Le Commissaire européen McCreevy a affirmé en plusieurs occasions que, si le Parlement Européen en venait à rejetter l'actuelle proposition de directive européenne relative aux inventions mises en oeuvre par ordinateur, il n'en présenterait pas de nouvelle version. Il affirme ainsi "respecter l'expression de l'opinion du Parlement", alors même qu'il s'oppose très explicitement à la position que le Parlement Européen avait souhaité jusqu'alors atteindre. Nous nous estimons tout particulièrement concernés par le fait que le Commissaire Européen semble vouloir dissuader le Parlement de rejeter l'actuelle proposition de directive en évoquant l'existence de conséquences imprévisibles, tout en interprétant à sa manière les motivations du Parlement.
Le 8 Mars 2005, le Commissaire au marché intérieur de l'Union Charlie McCreevy a déclaré au Parlement Européen réuni en session plénière à Strasbourg :
"If the parliament decides to reject it, then the Commission will respect your wishes. I will not propose a new directive."
Traduction proposée : "Si le Parlement choisissait de la rejeter, alors, la Commission respecterait son souhait. Je ne proposerai pas de nouvelle directive."
Cette annonce a été confirmée par la suite dans une lettre adressée au Chairman du Legal Affairs Comittee.
En considérant qu'à peu près toutes les parties prenantes du débat relatif à la brevetabilité des inventions mises en oeuvre par ordinateur s'accordent sur la nécessité d'une directive d'harmonisation, une telle prise de position soulève un certain nombre de problèmes. Il est de ce fait important d'en déterminer le sens exact. Il semble cependant qu'à ce faire, il existe un risque réel de mésinterprétation des propos du Commissaire. Nous essaierons alors d'établir quelques unes des possibles interprétations :
1ère possibilité : Le Commissaire ne connait pas le contenu du texte élaboré par le Parlement.
On peut interpréter la position adoptée par les Commissaires Européens en supposant qu'ils s'estimeraient tenus de ne plus fournir de nouvelle proposition si le Parlement Européen, en rejetant l'actuel proposition de directive, exprimait son souhait de ne plus se voir présenter de directive sur le sujet.
Dans la mesure où le Parlement a démontré sa pleine conscience de l'importance de l'enjeu que représente la levée de l'incertitude juridique en proposant une version amendée de cette directive adoptée en première lecture (par exemple, au cours des recitals 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 19 et 21), une telle interprétation impliquerait que le Commissaire n'a pas à ce jour pris connaissance de ce texte. Nous supposerons dans la suite de notre argumentaire qu'une telle hypothèse n'a aucun sens. Nous supposerons plutôt que la première et la seconde proposition du Commissaire ne sont pas liées entre elles par une relation de causalité dans un sens ou dans l'autre, et donc, peuvent ou non avoir lieu l'une indépendamment de l'autre.
En considérant plus avant cette hypothèse, il devient possible d'envisager une nouvelle interprétation :
2ème possibilité : le Commissaire renonce à quelque intention d'harmonisation de la juridiction européenne relative à la brevetabilité des inventions mises en oeuvre par ordinateur.
Dans la mesure ou le Commissaire a certainement pu, d'une manière ou d'une autre, prendre conscience du fait que toutes les parties s'étant exprimées au cours du débat souhaitaient aboutir à un texte juridique clarifiant l'enjeu de la brevetabilité des logiciels, il est difficile d'envisager sérieusement une telle hypothèse. De plus, le Commissaire ne nous a fourni à ce jour nul élément laissant supposer de sa part quelque changement de point de vue que ce soit. On pourrait alors s'attendre de sa part à quelques arguments susceptibles de justifier un tel revirement de position.
Même en supposant que le Commissaire ait aboutir à la conclusion selon laquelle l'actuelle insécurité juridique était acceptable telle qu'elle, par exemple à la suite de discussions informelles avec d'autres interlocuteurs que ceux ici cités, il devrait prendre conscience qu'en adoptant cette position, il s'oppose à l'ensemble de celles jusqu'alors exprimées par le Conseil de l'Europe, le Parlement Européen, des gourvements nationaux, ainsi que celles d'un très grand nombre d'acteurs du secteur concurrentiel.
Ne devrait-il pas plutôt coopérer et travailler de sorte à fournir les outils légaux à même de lever cette insécurité, par exemple, en proposant une nouvelle directive ? La Commission ne devrait-elle pas poursuivre toute méthode susceptible de contribuer à l'émergence la plus rapide possible de règles harmonisées au sein de l'Union Européenne ?
Ce qui nous mène à une troisième hypothèse
That leads straightforward to the third interpretation, 3. The Commissioner suddenly intends new negotiations at the level of the European Patent Convention
Regardless that this would be quite as surprising and doesn't therefore improve the dialog between the Commission and at least the public world, the Commissioner could nonetheless have quietly changed his opinion and suddenly prefer to encourage new negotiations on the European Patent Convention. However this would not be a solution to the problem that the differences between the case law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office and the courts of Member States would simply continue, with the result that software implemented ideas would be recognized as invention in one Member State but not in another one. The direct and negative effects on the proper functioning of the internal market are obvious. Only a directive addresses this situation by harmonizing national patent laws and by making the conditions of patentability more transparent. We will not assume that these arguments do not count to the Commissioner since they are derived from the original proposal of the Commision itself, and this could imply he either does not believe or simply didn't read it. So we have no choice but to dismiss this interpretation too.
But what is left ?
It really does not give us pleasure, but we have to consider that... 4. The Commissioner wants to detain the Parliament from rejecting
Could it be the Commissioner wants to detain the European Parliament from rejecting by purposely misrepresenting its motives should they do so ? Indeed, if there cpuld not be any new directive proposal in case it rejects the current one, the European Parliament would face very heavy pressure from virtually any side: From the software industry and the small and mediumsized economy as well as the Open Soucre Community and the member states' governments, all of which would urge the Parliament to not reject under all circumstances. A rejection would be definitly impossible then.
At this point it is important to remember the reasons why at all the Parliament should consider a rejection:
First, it basically wants a directive - but one that together with other features, beyound any doubt excludes pure software ideas from being patented. However, motions from 4 national Parliaments and declarations of concerns from 9 member states proove that there indeed is serious doubt about the current proposal.
Second, unfortunately both the Commission and the Council ignored the opinion of the European Parliament as well as at the motions of the mentioned 4 national Parliaments nearly completely, (and in a quite 'inelegant' way) which is reason enough to reject the directive in the desperate attempt to re-establish a balance of power and defend the principles of democracy within the European Union. To deny the European Parliament any chance of a true decision would be another painful blow to its core.
On the other hand, while working out a new draft propsal after a rejection, the Commission simply could no more ignore the accumulated evidence.
Assumed that the Commission still does not support any substantive achievement of the first reading, it is quite likely that it favours to continue with the current version which Commissioner Bolkestein already had fought so hard for.
Taking all this into account we must consider the possibility that Commissioner McCreevys announcement in question here was nothing else than an attempt to blackmail the European Parliament, which indeed would work perfectly. Although it doesn't make any sense either.
Then we have to wonder what for heaven's sake could motivate a Commissioner to publicly compromise the European Parliament and seriously damage the institutional relations ?
Perhaps to Mr McCreevy it is a matter of principle to be loayl to his predecessor and to push as hard as possible for a once upon a time identified goal. Perhaps we would be able to catch a glimpse of it in the light of a statement that could be found on the Commissioners Homepage:
"Those of you who know me will know that I defend my point of view vigorously.
- This has given me the reputation of being stubborn. When it comes to matters of principle then I am persistent."
Given the critical importance of softwarepatents and the impending institutional crash we are facing now, it would however be very careless to insist on the hardliners course in this case, and the announcement in question would always be just a punch below the belt.
(The quote from Ms McCreevies Homepage gets removed in the meantime)
To be fair, we like to draw your attention also to another statement that the Commissioner made only minutes later in the same plenary about the services directive:
"We must guard against people who are lulled into
- defending the interests of the status quo. (...) I hope to be able to come up with the best solution possible, based on the broadest consensus, because that is what we and Europe need."
These hopeful sentences may indicate our dim suppositions are just wrong, and it was all about a misunderstanding which will be corrected soon. (We still would like to ask if this last statement can't apply to the softwarepatent directive as well.) We gladly would be able to understand it this way.
Considering that Commissioner McCreevy's announcement results in much dynamite being added to the already heated debate, a clarifying statement from the Commission would be welcome. Background information
Commissioner McCreevy's speech in the European Parliament Plenary in Strasbourg
Commissioner McCreevy's written letter to Guiseppe Gargani, Chairmain of the EP's Legal Affairs Committee (pdf, FFII summary and notes)
Verbatim of discussion in the European Parliament Plenary: Commissioner McCreevy on the Services Directive
Comments: André Rebentisch
It happened before. Frits Bolkestein defended his approach at the plenary before the vote (2003-09-23)
Anything which imposes unreasonable demands, given the limited resources at the Commission's disposal, could not meet with our approval. The need to remain within the scope of the directive should also be borne in mind. Some of the amendments proposed are too broad in their effects.
Either we proceed using the Community method or we take a back seat and watch while Member States proceed by means of an intergovernmental treaty. It is clear that proceeding via this Parliament would give European citizens a greater say in patent legislation, an area which is so crucial to our economy.
Parliament decided in favour of a good directive that does protect innovations and innovators, a directive that solves the problem. Frits Bolkestein also said:
Amendment 18 - the addition of a new paragraph to Article 5, dealing with computer program claims. That is something that the Commission did not put into its original proposal. This was not an oversight but something that we considered long and hard. We were concerned that allowing computer product claims was a step on a slippery slope to
- allowing computer programs on their own to be patentable, something
that is clearly contrary to the European Patent Convention and to the views of the vast majority of the Members who spoke this morning.
Amendment 18 was explicit rejected by the European Parliament. However, in the Council versions that Parliaments will face in the second reading program claims were introduced for the first time. And they had to be - as Bolkestein indicated - worded in a cautious way (Article 5.2).
A claim to a computer program ... shall not be allowed unless ... that can always be fulfilled
The Parliament now has to amend an even worse version with program claims. Given the majority needed McCreevy's remarks are quite cynical. His option kindly granted to the Parliament is to kill a directive proposal messed up by the Council.
