By Ingrid Marson, 31 May 2005 08:25
NEWS Workshops held by the UK Patent Office (UKPO) around the country have found that the definition of technical contribution in the software patent directive would let through too many patents, according to the UKPO.
The minister for science and innovation, Lord Sainsbury, and the UKPO agreed to hold the workshops after a public meeting at the end of last year, where software companies and developers expressed their concern about the directive, officially known as the directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
The conclusion from the 13 workshops, which were attended by more than 300 people, was that the definition of technical contribution in the directive is "ambiguous and too liberal", the UKPO said.
The attendees of the workshop discussed in groups a number of fictional patent claims and assessed whether various definitions of technical contribution would allow these patents to be passed. Of the nine fictitious case studies the UKPO said should not have been patentable, four were let through by the directive's definition and only two were disallowed, with the remaining three leaving the workshop attendees unsure, according to the results on the UKPO website.
Steve Probert, deputy director at UKPO, admitted that a better definition may be found by modifying the current definition but said the UKPO cannot change the UK's political policy on this.
"As far as we're concerned there's nothing more we can do at the moment," said Probert. "It is very much a political football between [European] parliament, the Presidency and the [EU] Council. As far as I know the government still stands fully behind the text agreed by the Council."
The UKPO has a policy division that advises the government on legislation related to intellectual property. Probert was unable to say whether the UKPO's policy division would update its policy following the workshops but he said the results may influence its advice to government in future consultations.
"If an opportunity arises to discuss amendments to the directive, it is worth considering that there may be an advantage in changing the definition of technical contribution," said Probert.
The full report of the workshops held by the UKPO can be found here.
Ingrid Marson writes for ZDNet UK
Comments
There is 1 comment. Join the discussion
1. Nick Cole
The use of patents rather than copyright creates the problem. There is no technical innovation in the use of different arrangements of words or characters, which all software ultimately starts out as.
While developing a new piece of hardware involves significant physical investment, software 'merely' requires an intellectual input. The relative ease and speed in which the written word can be produced increases significantly the likelihood of parallel development. The grounds for dispute over whether or not a new process or means of carrying out a function are limitless and a lawyers dream. These were never subject to patent prior to computer software so why should they be now?
It is also far to easy for concepts to be patented, and a concept is all that software actually is. The tendency now for periodic or lifed licensing generates a gravy train for anyone who has a nice idea to live off that in perpetuity.
All software creates bugs, either basic faults or being used in a manner outwith the designers original parameters. Why should such faulty software be subject to patent constraints? Which bit of code should be subject to patent, where does the core lie? More importantly how can someone who has a better idea for doing something who happens to re-invent the wheel (as occurs frequently in software) as part of an improvement to be protected?
Software patenting is wrong and morally indefensible. It is a concept dreamed up by lawyers for lawyers benefit only, which only has the effect of stifling innovation and improvement. But by all means use copyright as that is a more logical approach to conceptual rights management.