Revised software patent ruling applauded

The European Parliament yesterday voted through the controversial directive to harmonise procedures for software patenting across the European Union (EU).

But the Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions has been heavily amended to clarify and limit its scope, leaving opposition lobby groups feeling vindicated - at least for now.

The amended proposals were passed by 361 votes to 157, with 28 abstentions. But Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) insisted on defining areas for exclusion from the directive.

"The directive text as amended by the European Parliament clearly excludes software patents. It hangs together incredibly cohesively. I think we have done something amazing this week," said James Heald, a member of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) and EuroLinux software patent working group, leading lobbyists against the directive.

John Collins, a partner with patent law firm Marks & Clerk, which specialises in IT, told vnunet.com that fears expressed by small business and open source lobby groups had been unfounded.

"The aim is to send a clearer message that, in the EU, you can patent software. You always could, but it evens out the playing field. Nothing more than that," he said.

Collins added that the move was vital for European firms competing on an even footing with US and Japanese rivals, and trying to protect their computer-implemented inventions in the US and Japan where patents were more readily available.

Small businesses, another worried group who had lobbied hard against the directive, would benefit because the legal profession would be better educated, he said.

But with 78 amendments voted on within 45 minutes there are bound to be a few discrepancies. One amendment apparently indicates that algorithms are still patentable, while another states they are not.

The European Parliament will have a chance to iron these out in a second reading. But the Council of Ministers will then give the directive further scrutiny with its patent policy working party which, in the past, has promoted unlimited patentability that includes programs.

Technically, the parliament was voting on whether the European Patent Office (EPO) practice of issuing patents for computer-implemented inventions should be formally legalised across the EU.

The EPO is not an EU body and legislation was not consistent within member EU states, so the effect of the directive is meant to be to ensure clarity and harmonisation.