Questionnaire for Software Patent Legislators
-> [ français ] [ Responses 2004 | MEP Info Page | Letters | Project News | Patent News ]
April 2005 -- FFII is proposing 5 basic questions which people should use when they write to their representatives in the European Parliament and elsewhere, in the hope of facilitating a substantive dialogue between the two sides. The questions are grouped on a scale from a weak to a stronger limitation of patentability.
Questionnaire
Please tick:
- I support an interoperability privilege in the sense of Art 6a, as approved by JURI in June 2003.
- I oppose program claims (as introduced by the European Patent Office (EPO) in 1998 and codified in Art 5(2) of the Council version). Instead, I support explicit affirmation of freedom of publication, as stipulated in EP Article 7 par 3.
- I support restoration of a meaningful interpretation of the European Patent Convention, as practiced at the European Patent Office before the Vicom decision of 1986, and against any attempt to define "programs for computers as such" in a way that renders Art 52 EPC meaningless (e.g. as done in Council Rec 7 and Art 4A) or to codify recent examination methodologies of the EPO.
- I support negative definitions of key terms imposed by !TRIPs, particularly EP Art 6 ("increased efficiency in use of computing ressources does not constitute a technical contribution") and EP Art 3 ("data processing is not a field of technology ...").
- I support positive definitions of key terms imposed by !TRIPs, as found in EP Art 2 and 3 (and in some well-proven national caselaw), e.g. defining "technology" as applied natural science and "technical invention" or "technical contribution" as a problem solution involving controllable forces of nature.
How to use the questionnaire
Not all legislators will want to tick on a questionnaire. What was natural during the EP election campaign phase of June 2004 may not be as natural now. You can of course also rephrase the questions in the form of "Do you ..." and use them in a personal letter.
Indeed if you just copy and paste the above questionnaire and to not give special care to embedding the questions in an appropriate communication context (in other words: without showing the due respect for the MEP whom you expect to spend time on responding) and preparing yourself to follow up on responses, you risk doing a disfavor to the cause.
To Do
- We need to enrich the above texts with some links to further documenation and argumentation on each point.
- There should be people who collect and processes answers which we obtain and assist in follow-up.
