Sub Navigation
No revival of software patents debate
Approximately 100 people attended the one-day conference in Brussels, organised by the EPO.
The conference was opened with statements from two leading members of the European Parliament, Eva Lichtenberger (GREEN/Austria) and Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE/Germany), who clearly defined the current patent system as an enabling factor for Europe's prosperity. Regarding initiatives supporting Chinese SMEs, the MEP warned that European competitors should not be frightened off:"
"The EPO is the cornerstone of the patent world, which manages to maintain high standards. The US grants too many patents and of too low quality which are cheaper to obtain and often quite trivial. The Chinese Patent Office is fully funding patents of SMEs and thereby fostering speedy innovation. Thus, the European system is under threat. The existing CII system might only be second best, but there is no room for a new dogmatic discussion which is not based on facts but emotions."
Looking back to the CII Directive debate, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis said: "There was a real distortion of facts and realities. The conflict was between innovators and producers, and not big business against SMEs." Meanwhile, programmes had been started to strengthen innovation and new innovative ideas: "The European Institute for Technology (EIT) and its foundation is meant to provide subsidies and funding for SMEs as there is not enough venture capital because the patenting system (CII) does not work."
Eva Lichtenberger doubted the EPO's role in innovation by saying: "Patents are not the solution for economic growth in the EU, not even in collaboration with China and the USA" and demanding more openness towards the needs of today's economy. The MEP criticised: "Only two years ago the EPO was on the emergency brake, whether it was the wording, design, strong lobby of industry – there was a dusty, old-fashioned air."
The majority of the speakers made it clear that they consider the present situation on CII patenting unsatisfactory, albeit for different reasons. Nonetheless, the experts agreed that there is no need for legislative modifications in general: "A new CII debate? No thank you!"(Francisco Mingorance, BSA Europe). European patent attorney Keith Beresford spotted inconsistent practices in British court decisions and the EPO's case law.
While fundamental criticism concerned the "adaptability of the patent system to the digital society" (Pieter Hintjens, President FFII), others found the EPO too restrictive in its granting practice (Bernhard Fischer, SAP). Furthermore, the process was seen as being too expensive and time consuming and as depriving competitors of their market share (Daniel Doll-Steinberg, Tribeka Ltd). Thomas Wünsche (EMS T.Wünsche) explained the damage caused by excessive granting of patents under the CII umbrella based on examples from his firm. He demanded that the granting of patents, which constitute an exclusive monopoly and thus harm competition, is strongly limited with the benefit to society in mind.
However, all speakers pointed to the potential for change in the system, such as the "soft IP" approach proposed by IBM (Jonathan Sage). The EPO earned wide recognition and respect for the "Scenarios for the Future", a study that "the USTPO would have never undertaken" according to FFII President, Pieter Hintjens.
All speakers welcomed unequivocally the opportunity to discuss the issue at a high level and made clear that a new CII debate followed by legal modifications was neither necessary nor desirable.