ZDNet UK


Skip to Main Content

ZDNet.co.uk - Winner of Best Business Website 2007
  1. Home
  2. News
  3. Blogs
  4. Reviews
  5. Prices
  6. Resources
  7. Community
  8. My ZDNet

 

ZDNet UK RSS Feeds


Intellectual property Toolkit

Patent nonsense: the case for unfettered development

Tom Chance and Edward Griffith-Jones ZDNet.co.uk

Published: 18 Feb 2005 16:45 GMT

  • Email
  • Trackback
  • Clip Link
  • Print friendly
  • Post Comment

European Complexity
The process of the directive through the European Union's institutions may seem convoluted. Under the co-decision rules for European lawmaking, the European Parliament, Commission and the Council all have to agree to the text of the directive before it can come into force. The Parliament passed a first reading in September 2003 which made it clear with lengthy legalese that software should not be patentable.

Since then, the directive has been under discussion in the Council, whose working version -- drafted by the Commission -- removes all of Parliament's significant amendments and inserts new articles which opponents claim leave dangerous patent loopholes. The Council is due to adopt this version as its common position soon, having been delayed so far by Poland, which disagrees with the Council's position but which is also under diplomatic pressure in other policy areas such as agriculture.

Angry at the intransigence of the Commission and Council, the Parliament's Committee for Legal Affairs (JURI) voted for a restart of the entire procedure on 2 February, a decision the Commission is free to ignore, even though it was ratified by the Council of Presidents on 17 February. Whether a restart will happen, or the Council will adopt a dangerous common position before a restart is possible, depends on a bewildering range of formalities and meetings.

Key Players
Many of the key players have exploited this confusion to further their interests. Malcolm Harbour, Conservative MEP for the West Midlands and the chosen party expert on the issue, claims that there is no significant difference between the current Council version and Parliament's version of September 2003. JURI's vote earlier this month suggests that his position is a smokescreen that hides the Commission's real intentions: to make software patentable.

Not all of the UK Conservative MEPs share Harbour's cut and dried approach -- several of them were extremely concerned when we explained the issue to them in person. But, as with Labour and the Liberal Democrats, most Conservative MEPs vote on the advice of their party expert. All three parties have been broadly in favour of software patents going by their voting record leaving the Greens, Plaid Cymru, the SNP and UKIP to staunchly oppose them in the UK.
Anti-patent campaigners take to the streets to get their voices heard
Photo Credit: FFII

  • Email
  • Trackback
  • Clip Link
  • Print friendly
  • Post Comment

Did you find this article useful?
305 out of 640 people found this useful



Discussions

312072 312072

The Treaty Should Be Torn Up

Friday 29 August 2008, 7:41 PM

3 comments
roger andre roger andre

Nasa and the virus

Friday 29 August 2008, 7:30 PM

3 comments
70176 70176

He is distraught

Friday 29 August 2008, 7:26 PM

3 comments

Featured Talkback

Now is the time to start taking this danger VERY seriously. This is big and very nasty business in action. The objective seems absolutely clear. Destroy GPL and 'steal' all the technology. An activity with plenty of precedence.

By: Moley

Read full story:
Linspire Linux deal 'worse than Novell'