Sharon Bowles, ELDR and Software patents
--> [ Toine Manders | UK Libdems | Andrew Duff MEP | UK Parties | UK Patent Family Software Patents ]
Sharon Bowles took the seat of Chris Huhne as an MEP in May, following Huhne's election to the UK national parliament...
Added recently:
Briefing Document for 2nd Reading vote
Mail exchange of Bruce Badger with Sharon Bowles on software patents
About Sharon Bowles
Sharon Bowles is
- a European Patent Attorney and computer architecture and communications technology are among her fields
member of the Parliamentary Committee of CIPA, the "Charted Institute of Patent Agents" which is the special interest group of UK patent attorneys and her Committee lobbies the UK Patent Office and Westminster.
- was running in the European Elections and will possilbly become an MEP in spring 2005
- already a Vice President of the ELDR party,
an advisor to Chris Huhne MEP and likely to the rest of the UK Libdems, including likely Diana Wallis and Graham Watson too, she simply is the professional IP Expert inside the Party. It's also quite sure that she has good contact with Toine Manders and Elly-Ploij van Gorsel too.
In this pdf (web summary) she is listed as member of Working Group on Information Technology of the UK Libdems.
She's a qualified European Patent Attorney running a professional partnership that she founded over 20 years ago. She specialises in writing, prosecuting and litigating patents on "semiconductor fabrication, communications technology, computer architecture, aeronautics, oil extraction and industrial fermentation".
She must have good ties to Brussels, and is no less than a vice-president of the ELDR party bureau (the party's key day-to-day advisory committee).
Stood as #3 candidate for South-East England. On a page detailing the candidates the list leader Chris Huhne says: "The third candidate on the list, with an excellent chance of winning next year, is Sharon Bowles, a leading patent attorney who is well versed in european law."
Indeed, she seems to have a leading lobbying role, she is member of the Parliamentary Committee of "Charted Institute of Patent Agents" (CIPA) - the professional and examining body for patent agents, also called attorneys in the UK. The Institute was founded in 1882 and was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1891. It represents virtually all the 1600 registered patent attorneys in the UK, whether they practise in industry or in private practice. Total membership is over 3000 and includes trainee patent attorneys and other professionals with an interest in intellectual property matters. CIPA reports to the Controller-General of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs at the Patent Office and advises the UK Government and other international bodies on policy and practice matters.
What is deeply worrying is that CIPA calls together with ITMA for the appointment of patent attorneys as judges (patent attorneys are better called agents agents, they are not trained like attorneys, CIPA iselfs says "pagent agents, also called patent attorneys)
Chris Huhne and Emma Nicholson were re-elected; Sharon Bowles replaced Chris Huhne as MEP after he was elected to the UK parliament in Spring 2005".
The letter she sent (included at the end) styled her just as "senior advisor to Chris Huhne MEP", but with her background, if the rest of the Lib Dems aren't using her as their lead technical expert on this dossier, they'd be crazy.
Still, I suppose it at least means the ELDR have somebody who can cope with as much technical detail as we care to throw at them.
ELDR Party Bureau
http://www.eldr.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=454
http://eldr.ntc.be/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=5 (includes pictures)
Biography (2003) http://www.eldr.org/images/upload2/cvsharonbowles.doc :
Sharon Bowles offers political, technical, legal and business expertise. She is expected to become an MEP either this June as one of the key Liberal Democrat gains or by promotion into a probable vacancy after the General Election, which is likely to be in Spring 2005.
Sharon has been one of the Liberal Democrats high profile European campaigners and policy makers for over 15 years. This will be her fifth major election campaign, her third as a European Candidate. Sharon is co-chair of the Liberal Democrat International Relations committee, a member of the Partys Federal Executive and until stepping down recently also served on the Federal Finance and Administration Committee.
She is well known as a frequent participant at ELDR and LI Congresses, in recent years as British delegation leader.
Within the Liberal Democrats she has served on many policy groups on topics including science, genetic engineering, economy, civil liberties and presently on the group putting the final touches to a paper on international trade. Often a leading speaker in debates at Party Conferences, her speeches frequently attract significant media attention.
Academically Sharon is a solid state physicist and mathematician and researched on semiconductors at Oxford University.
Professionally she is qualified as a European Patent Attorney and runs a professional partnership that she founded over 20 years ago. Her own practice includes writing, prosecuting and litigating patents for some of the worlds leading companies in the fields of semiconductor fabrication, communications technology, computer architecture, aeronautics, oil extraction and industrial fermentation.
The role of a Vice-President can take different forms. It can be to forge closer understanding with new parties, to give the Bureau status, or to take on significant organisational work. My pledge is to undertake hard work for the future development of a truly pan-European party.
More details on: http://www.libdemseuro99.cix.co.uk/regdir/southeast/candidates3.htm
- Contact: Broadway House, Bourne End, Hemel Hempstead, HP1 2RU Tel(H): 01442 876561 Fax(H): 01442 876562 Tel(O): 01442 875961 Fax(O): 01442 872860
Email: Sharon@bowleshorton.com website: http://www.europe.nildram.co.uk/ (domain no longer registered) Occupation: European Patent Attorney Date of Birth: 12.06.1953 Educated: Reading University; Oxford University Candidate: Aylesbury, 1997, 1992; Buckinghamshire & Oxford E (Euro), 1994 Interests: Classical Music, Rowing, Cricket, and Dance Member: Anti-Slavery International, Liberal International Sharon is married with two sixth-form sons. A physicist, she has specialised in research on semiconductors in the UK and United States. Professionally qualified as a European Patent and Trade Mark Attorney, she has wide business experience having established her own firm in 1981 which represents clients at the forefront of technological developments all over the world. Sharon has led major Conference debates on Health, Education, and small Businesses and has been a member of policy working groups on science, economy, and genetic engineering. She has particular expertise in trade and industry (intellectual property, WTO and TRIPS especially) and is a campaigner against forced and child labour. Foreign Knowledge: European Patent Office, OHIM, Intellectual Property Worldwide Languages Spoken: French, German
Her Letter:
Original Message
- From: Sharon Bowles Sent: 1/9/2005 5:09 PM Subject: Computer Implemented Inventions Dear Mr ..... I refer to your recent email to Chris Huhne MEP. I am his senior advisor and he has asked me to reply on his behalf. I am sorry this is a very long reply, but I hope you will get through it all. This is necessary for a full understanding because I am afraid that most of the reporting about what this legislation covers is very wrong. It is not quite clear why there is such a belief that it is intended to lead Europe down the US path because that battle, (such as it was) was won a long time ago and the legislation both makes it clear that Europe does not intend to do the same as the US and provides a defence against further attempts to force it that way. The Liberal Democrats have always opposed any extension to the current practice, but as you will see from this reply, that is not actually what is at issue. A full background and explanation is given below and I also attach a copy of the proposal (the Common Position) and a PDF of an explanatory leaflet produced by the Patent Office. The Common Position does not change what has been established practice in the UK and Europe in recent years, which is and will continue to be more restricted than US practice. There never was an intention to allow what many have understood by the phrase 'software patents' and the Common Position now reflects this much better. The most important part of the Common Position is the Articles on pages 8 and 9 and in particular Articles 2, 4 and 4a which are all short and relatively simple. To proceed further the Common Position has to be passed by one of the Council meetings (any Council can do this) and then it goes back to the Parliament for a second reading. This to and fro is rather like between the UK Commons and Lords and is the normal process with nothing getting through until both agree. However the Polish Government has now changed its view and so there may be some further changes before it goes to the Parliament again or it could be dropped altogether. In the short term it makes no difference to the software industry as in the absence of the directive the status quo will be maintained and they are essentially the same. (My view as a European Patent Attorney is that the directive is probably slightly more restricting than the status quo). The risk then comes if Europe gets forced in the future via the WTO to accept something that is more like the US practice, which the current directive would stave off. Now to the detail... FULL EXPLANATION INCLUDING BACKGROUND Background. Patents are granted for inventions that are new, not obvious (have inventive merit) and are capable of industrial application. These may be products or processes (methods). Historically legislation has specifically excluded from patentability some fields such as mathematical methods, business methods and computer programs which at the time of their exclusion were considered entirely 'mental operations' and therefore not capable of industrial application. The problem in recent years faced by Patent Offices and courts has been how to interpret 'computer programs'. This has become highly relevant, not just because of the increasing use of computer programs but rather more because of the nature of things that are done nowadays by computer programs. In particular there are now substantial areas of technology where software has replaced conventional analog or digital circuits. Examples range from control of mechanical systems such as an internal combustion engine to control of packet switching in network routers, which underlies communications technology. To be effective a patent must cover the concept as well as the detail of the invention, so although a computer program listing might be given as an example of how to perform part or all of an invention, the patent claims (the bit that defines, legally, what is covered) would not be so specific and usually relate to the method steps that are implemented in the software. (This is why relying on copyright protection in the listing is not sufficient.) So the question arose of whether the exclusion of 'computer programs' covered only listings or extended to claims to a method that is entirely put into operation through a program, i.e. is 'software or computer- implemented'. The European Patent Office adopted the practice that a 'computer-implemented invention' was more than just a 'computer program' and was patentable when there was also a technical effect because this fulfilled the fundamental requirement that a patent be 'capable of industrial application'. This interpretation was also followed by courts in the UK and Germany and is what we have had in Europe for some years. There has been pressure from the US for wider coverage as they have. This has been resisted (not least by parts of the profession and patent offices in Europe) but does seem to have given rise to lasting fear. More recently, some European countries expressed the opinion that their courts might take a different view on 'computer implemented inventions' and deem patents that were to a method implemented by a program (as were being granted by the European Patent Office) invalid. At this stage clarification became desirable for a variety of reasons. One of these was that if the practice of the European Patent Office were not upheld in all courts, then the same logic that caused the EPO to regard these computer-implemented inventions as patentable (by virtue of being methods capable of industrial application and belonging to a field of technology) could also be used to find against the EU in respect of its TRIPS obligations (Trade Related Intellectual Property Agreements which are part of the WTO agreements) under which patent protection for all areas of technology must be provided. This was only a theoretical breach, in that it had not actually happened, but coupled with the uncertainty that the pronouncements had made the Commission considered it would be best to confirm a uniform interpretation. The Proposals. The objective is to define the practice that the EPO has established as applicable in all countries. This would mean no change to the practice that the software industry has experienced in recent years in Europe and no following of wider US practice. Unfortunately the Commission draft was not perfect in achieving the objective, and many continued to fear that a US type of patent coverage was intended as some discussion of that did take place at an earlier stage, but was rejected. Amendments passed by the Parliament, some of which were proposed by the software industry, unintentionally made matters worse. For example the amendments included several that attempted to redefine 'industrial application' and 'technical effect' which are definitions that have been in use for decades with a substantial body of law behind them on a worldwide basis. The new definitions may have solved a problem (that was not necessarily there) for the software industry but they also had an impact on other areas of electronics, potentially excluding from patentability a range of electronic inventions, such as those implemented through processing of signal values, for which patentability had previously never been in doubt. This would have been a disaster for the European electronics and communications industries, including many SMEs, and would have left the EU in an actual rather than just a theoretical breach of its TRIPS obligations. Now there is a 'Common Position' from the Council, which although it has not included all the wording of the amendments, has included enough to make it absolutely clear that for patentability a computer implemented invention must have a technical effect (i.e. beyond the ordinary interactions in a computer program) and the inventive merit must relate to that technical effect. Detail from the Common Position. The Council Common Position specifically includes the amendment passed by the Parliament and supported by the Liberal Democrats that "In order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be susceptible of industrial application and new and involve an inventive step. In order to involve an inventive step, a computer-implemented invention must make a technical contribution". Other important parts of the Council Common Position are: In the Directive:
- - A computer program as such cannot constitute a patentable
- - Inventions involving computer programs, whether
- - A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a
- - An algorithm is inherently non-technical and therefore
<<Council Common Position - 18 May 2004.doc>> <<Cii.pdf>>
