DG Internal Market
For manipulating a consultation on EU patent policies

Despite the European Parliament’s clear rejection of software patents in the summer of 2005, the battle re-emerged this summer when Commissioner McCreevy’s proposed a single patent law for the European Union. The proposal, among other things, includes a European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA), developed by the European Patent Office (EPO). Many fear that the proposed EPLA would legalise software patents through case law. McCreevy’s Directorate-General organised a consultation on the proposal this summer, which was marked by a strong bias against critics and a disturbing degree of preferential treatment for corporate proponents of US-style software patents. In doing so, DG Internal Market dramatically failed to respect the Commission’s own minimum standards for consultation.

Following the end of the official consultation period (in which all stakeholders could submit written submissions), DG Internal Market in cooperation with DG Industry carried out an additional round of consultation with 600 handpicked small and medium-sized enterprises. Many companies that had expressed a keen interest in the issues at stake were not informed nor invited. The input from this additional, exclusive and secretive round of consultation was included in the Commission’s concluding report about the overall consultation; a report which opponents of US-style software patents describe as “biased and aimed at gaining support for the European Patent Litigation Agreement”. Key criticisms on EPO’s patent granting practice, on the currently discussed patent reform proposals and on the direction of the consultation questionnaire itself, expressed by a very large number of small and medium-sized enterprises, were ignored or ridiculed.

During the main hearing on the future patent policy held in Brussels in July, representatives of small Germany-based software companies were not allowed to speak, despite repeated requests in advance. This refusal contrasts starkly with the Commission’s treatment of the Alliance for Competitive Technology (ACT), which was invited to ‘represent’ small and medium size enterprises. ACT is a Microsoft-backed US-based lobby group, with headquarters in Washington DC. Only a minority of its members are European firms.

DG Internal Market’s flawed consultation raises the suspicion that it was primarily concerned with legitimising its own patent policy proposal no matter what.

Vote for DG Internal Market for consulting but only if you say what they want.

Links:

Response to the Consultation on the European Transparency Initiative Green Paper Application of General Principles and Minimum Standards for Commission’s Consultations (Summary in English), PatentFrei, 13 September 2006

DG Internal Market, not happy with the consultation results, launched a parallel consultation via the EICs, FFII, 10 July 2006

Written Question to the European Commission about “Data processing and consultation procedure on the Future of patent policy in Europe”, Eva Lichtenberger (MEP), 12 July 2006.

EU Commissioner McCreevy: software patents are “a goal worth pursuing”, Florian Müller, 9 September 2006

Links to texts in German:

Contribution Stellungnahme zum Grünbuch Europäische Transparenzinitiative; Anwendung der Mindeststandards der Kommission für die Konsultationen, Patentfrei, 13 September 2006

Softwarepatent-Gegner beklagen Mogelei bei EU-Konsultation, Heise Online, 11 July 2006




Comments
Name:

Comment: (max 1024 characters)


Harry Grollt wrote on 02-11-2005:
Urheberrechte verhindern Entwicklung

Dave J. wrote on 02-11-2005:
What a wondeful future we’d have if software patenting was forced upon us. Unless you can afford a crack legal team to make sure you’re not infringing someone’s patent on a ‘close’ button or on a double click (look that 2nd one up!) you can’t write new software. All future applications will be written by wonderful trustworthy giants like $Soft. Don’t we know just how well they can spell ‘buffer overflow’. A great future, provided you’re a hacker or a security consultant. That of course is why the big corporations support the idea, they can financially outgun the folk who might otherwise write something safe and secure. No more software testing worries, just get it out there vaguely working and it’ll sell, because there’s nowhere else to buy.

anonymous wrote on 02-11-2005:
“DG Internal Market is just trying to make a level playing field where both OS and proprietary software can compete and make a profit. Grow up!” Yeah sure. Micro$oft&co; only want whats best 4 the public. Grow a pair of eyes.

Andreas Bach Aaen wrote on 01-11-2005:
Allowing softwarepatents will for all practical purposes also allow patents on buisness methods. Most – even including big coorporations – dont like patents on buisness methods. Unfortunately they simply don’t get it, that everything can be described in software.

Thomas wrote on 01-11-2005:
I didn’t know that profit pay taxes !!!! With sofyware patents you will stop one day writing programs, because instead you will spent your time to deal with reading papers, to know what techniques you are allowed to use to set up your program with/without paying fees. Nobody complains about that people ask to be paid for their work, but do you need patents for that, I donnot. Up to now it worked fine without, didn’t it?

Julian wrote on 01-11-2005:
The profits made by these “evil, greedy corporations” pay the taxes that pay for the doctors, nurses, hospitals, teachers, schools, unemployment benefits, sickness benefit, pensions, childcare, etc, etc, etc that so-called self appointed ‘civil society’ groups love to defend. DG Internal Market is just trying to make a level playing field where both OS and proprietary software can compete and make a profit. Grow up!

Free software wrote on 01-11-2005:
I believe Microsoft has a lot of leverage with Ireland, the corporation has big investments there. But I can’t understand my government (Portugal); it has sold out to Bill Gates for no visible return to the country. Where lies the profit?! I won’t speculate further…

Jason wrote on 01-11-2005:
McCreevy helped keep Ireland prosperous by courting ‘Big Business’. He is disposed to seeing software patents a necessary part of keeping the wheels turning, rather than an invite to create an abusive, litigious monopoly. Well intentioned, but starting from wrong assumptions.

Martyr wrote on 01-11-2005:
This is where own interest of representatives is in serious conflict with the interests of everyone, who they represent. Sad they don’t realize they loose more than they earn.

Graham Bloice wrote on 01-11-2005:
Yet another example of our “representatives” failing to represent us.

goto page: 1 2