JuriHarmon0505En

Recital 1

number

submitter

recommendation

text

2, 181

Rocard; Lichtenberger and Frassoni

+

The realisation of the internal market implies the elimination of restrictions to free circulation and of unjustified distortions in competition, while creating an environment which is favourable to innovation and investment. In this context the protection of inventions by means of patents is one of the elements contributing to the success of the internal market. Appropriate, effective, transparent and harmonised protection of computer-controlled/assisted inventions throughout the Member States is essential in order to maintain and encourage investment in all technical fields involving the use of information technology.

2 uses the term "computer-controlled", 181 uses the term "computer-assisted". Apart from that small difference, they are identical.

Especially the addition of the word "appropriate" is commendable in these amendments. They correct the bias towards "more patents = better" bias inherent to the original text.

Recital 2

| number | submitter | recommendation | text | | 3, 182 | Rocard; Lichtenberger and Frassoni | + | Differences exist in the protection of computer-controlled/assisted inventions offered by the administrative practices and the case law of the different Member States. Such differences could create barriers to trade and hence impede the proper functioning of the internal market. |

3 uses the term "computer-controlled", 182 uses the term "computer-assisted". Apart from that small difference, they are identical. Their only change is replacing "computer-implemented" with their respective alternatives.

Recital 5

| number | submitter | recommendation | text | | 4, 183 | Rocard; Lichtenberger and Frassoni | + | Therefore, the legal rules governing the patentability of computer-controlled/assisted inventions should be harmonised so as to ensure that the resulting legal certainty and the level of requirements demanded for patentability enable innovative enterprises to derive the maximum advantage from their inventive process and provide an incentive for investment and innovation. Legal certainty will also be secured by the fact that, in case of doubt as to the interpretation of this Directive, national courts may, and national courts of last instance must, seek a ruling from the Court of Justice. |

4 uses the term "computer-controlled", 183 uses the term "computer-assisted". Apart from that small difference, they are identical. Their only change is replacing "computer-implemented" with their respective alternatives.

Recital 8

| number | submitter | recommendation | text | | 7 = 193 | Rocard | + | The aim of this Directive is to prevent different interpretations of the provisions of the European Patent Convention concerning the limits to patentability. The consequent legal certainty should help to foster a climate conducive to investment and innovation in fields of technology and in the field of software. |

A useful clarification which recapitulates the important distinction between technology and data processing

Recital 23

| number | submitter | recommendation | text | | 22 | Rocard | + | Since the objective of this Directive, namely to harmonise national rules on the patentability of computer-controlled inventions, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective,| | 256 | Lichtenberger, Frassoni | + | Since the objective of the proposed action, namely to harmonise national rules on the patentability computer-assisted inventions, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of this action, be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. |

22 uses the term "computer-controlled", 256 uses the term "computer-assisted". There are some more small differences, but nothing really significant. Both fix the usage of the term "computer-implemented".

Hosting sponsored by Netgate and Init Seven AG