Pour la deuxième foi des representants de l'Alliance Eurolinux rencontrent des fonctionnaires de l'unité de propriété industrielle de la Commission Européenne qui travaillent sur une directive européenne sur la brevetabilité de règles d'organisation et calculation mettable en oevre par ordinateurs (programmes pour ordinateur). Les propos publiés jusqu'au présent visent à légaliser ce type de brevet, dit courtement brevet logiciel. En face de protestes a grande échelle l'unité a conduit en automne 2000 une consultation sur un de ces propos, qui aboutit a des prises de position nombreuses mais pas au même dégré a des connaissances nouvelles. A une grande foule de developpeurs de logiciels qui ne veulent pas des brevets s'oppose un petit groupe d'experts en propriété intellectuelle, dont une partie parle aux nom de grands organisations. Du coté de la Commission UE aucun dialogue clarifiant n'a eu lieu. C'est pour quoi l'Alliance Eurolinux se félicite d'avoir la chance d'un échange d'opinions.

• Background
• Place, time and participants
• Agenda
• Related Reading

Our first meeting with the EC industrial property unit was later mentioned in the consultation paper as one of the milestones that made European legislators reconsider their plans to officially legalise the patentability of computer-implementable rules of organisation and calculation (programs for computers).

This time we are at a more advanced stage of the debate. While last time our purpose was to make the viewpoint of a large group of software developpers and companies better known to the legislators, this time, through our petition and the ensuing consultation exercise, the voices of many more concerned parties have already been heard to some extent. Thus the meeting is more characterised by fact-finding discussions in presence of a few non-partisan scholars. One immediate purpose is to make the acquaintance of Mr. Anthony Howard, who has taken over the file from Mr. Bernhard Müller in March. Another is to explore the implications of a possible "restrictive approach" to software patentability, especially one based on a reaffirmation of the concept of technical invention as worked out by law doctrine in the 70s and 80s and upheld until today by some national courts.

Place, time and participants

The meeting is in Brussels on Mon 2001-09-24. From the Eurolinux side, at least Jean-Paul Smets and Hartmut Pilch will be present. Moreover, a few independent experts will be accompanying us. The number of people will not exceed 8. Below is a tentative agenda.

Agenda

heure	Questions	Conférenciers
14:15	introduction	ah, jps
14:30	What kinds of patents are we talking about? Some examples of EPO swpat and attempts at classification and rough evaluation (e.g. junk vs innovations that could arguably justify a special exclusion right)	rf
15:00	What rules of patentability are there to choose from? How clear are these rules and to what kinds of patents do they lead? some examples, with special emphasis on the technical invention according to EPC and caselaw til 1986: newer caselaw and various attempts at systematising it Which of these rules can achieve the directive's goal of clarification and strengthening of the internal market?	phm, sk
15:30	Mr. Noteboom joins us, summary of previous discussion Why not reaffirm the technical invention doctrine, e.g. in a way similar to our regulation proposal? Could this doctrine be officially pursued as "Plan B", i.e. an alternative to the consultation paper's approach of codifying EPO caselaw?	jps
16:00	what are the protection needs of the various players in the software field? which insights can we gain from the consultation replies? which questions were answered and which need further discussion?	rf, fh
16:30	recapitulation and summary	jps

Related Reading