|
Directive</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
<body>
|
|
|
|
<center>[
|
|
<a href="/activities/swpat/swpat.html">Introduction</a>
|
|
| <a href="/activities/swpat/background.html">Background</a>
|
|
| <a href="/activities/swpat/status.html">Status</a>
|
|
| <a href="/activities/swpat/documents.html">Further Reading</a>
|
|
]
|
|
</center>
|
|
|
|
<center><h1>Free Software Foundation Europe:<br />Bullet-Points on
|
|
Saving the CII Directive</h1></center>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Abstaining is not neutral, it means fully supporting the Council's
|
|
text.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
The Council's text ignores the Parliament's first reading and
|
|
places no effective limits on the scope of patentability.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Interoperability amendments can only fix one class of problems. We
|
|
would prefer Erika Mann's amendment to Kauppi's, but preventing the
|
|
whole software patent problem would be far better use of this
|
|
opportunity.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
"Computer-implemented inventions", is a broad term:
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li>
|
|
It includes "high-tech" innovations, such as medical
|
|
devices and ABS breaking systems for cars. We are NOT opposing
|
|
the patenting of high-tech innovations.
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>
|
|
It also includes ways of using a standard computer: for business
|
|
methods, for communication, sharing information, and for
|
|
displaying information. We oppose the patenting of these things
|
|
("software patents").
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
The Buzek-Rocard amendments permit patents on high-tech
|
|
innovations, but prevent software patents by limiting patentability to
|
|
innovations in "applied natural science" (touchable things,
|
|
not everything thinkable).
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
Patents would not keep jobs in Europe. US companies are moving
|
|
their IT jobs to low cost economies. Gartner Group reports IT
|
|
jobs in the US have dropped 16% in 3 years.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
A recent BSA study confirmed "computer-implemented
|
|
inventions" is a term for what is "usually referred to as
|
|
'software patents' in the US". This is why, despite making
|
|
nothing but software, SAP have placed full-page ads in the European
|
|
Voice asking for "computer-implemented invention" patents. 2
|
|
this week and 2 last week.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
European patents are enforceable only against Europeans. They are
|
|
not enforceable in the US; for that you need a US patent, and they are
|
|
already available to Europeans. 73% of European software patents have
|
|
been granted to non-European companies.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
This directive will allow software patenting, not because it
|
|
contains clear wording in favour of them, but because it relies on the
|
|
undefined terms ("technical", "technical
|
|
contribution", and others), because it relies on grammatical
|
|
tricks like "software as such", and because it relies on
|
|
meaningless classifications like "pure software". This is
|
|
not what EU directive quality should be.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
To make this directive a directive for "high-tech"
|
|
innovations and not the software patent directive that it is today, we
|
|
ask you to vote for the Buzek-Rocard amendments.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</html>
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
Local Variables: ***
|
|
mode: xml ***
|
|
End: ***
|
|
-->
|