Quick Links

Columnists

HAVE YOUR SAY in the ip review poll

Which type of magazine do you read the most to keep up-to-date with Industry news?

MEPs review EU software patent status

Full Story

A round-table discussion between EU politicians has turned the spotlight back onto the European software patent debate, with MEPs taking over from vested interests for the first time to offer their thoughts on the subject. Details of the conference, revealed in a European Patent Office (EPO) press release of 11 July, underline the depth of the impasse that occurred between pro and anti groups two years ago, and give an insight into how patents fit into the EU’s wider economic plans.

Free Democratic Party of Germany MEP, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, highlighted the differences between the EPO and other patent offices. ‘The EPO is the cornerstone of the patent world, which manages to maintain high standards,’ he said. ‘The US grants too many patents and of too low quality which are cheaper to obtain and often quite trivial. The Chinese Patent Office is fully funding patents of SMEs and thereby fostering speedy innovation. Thus, the European system is under threat. The existing CII [Computer Implemented Invention] system might only be second best, but there is no room for a new dogmatic discussion which is not based on facts but emotions.’

He added: ‘There was a real distortion of facts and realities [in 2005]. The conflict was between innovators and producers, and not big business against SMEs.’

Austrian Green Party MEP, Eva Lichtenberger, cast doubt not just on the patent infrastructure itself, but the ability of the EPO to deliver economic change – or even basic flexibility: ‘Patents are not the solution for economic growth in the EU, not even in collaboration with China and the USA,’ she said.

MEPs took part in four panels that looked at the economic and political viewpoints on EU software patents, plus the user’s experience and the EPO’s practices. While those present agreed that reviving the debate would not be productive, some members suggested that change was necessary. One idea noted in that spirit was the ‘soft IP’ approach favoured by IBM, in which all patents would be open to those who wanted to use them, as long as a set licensing fee is paid.