Free Patents

Protecting Innovation & Competition in the IT Industry

Legalizing patents on programmes as such means legalizing the use of patents for business methods and social practices

In Europe, patents can not be granted for computer programmes as such as it is stated in article 52.2c of the Munchen convention which defines patent law in Europe. This means that a programme as such is not considered as an invention. However, patents can be granted to inventions that use software (52.3) : for example an oil exploration process where various physical sensors and various software are combined to determine where the oil is. This explains why some people say that there are many software patents in Europe, although there are no patents on software as such.

However, little by little, under the pressure of big US patent owners, patents have been granted to inventions which contain software with less and less industrial application. In a recent case at the European Patent Office (T 0935/97 - 3.5.1), IBM is claiming a patent for an invention which merely is a programme as such with little if no industrial application. Big patent owners, patent experts and lawyers are now claiming that, since the EPO is granting patents on inventions which merely are programmes as such, it would be more consistent to revise article 52.2c of the Munchen convention and legalize patents on computer programmes as such.

Such a move, if it were approved, would have two main consequences. First, it would allow patent owners to sue people or companies who publish or sell original and innovative software, in particular on the Internet. Currently, only users can be sued in Europe for infringing a software patent since only the use of a programming technique for a given application can be considered as an invention, not the programme itself. Editors may "only" be sued for unfair competition if they do not care enough about the precise terms of their licences and, in certain cases, for helping the user to infringe (ex. article L.613-3 and L.613-4 of French IP law). But in any case, editors who are not aware they are infringing may not be sued currently and that would change if article 52.2c was revised.

Second, by patenting innovative software as such used in electronic commerce appplications, it will be possible to sue competitors who are copying or imitating electronic business methods. Of course, no patents will be granted on business methods as such (as 52.2c states). But, since electronic commerce always requires shrink-wrapped or customized software, lawyers will likely suggest to patent customized electronic commerce software as such, thus creating a monopoly on the electronic implementation of a given business method. This is exactly the same approach as the one used nowadays to patent software by patenting inventions containing software. If software as such can be considered as an invention, there is no reason not to consider software containing innovative business methods as inventions.

One can imagine the next steps. After 10 years, under heavy pressures from big patent owners and consulting groups, the EPO will grant patents on inventions which merely are business methods as such. The EPO may then recommend to revise again article 52.2c of the Munchen convention and legalize patents on business methods as such, services as such, etc. leading to the end of freedom of commerce, after the end of freedom of writing software.

Jean-Paul Smets.

Reference

http://www.european-patent-office.org/dg3/biblio/t970935eu1.htm

Original Foreword in French

Bonjour,

e pense avoir trouvé une nouvelle analyse du cas de brevets sur les logiciels ayant des implications plus subtiles. Je ne pense pas que l'on souhaite légaliser la brevétabilité des programmes en tant que tels uniquement pour légaliser les brevets sur les logiciels. La situation actuelle permet en effet déjà de breveter à peu près n'importe quel logiciel en le considérant comme un invention contenant du logiciel. La raison avancée de clarification n'est probablement pas la motivation principale.

Question : "pourquoi souhaite-t-on alors tellement réviser la convention de Munich alors que l'on peut sans problème obtenir en Europe un brevet sur à peu près n'importe quel logiciel ?"

Si l'article 52.2c de la convention de Munich est modifié et que l'exclusion des programmes en tant que tels y est supprimée, alors

  1. On pourra attaquer en contrefaçon les éditeurs et les gens qui publient des programmes (en particulier les auteurs de logiciels libres publiés sur Internet)
  2. On pourra breveter des services de commerce électronique ou des méthodes de gestion d'entreprise en utilisant la même astuce que celle qui est utilisée aujourd'hui pour breveter des programmes.

Le point 1- est celui qui met en danger les logiciels libres et les petits éditeurs européens. Le point 2- est nouveau et préoccupant pour le commerce électronique en Europe.

Ci-joint un début de texte explicatif.

JPS.

 

[ History | Laws | Examples | Against | Adapt | Agree]

Last update by webmaster on Mon Jun 8 00:23:32 1998