It seems that finally someone in Brussels has seen the light.
I just stumbled across a somewhat lengty but nonetheless well-written and even for
non-laywer types like me understandable working paper
from economist and former French prime minister Michel Rocard, who is – and that’s probably
the most important thing – the European Parliament’s draftsperson or “rapporteur” on the directive,
and so it is likely that his views will be taken very seriously. (Well likeliness of this kind of
things has more than once proven to be worthless, thanks mr
“I-can-ignore-both-my-national-and-the-European-parliament”-Brinkhorst, but there’s hope
…). I’ve ripped a couple of lines from the paper which should give a fairly good idea what Rocard
wants to see as directive with respect to the software patents issue, here we go:
Software is in fact the combination in an original work of one or more algorithms, that
is to
say, a set of mathematical formulae. As Albert Einstein has said, a mathematical formula
is
not patentable. It is by nature an idea, like a book, a set of words, or a chord in
music.[…]
For that work to be communicable and have an effect, a part must start to move, an
electrical,
radio or light signal must be produced, data must appear on a screen, or some physical
effect
must be unleashed. What is evidently patentable are, firstly, the sensors and, secondly,
the
effectors that supply the computer with data processable by the software and that obtain
from
the data ultimately produced by the software in its language a physical effect
constituting the
technical so lut ion to the technical problem posed. The distinction that we are
after thus
separates the immaterial world from the material, or rather, from the physical
world.[…]
“Technical field” means an industrial field of application
requiring the use of controllable forces of nature
to obtain predictable results in the physical world.[…]
To enable the directive to permit the patenting of
computer-generated inventions while
preventing the patentability of software programs, it will be necessary to address the
following points:
- […] we need to specify that the
processing of the data should not be regarded as a technical field within the
meaning of
patent law, and that innovations in the processing of data do not constitute
inventions
within the meaning of patent- […] to secure interoperability, strengthen the confirmation of the rights
arising from Articles 5
and 6 of Directive 91/250, by ensuring that when use of a patented technology is
needed
for the sole purpose of ensuring interoperability between two systems, such use
should not
be regarded as infringing a patent.
As you read, he makes some pretty good points there, so let’s hope this amendment will
become reality. For the mere humans that don’t fully understand the legislative procedures of the
European Community, in short, an absolute majority of the members of the European Parliament in the
second reading on June 6 is necessary to prevent Rocard’s working paper from entering into force as
directive. (See Wikipedia for the gory
details on European legislature.)
On a personal note, I really would like this directive to become reality, in the
hope that I’ll not lose my freedom as an Open Source software developer, and that I will maybe at
some point regain a little trust in all the effects the process of European integration brings to
us.