[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive]
 
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Skåne Sjælland Linux User Group - http://www.sslug.dk Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Forum   Calendar   Search
MhonArc Date: [Date Prev] [Date Index] [Date Next]   Thread: [Date Prev] [Thread Index] [Date Next]   MhonArc
 

Re: [ITPOLITIK] Møde i Belgien i mandags om patenter



Kristoffer Nilaus Olsen wrote:
> 
> > Vi må stærkt håbe, at nogle af vore belgiske venner kommer
> > til dette møde i Liege i morgen og kan sige fra.
> 
> Tilgiv mig, hvis jeg er lidt kortfattet, men jeg forstår ikke helt, hvad det er, der skal siges fra over for?

Nej, det kan du have ret i, at jeg ikke har fået forklaret tydeligt nok.

Men prøv at læs dette:

EuroLinux Alliance, som SSLUG samarbejder tæt sammen med, har disse
kommentarer til, hvordan EPO og EU, DG IM, forsøger at forberede vejen
endnu mere for indførelsen at softwarepatenter. Dette uanset økonomiske
studier om hensigtsmæssigheden af SWPAT, der klart siger, at EU har
mange små og middelstore virksomheder, for hvem det vil være til stor
skade,
set ud fra både et innovativt og et økonomisk synspunkt, hvis man
kritikløst indfører patenter på computerprogrammer og
forretningsmetoder. 

Desuden stemte et flertal af de 20 lande imod ændring af artikel 52
under EPO konferencen i november 2000. Alligevel fortsætter EPO med at
flytte grænser på området, simpelthen ved at rykke EPO's egen praksis
længere og længere frem-  stort set uimodsagt af domme i medlemslandene
og af medlemslandenes nuværende lovgivning og national retspraksis på
området. 

EU har haft disse spørgsmål under overvejelse i lang tid, og EU-
Kommissionen, DG IM har holdt kortene meget tæt til kroppen. 

Der har ganske vist været afholdt en offentlig høring på Internettet,
hvor et meget stort antal svar gik kraftigt imod indførelsen af
softwarepatenter. Der var over 1200 svar fra the open source society,
der alle blev fremsendt via EuroLinux Alliance- for at vi kunne være
sikre på, at de blev offentliggjort. Det burde de være blevet at EU-
Kommissionen for tilladelsen til offentliggørelse var klar og tydelig.
Alligevel har vi aldrig rigtig fået en ordentlig forklaring på, om alle
disse indlæg blev officielt oversat af Kommissionen med henblik på at
kunne indgå på lige fod med alle de andre officielle svar, der blev
sendt på engelsk. 

De udredere, som Kommissionen betalte for at lave en såkaldt "uafhængig
rapport" over indholdet i de på høringen indkomne svar afleverede ganske
rigtigt en rapport. Den kan du studere på Kommissionenshjemmeside.


Men tilbage til forslaget om fællesskabpatentet:

Her kan du læse, hvad Eurolinux mener:



The community patent directive has serious flaws

In its current form, the Community Patent (CP) directive puts a serious
threat on innovation in
Europe, with respect to the rest of the world. 

Patenting of genes, software, mathematics, and business methods

All serious economical studies show that the patenting of complex and
sequential technologies
such as in the gene [1], software [2], mathematics [3], and even in the
business method [4]
fields, hinders innovation and destroys investment capabilities because
of extensive litigation. 

However, in spite of the constant malpractices of the European Patent
Office (EPO)
regarding the modification of its examination rules [5] and the
renegociation of the European
Patent Convention (EPC), the CP directive gives total control of the
patenting process to the EPO,
most particularly on defining what is patentable (see also attached text
"Eurolinux's Analysis of
the Community Patent directive"). 

Prior to granting such powers to the EPO, a debate should occur on the
economical necessity of
patentability on such areas, and on the ways for the EC to gain control
over EPO, which already
abused of its existing powers [5]. A hearing on the current practices of
the EPO should be
carried on prior to any such decision. 

Destruction of innovative European SMEs

Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) represent 60% of European wealth and
jobs in high
technology fields, and are pathfinders in the way to innovation.
Enacting patentability rules in these
domains will put these companies under a high economic and juridical
risk. Several
well-documented studies show that the patent process is at best
irrelevant to most small firms [6],
but favors large companies [7] which, through the building of patent
portfolios, can prevent the
entry of SMEs to their markets, and can generate a high legal risk [8]
which can scare
investors away. 

Here again, great care should be exercised before letting the EPO allow
patents on new
technologies, as this would have a deterrant long-term effect on
innovation in Europe. The
long-term effects of the TRIPS intellectual property regime should also
be investigated [9]. 

Strategic issues

Moreover, 90% of the Internet patents and 75% of the software patents
which have been granted
yet (and to date illegally [5]) by the EPO were filed by non-european
companies. Allowing such
patents to be legal would put European companies under the threat of
either closing their
businesses or be bought by foreign companies on the behalf of these
prior patents, used as
bargaining tools. 

The patenting of new technologies is indeed part of a global
protectionist strategy of the United
States (USA) aiming at the preservation of its technical leadership. For
instance, the irruption of
software patents in Europe would allow the USA, by shutting up
competitors, to rule on the market
of operating systems and business suites. Due to the security flaws that
have been wittingly
introduced in these software, this would result in weakening all the
European information
infrastructure with respect to cyber-terrorism and espionage. Moreover,
by controlling
containers (data formats, communication protocols), the parties owning
these monopolies could
gain control over the contents. 

References

[1]    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5364/698 
      Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical
Research, by Michael A.
      Heller and Rebecca S. Eisenberg, University of Michigan Law
School, published in Science,
      1998 May 1;280(5364):698-701. 
      Economy article showing how the generalization of patents hinders
innovation in the
      biology area. 

[2]    http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patent.pdf 
      Sequential innovation, Patents, and Imitation, by James Bessen and
Eric Maskin,
      Working paper 11/99, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
department of Economics. 
      Economy article showing that, due to the sequential nature of the
innovation process in
      areas such as software and electronics, patents do not favor
innovation and even may
      hinder it. Also available in German at
http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patentde.pdf . 

[3]    http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/papri/konno95 
      Report by the FFII of a book from Hiroshi KONNO, of Tokyo
University, on the economic
      drawbacks of patenting mathematical optimisation methods. 

[4]    http://www.cptech.org/ip/business/ 
      Page of CPTech regarding business method patents. 

[5]    http://www.eurolinux.org/news/coup01A/ 
      Eurolinux's report on the recent modification of patent
examination rules by the EPO. 

[6]    http://info.sm.umist.ac.uk/esrcip/background.htm 
      Report of a global study carried out in the United Kingdom which
shows that, in a general
      fashion, the patent system is not beneficial to the SMEs, but
favors large corporations. 

[7]   
http://www.econ.utah.edu/les/version_2.0/papers/FlynnAntitrust.htm 
      Antitrust Policy, Innovation Efficiencies, and the Suppression of
Technology, by John J.
      Flynn, College of Law, the University of Utah, published in the
Antitrust Law Journal, 1998. 
      Documented and thorough economy article on monopolies generated by
patent abuse, not
      only in the software domain. 

[8]   http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/pikta/xrani/xrani.en.pdf 
      Software patents in action: a documentation of software patent
trouble cases maintained by
      the FFII. 

[9]    http://www.lemonde.fr/imprimer_article/0,6063,239761,00.html 
      Article in Le Monde in which Nobel Prize in economy 2001 Joseph E.
Stiglitz says that the
      TRIPS intellectual property regime is detrimental to innovation
and economic growth. 



Fore further information, please contact sslug@sslug 


Anne

-- 
Anne Østergaard, sslug@sslug http://www.sslug.dk


 
Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Index   Calendar   Search

 
 
Questions about the web-pages to <www_admin>. Last modified 2005-08-10, 20:14 CEST [an error occurred while processing this directive]
This page is maintained by [an error occurred while processing this directive]MHonArc [an error occurred while processing this directive] # [an error occurred while processing this directive] *