EU-Studie ueber die Auswirkungen von Swpat

[PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>]

Die Generaldirektion Binnenmarkt hat jetzt eine lange unter Verschluss
gehaltene Auftragsstudie veroeffentlicht.

Bernhard Mueller stellte diese Studie zusammen mit dem Beschluss der
EU-Kommission, eine neue Konsultationsrunde zu eroeffnen, am Donnerstag
den 20. Oktober in London vor.  Ueber die Konferenz, bei der ich anwesend
war und z.T. auf dem Podium sass, werde ich in Kuerze mehr berichten.

Die Auftragsstudie 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/intprop/indprop/studyintro.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/intprop/indprop/study.pdf

stammt von einem Institut der Patentrechtler-Szene, welches wohl dem
Muenchener MPI zu vergleichen waere.  So ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass
nicht das eigentliche Thema, die volkswirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen
verschiedener moeglicher Begrenzungen der Patentierbarkeit, sondern
juristische Sachzwaenge und angebliche prozedurale Vorzuege des
europaeischen Patentsystems etc im Vordergrund stehen.

Hier ein Auszug:

<<

Study "The Economic Impact of Patentability of Computer Programs"

Report to the European Commission by Robert Hart (Independent 
Consultant), Peter Holmes (School of European Studies, University of 
Sussex) and John Reid (IP Institute) on behalf of Intellectual 
Property Institute, London  

Summary of and conclusions from the Study  

[...]

We return to the more general aims of the study.  

I To provide information on a number of key elements to enable the 
Commission to assess whether the envisaged Directive should be 
confined to harmonising the relevant laws of the Member States on the 
basis of the status quo as defined by the jurisprudence, or whether 
it should extend the scope of application of the Directive.  

<<
Schon die Fragestellung des IPI ist falsch:
Es steht zumindest noch eine weitere Alternative zur Debatte:  die
Rueckbesinnung auf einen systematischen Technizitaetsbegriff, wie er
1976-81 vom BGH erarbeitet wurde.
>>

II In respect of the latter option: to provide guidance on the 
possible consequences of more wide ranging harmonisation.  

III To make a first assessment of the main consequences for 
innovation and competition, in particular for SMEs, of extending 
patent protection beyond current levels.  

IV Finally, to address whether patent protection in Europe should be 
available for computer programs with applications outside the areas 
which are currently considered to be "technical" by the jurisprudence 
of the European Patent Office and Member States' courts and if so, to 
what extent. A particular issue is how such an approach could be 
explained as being in line with basic patent law principles.  

On I: we consider that this report has, despite the constraints of 
time and budget, provided a great deal of useful indeed probably 
sufficient information on the key elements.  

On II and III: There may be other ways of formulating the options for 
possible more wide ranging harmonisation beyond current levels but we 
suggest the following three:  

Option 1: we could stay with the status quo, subject to removal of 
the exclusion of "computer programs" "as such". This would, we 
consider, have no consequence except the important one that SMEs and 
independent software developers will be less likely to consider 
computer program related inventions unpatentable.  

<<

Die IPI-Leute versaeumen es zu erwaehnen, dass der "derzeitige Status Quo"  
umstritten und von fraglicher Rechtsgueltigkeit ist, wie etwa das
BPatG-Urteil zeigt.

Eine Legalisierung dieses wackligen "Status Quo" haette
selbstverstaendlich schwerwiegende Folgen, sowohl hier und jetzt als auch
fuer die weitere Rechtsfortschreibung.  Sogar BGH-Richter Mellulis
erklaerte am Freitag in Berlin, der Computerprogramm-Ausschluss sollte
schon deshalb nicht fallen, weil sonst die Patentaemter noch bedenkenloser
die Richtung einschlagen, die sie jetzt schon entgegen ihren eigenen
Beteuerungen von einem "zusaetzlichen technischen Effekt" eingeschlagen
haben.  Mellulis woertlich: "Davor habe ich grosse Angst". 

Das Argument, der Computerprogramm-Ausschluss muesse fallen, damit KMUs
besser ueber die tatsaechliche Rechtsprechungspraxis aufgeklaert wuerden,
ist eine von vielen Beleidigungen an den Menschenverstand, welche
Patentanwaelte fuer normal zu halten scheinen.  Jeder Mensch weiss doch
wohl, dass ein KMU sich seine juristische Information aus geeigneter
Sekundaerliteratur holt und nicht etwa die Gesetze in naiver Weise
woertlich liest. 

>>

Option 2: European law could ensure that the mere use of a computer 
program/computer to implement an invention brings an invention within 
technology, as appears to be the case in the USA. This would be a 
substantial change from basic principles of Eiropean patent law. It 
would be highly controversial. But it would bring European law into 
alignment with U.S. law on patentability of business methods.  

<<

Auch in den USA gilt es nicht als erfinderisch, wenn man etwas bekanntes
auf den Computer uebertraegt.  Hier wird ein falscher Eindruck erweckt,
das EPA gehe wesentlich besonnener vor.

>>

Option 3: European law could be altered to have no requirement that 
patents be limited to technology. If it were accepted that business 
methods should be patentable simpliciter then this is the logical 
consequence. But any attempt to make such a change would cause great 
controversy. This would interfere in achievement of option 1 and in 
achievement of adequate understanding by SMEs and independent 
software developers of the opportunities and risks from the 
patentability of computer program related inventions under option 1 
or under the status quo.  

<<

Es fehlt hier wiegesagt die Option, die das Eurolinux-Buendnis fordert:
Rueckbesinnung auf den klaren Technizitaetsbegriff der 70-80er Jahre.
Diese Studie lag lange unter Verschluss und ihre Fragestellung geht noch
auf eine Anfang 2000 von Patentrechtskreisen geplante Scheindebatte
zurueck, von der J.P. Smets in http://www.eurolinux.org/news/agenda/
berichtet.

Aber immerhin erwaehnen die Autoren allerlei Bedenken von
wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Seite, die benutzt werden koennten, um fuer
unsere Forderung zu argumentieren.  Das war wohl auch der Grund, warum die
Studie unter Verschluss blieb:

>>

Very relevant to options 2 and 3, as to any extension of patents, is 
the caution amongst economists specialising in IP rights. As shown in 
our economic study of the literature (Section III of our report), 
most economists have doubts whether economic efficiency, i.e. 
increased overall welfare, is achieved by having or making computer 
program related inventions patentable. This caution is supported by 
the continuing, indeed growing, concern in the USA on the issues 
surrounding patents on computer program related inventions. The 
debate in the States is not finished.  

On IV: This is mainly covered by our input on II and III except for 
the last sentence of IV: A particular issue is how such an approach 
could be explained as being in line with basic patent law principles. 
 

We consider this in relation to options 2 and 3 above.  

Option 2 would allow a patent to be granted on a novel and unobvious 
invention which had no other connection with technology than that the 
invention is implemented on a computer. This can be argued to meet 
e.g. the United Nations definition of technology: "a combination of 
equipment and knowledge" and so to be in line with basic patent law 
principles. However it can also be argued that nothing technological 
is achieved by the combination of the computer (equipment) and the 
knowledge, which would for the purposes of the argument not be 
technological. It should be noted that option 2 could similarly be 
argued to meet the (minimum) requirement of TRIPs Art 27 "that 
patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or 
processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, 
involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. 
...... without discrimination as to ..... the field of technology ".  

Option 3 stretches the principles perhaps to breaking point in that 
no connection with technology would be required. Most experts would 
say that this goes beyond the basic principles of patent law. There 
is however the reply, which Judge Rich may have articulated in State 
Street Bank, that if a non-technological invention is new and 
unobvious and is useful in commerce or industry then society should 
encourage the making of such inventions and their use as basis for 
innovation by granting patents on them. We can only warn that the 
debate will continue.  

-phm