Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions
The term computer-implemented invention ( CIE) was coined in June 2000 in a joint study by the patent offices of Europe, Japan and the U.S. and claim referred to objects of software patents. Thus, a computer-implemented invention is characterized by objects of the following type:
" ... Computers, computer networks or other conventional programmable digital devices, the novel characteristics of the claimed invention will become apparent causes through a new program or programs. "
The term "computer -implemented invention" is mainly used by proponents of what his opponents call " software patents ". See latter in CIE essentially computer programs in the context of patent claims, ie exactly those objects which are not inventions within the meaning of the law ( Article 52 EPC, § 1 of the Patent Law ) is. They therefore reject the term " CIE " from misleading.
History
The European Patent Office ( EPO) since a groundbreaking solution to the Technical Board of Appeal of 1998 ( " IBM Program Product" T 1173 /97) program claims, in which the immediate scope of the patent desire a "computer program, characterized in that ... " is. These claims are directed according to the EPO doctrine still not on the excluded of Article 52 EPC " programs for computers" as such. The EPA states in this in that decision that a computer program claim - as well as a process or product claim - if and only allowed if its object a " further technical effect " which are connected via a "normal physical interaction between the program and computer " goes. This " further technical effect " exists in CIE typically in saving computing time or storage space, so it is in the field of data processing.
However, the EPA also referred to such claim items as CIE, which are " further technical effect " and could find no " technical contribution " no. The term "invention" has lost in the new classification of the EPO, especially since the decision " Controlling Pension Benefits System" of 2000, his former delimiting meaning. Each equipped with computer characteristics claimed object is thus from the outset an invention within the meaning of Article 52 EPC. Instead of a separate invention examination pursuant to Article 52 of the test to " inventive step " (Article 56 EPC ) is asked whether the CIE has a " further technical effect " in the frame.
Directive
The new EPA doctrine was 2002 Contents of a proposal from the European Commission for a directive "on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions", which was rejected again in September 2003 and in June 2005 the European Parliament. The counter-proposals of the parliamentary majority demanded the restoration of the previous interpretation of the law. In the " 21 compromise proposals " the rapporteur Michel Rocard in June 2005, which were supported by a bipartisan majority in parliament, the term " CIE " is discarded and partially replaced by " computer-aided invention " ( CGE). CGES are therefore " inventions in the field of applied natural science " and not the data processing as such.
In May 2004, the Council of the European Union a so-called " compromise paper " decided as a " common position ", which, however, had received none of the substantial amendments of the Parliament's first reading and imposed upon the courts the recognition of software patents granted by the European Patent Office and the Parliament for vote present. This proposal while still went to the patentability even on the Commission's original draft out, and he could only be accepted in a controversial process formally as a " common position " within the meaning of the co-decision procedure. It was both rejected a request by the Parliament on renegotiation of the entire policy of the Commission, as well as the binding of the Danish Parliament by the Council representative decision disregards that had voted in favor of a renewed discussion in the Council. The German government behaved in the Council, contrary to the intergroup Bundestag decision and has the 'common position' waved through with only minor changes. As Austria, Italy and Belgium abstaining from the vote, eight states have formulated their concerns as an additional statement on the decision, and the amendments of the Parliament were not considered, thus can be spoken in no way a " common position ".
For the second reading in Parliament 256 amendments were tabled, which were examined and summarized in the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI ). On 20 June 2005 the committee voted on the referenda, was debated and voted on then on 5, 6 and 7 July in Parliament. In this vote in the Legal Committee, the members waved mostly in the line of the EU Council. The legal spokesman for the Christian Democratic People's Party Klaus-Heiner Lehne had been able to enforce its patent- friendly course in his group.
The Parliament had rejected in the election, to accept the " common position " or to require further amendments. However, according to the procedural rules of the co-decision procedure, the hurdles for rejection or modification were high, since the Parliament had to determine by absolute majority. If it had come to reject or to amendments to the draft directive to the Council should have been remitted, then a compromise with the Parliament would have to search through a conciliation procedure in the so-called third reading. However, the behavior of President Jean -Claude Juncker and the former Federal Minister of Justice Zypries pointed out that by a so-called trialogue procedure before Parliament's vote, a solution should be found which would prevent such third reading. The German EU parliament Green and PDS group were unanimously against the Council's draft. In the largest of the CDU / CSU and the FDP deputies were initially majority of this while at the SPD no consistency was observed.
Parliament, however, could not prevail against the Council and the Commission within the EU legislative process. On 6 July 2005 voted by a large ( 95 percent ) majority 648 of 680 deputies against the directive on the patentability of "computer -implemented inventions ".
The EPA remains committed to the doctrine of its Technical Board of Appeal and defends them active. Since about June 2005 operates a web campaign for CIE and are to a brochure out.
Quotes after the decision
"Even if it is true that no policy is better than a bad one, so there is no reason to celebrate. The reversal of conservatives and liberals is, after all, that the persistent criticism of the proposed Directive has had an effect. Conservatives and Liberals were forced to respond. But national patent offices and the European Patent Office, contrary to the European Patent Convention already granted thousands of software patents, including many so-called trivial patents. Even if this first time can be enforced not now - this time bomb was not defused, but ticking on! Now an urgent evaluation of granting practice of patent offices must be initiated uniformly to prevent the granting of new and enforcing old software patents in Europe. "
" The rejection of the Directive is a great day for the parliamentary system. Lobbyists, Microsoft & Co and patent officials have failed miserably in their attempt a compromise by march. The bipartisan joint initiative of the German Bundestag with advice uncertain EU parliamentarian until the last few days into it is also an entirely new form of parliamentary cooperation across national borders. "
" Allen medium-sized businesses trading within the EU trade in used in machines, cars and mobile phones, can drop a load off my mind today."
"Before an unmanageable flood of amendments, the Directive would have watered down, it is better to have no policy than a bad one. Instead of clarity, we have created confusion and possibly achieve the opposite of what we originally wanted: . Legal security for citizens "
" This is a wise decision. This legislation will prevent what might have reduced to the detriment of the industry patentability in Europe. The Parliament has now opted for the status quo that has so far served the interests of our 10,000 member companies well. "
"For Europe, the decision of Strasbourg is a good day. European citizens have won an important victory against software monopolies. Despite massive lobby use the software giant this time the vested interests of big business could not prevail. However, the rejection of the directive is only the second best solution. Better a decision of the Parliament would have been to amend Directive so that software patents are effectively excluded. The current illegal patenting practice of the European Patent Office needs to be stopped - either by national courts or by a new directive. "