European software companies say no to patent directive revival

Francisco Mingorance, Director of Public Policy at the BSA

European Internal Markets and Service Commissioner Charlie McCreevy’s effort to breathe life into the Common European Patent has sparked questions on whether the move could also revive another corpse, the European software patent – as embodied in the Computer Implemented Inventions Directive (CIID).

The European Parliament rejected CIID in a decisive vote in July 2005, with 648 MEPs against and only 14 in favour.

One of the loudest voices in favour of CIID was the Business Software Alliance (BSA), a lobby group representing multinational software companies. Francisco Mingorance, Director of Public Policy at the BSA told Science|Business the alliance has no plans to use McCreevy’s consultation or other any other initiatives to try and bring the CIID back to life.

“Some of the people would love to see bloodshed on the software patent but that’s not going to happen. The initiative for a new CII directive has to come from the Commission and we are not suggesting the Commission should do that, not at all,” said Mingorance.

Indeed, having been rejected, a similar directive cannot be introduced for another three years. “In any case, there is still a high level of misunderstanding, so the time is not right to discuss another directive,” said Mingorance.

Opposition

Opponents claimed that in allowing the patenting of software, CIID would stifle innovation, making it very difficult for smaller companies to steer around the vast patent estates of the multinational software giants. In particular there was opposition to the idea that translating existing business processes into software could result in a patentable product. There are limited ways of rendering a process in code, making it difficult for other companies to produce a competing application.

“A lot of people referred to the CII directive as a directive on software patenting, but it was actually much broader than that,” said Mingorance. “Originally the directive was meant to harmonise a number of institutional laggards in the technology sector.” The bill would also have swept away individual EU nations' patent dispute systems in favour of one common procedure.

The rejection of CII directive was unexpected, as the directive had been accepted in principle earlier in the year. “But during the debate [in July] there are a number of groups and a few activists who would prefer if there were no patents at all,” said Mingorance.

“Also, there was a high level of misinformation within the parliament. Suddenly policy makers doubted whether they were doing the right thing, and what to do with the directive.”

Hi-tech firms supporting the directive claimed it was vital to protect the fruits of their research and development. Opponents said it would lead to the patenting of software, jeopardising the prospects of small firms and the open source software movement.

‘Facts, not slogans’

“These debates should be based on fact, not slogans,” said Mingorance, pointing out that critics failed to provide any figures to justify their objections.

Others were against the bill because they believe that copyright already provides sufficient protection for software.

“Those who said copyright is enough, patenting isn’t necessary – that’s just another slogan,” says Mingorance

Instead of drumming up a new initiative, the BSA is launching a hearts and minds campaign in a bid to shift public perceptions towards patenting. It will also commission studies on the current status of the issue to highlight the need for improvements.

The broader Community Patent which McCreevy is trying to move on is designed to reduce the number of languages required for a patent application, and to reduce charges.

But some lobbyists who campaigned against CII directive say a single European Patent could let software patenting in by the back door, and want it specifically excluded from the Common Patent.

The closing date for the McCreevy consultation is 31 March 2006, and a hearing will be held on 13 June 2006 in Brussels to discuss the outcome.

Mingorance declined to comment on what the BSA will say to McCreevy but said the group will review the options and respond accordingly.