94 lines
3.1 KiB
HTML
94 lines
3.1 KiB
HTML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
|
|
|
|
<html>
|
|
<version>1</version>
|
|
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>FSFE - Unitary patent: model letter for companies</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
<body>
|
|
<h1>Unitary patent: model letter for companies</h1>
|
|
|
|
<p>Dear [INSERT MEP'S NAME],</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>We are writing to you today in your capacity as a member of the
|
|
European Parliament's Legal Affairs committee. On September 17 and 18
|
|
this committee will discuss the European Commission's proposal for a
|
|
unitary patent system. We have some concerns which we would like to
|
|
share with you regarding this matter.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>[INSERT your company's name, what it does, and how the patent system
|
|
concerns you.]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The large number of patent-related lawsuits in the smartphone industry
|
|
in recent years has made it abundantly clear that patents on software
|
|
hurt innovation rather than helping it. The surprisingly high damages
|
|
awarded to Apple on a doubtful basis in its lawsuit against Samsung
|
|
illustrate how patents on software create dangerous uncertainty for
|
|
companies and damage competition.</p>
|
|
|
|
<br />
|
|
|
|
<p>In its current form, the proposal would mean that Parliament hands
|
|
control over an important part of Europe's innovation policy to the
|
|
European Patent Organisation, without proper supervision or
|
|
control.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>We ask you to ensure that the patent system remains under the
|
|
political control of the European Parliament. Please support the
|
|
relevant amendments proposed for the patent package, with the numbers
|
|
58, 59, 62, 77, 80 and 90.</p>
|
|
|
|
<br />
|
|
|
|
<p>By handing the sole jurisdiction over patent disputes to a central
|
|
court without proper checks and balances, the proposal as it currently
|
|
stands also poses a grave risk to due process for everyone involved in
|
|
patent litigation.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Please ensure that all parties in patent litigation cases have
|
|
recourse to their national courts, and can ultimately appeal to the
|
|
European Court of Justice. The amendments designed to achieve this are
|
|
numbered 59, 80 and 81.</p>
|
|
|
|
<br />
|
|
|
|
<p>Finally, the patent package in its current form risks cementing the
|
|
EPO's practice of awarding patents on computer programs. As
|
|
illustrated recently by the Apple/Samsung case, software patents
|
|
create unnecessary uncertainty for investors and risks to competition,
|
|
while doing nothing to promote innovation. In this area, the EPO's
|
|
practice has diverged markedly from the letter and spirit of the
|
|
European Patent Convention's Article 52 (c).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Parliament needs to effectively ensure that computer programs are
|
|
excluded from patentability. Please make it clear that a computer
|
|
program cannot be patented just because it runs on generic data
|
|
processing hardware.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The European Parliament has already rejected patents on software
|
|
twice, on September 24th, 2003 and on July 6th, 2005. For the sake of
|
|
Europe's IT economy, we ask you to stand by these decisions, and
|
|
support the amendments numbered 63 and 64.</p>
|
|
|
|
<br />
|
|
|
|
<p>Thank you for considering our concerns. We remain available for any
|
|
questions you may have.</p>
|
|
|
|
<br />
|
|
|
|
<p>Sincerely,</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>[INSERT NAME]</p>
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
|
|
</html>
|
|
<!--
|
|
Local Variables: ***
|
|
mode: xml ***
|
|
End: ***
|
|
-->
|