=== Reply/counterstrike A reply/counterstrike some of !EICTAs own words that can be found at: http://kwiki.ffii.org/Eicta0410En Transformations: * Council's political agreement => Parliament's political achievement * inventions => problem solutions * CII directive => !SWPat directive * (Arend) added some points. They still need some rewriting. -------------------------- Representatives of Europe's software-developing !SMEs strongly *support the position taken by the European Parliament* in its first reading on the directive concerning the /Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions/, also known as the Software Patents (!SWPat) Directive. In our digital era, computer-implemented, or software-enabled, problem solutions are at the heart of all digital technology and are a very significant force behind innovation in Europe in so many industry sectors, covering healthcare, telecommunications, mobile phones, cars, aviation and consumer electronics. These software-enabled problem solutions will continue to boost Research and Development (R&D) and secure employment in Europe, as long as their underlying ideas and principles are not locked out from further development for 20 years by broad intellectual monopolies. In the world of computer software, the writings and execution of programs is subject to copyright law; in the world of material goods, application of technical concepts is subject to patent law. On the other hand, some of the Councils proposals would deprive authors from their rights established by copyright and international treaties such as TRIPS, since unpatentable copyrighted works can constitute patentinfringiment due to those proposals. A directive along these lines, harmonizing EPC countries with the current EPO practise and thereby strengthen allredy granted and future software patents, would seriously threaten software R&D in Europe. Thousands of jobs in Europe are at risk, since every computerprogram builds on mainly old ideas, only combined in a new way. More and more industries are reliant on innovative software in their products, and as such an increasing proportion of the R&D budget is threathened to be spent on patents and lawyers instead of software-related development, not to mention license fees and possible future litigation costs. The loss of the burden associated to obtaining and defending software patents would put European companies at a competitive advantage in the short term and in the longer term improve the incentive for further investment in R&D in Europe. Overall there will be more software-related innovation in Europe. The political achievement by the European Parliament's first reading on the !SWPat directive provides the necessary distinction between patentable technical inventions on one hand and abstract logic concepts on the other hand, in a way consistent with international treaties such as !TRIPs. This distinction will protect software developers and their enterprises from being deprived of the fruits of their works by holders of inappropriately broad patents. Unfortunately, the *Council of the EU* proposes another version of the !SWPat directive. It explicitly allows patent claims on computer programs, and thus makes software developers an interesting target for litigation firms. The Council's version of the directive therefore deprives programmers of the benefits of copyright. Authors in no other field have to be scared that the original cause or style of their writings may have been monopolised, and that they thus are unsure whether or not they may be able to sell (or even publish!) what they wrote after they finished it. A directive along the lines of the Council would seriously threaten software R&D in Europe. European and non-European companies alike would shy away from investing in software innovation in Europe. Thousands of jobs in Europe would be at risk. It's not for nothing that over 350.000 European software developers and citizens have signed the petition against software patents in Europe. The political achievement by the *European Parliament*'s first reading on the !SWPat directive will help the European Union to fulfill the Lisbon Agenda for Europe to become the leading knowledge-based economy and is the best way forward for Europe because: * It secures Europe's position as a leading global innovator. Europe is a prominent player in software-enabled problem solutions in many areas such as healthcare, telecommunication, mobile phones, cars, aviation and consumer electronics. * Europe needs well-designed and non-conflicting copyright and patent laws to maintain and strengthen its innovative power. The European industry currently spends over 15 billion Euros a year on R&D and employs more than 100,000 innovators. * Copyright provides exclusive rights for innovations in the software field and should not be compromised by an innovation-stifling inappropriate expansion of the patent system. * Copyright is an important prerequisite for funding software R&D. Venture capitalists can only invest in innovative !SMEs in the software field if present and future innovations in this field are protected by their developer's exclusive rights. * There is no valid reason to include non-technical innovations to patentability; that would run against significant economic and legal expertise. * There is no valid reason to allow patent claims covering the possible original causes to write computer programs, that would stifle further innovation and competition by taking away the motive to further development. * In a time when multinationals are moving R&D jobs outside Europe, !SMEs need to be able to provide new jobs for European software developers. Broad patentability of software would give the same multinationals that outsource R&D jobs to Asia and India the means to prevent European !SMEs from reestablishing these lost jobs trought the creation of new innovative products. * The new member states hardly have any software patents. Their evolving field of software development could be an attractive alternative for the current practice of outsourcing to low-wage countries outside Europe. European companies have a competitive advantage if they can supply the home market without having to pay heavy licensing costs. * Almost 75% of the currently granted software patents with a doubtful legal status are in the hands of non European multinationals. It is clear that Europe would be a netto payer if software patents were to be enforced. A restrictive !SWPat policy prevents Europe from basically sponsoring it's foreign competitors. * European !SMEs account for percentages as high as 80% of the employment in the software field of some member states. Low entry barriers to the European market are benifitial for !SMEs to build up their companies. * It will make a clear distinction between technical inventions and abstract logic concepts protecting authors exclusive rights by: specifying industry to production of material goods, defining the technical field to an industrial application requiring the use of controllable forces of nature to achieve predictable results, and ensure that the production, handling, processing, distribution and publication of information, in whatever form, never can constitute direct or indirect infringement of a patent, even when a technical apparatus is used for that purpose.