Softwarepatenten.be

<EntPE>PARLEMENT EUROPÉEN</EntPE>

<Commission>{JURI}Commission des affaires juridiques</Commission>

<Date>{04/05/2005}4.5.2005</Date> PE 357.845v01-00

AMENDEMENTS <RangeAM>40-256</RangeAM>

<TitreType>Projet de recommandation pour la deuxième lecture</TitreType> (PE 357.776v01-00)

<Rapporteur>Michel Rocard</Rapporteur>

<Titre>brevetabilité des inventiones mises en oeuvre par ordinateur</Titre>

<TitreRecueil>Position commune du Conseil (11979/1/2004 – C6‑0058/2005 – 2002/0047(COD))</TitreRecueil>

Projet de résolution législative

<RepeatBlock-AmendA><AmendA>Amendement déposé par <Members>Daniel Stroz</Members>

Amendement <NumAmA>40</NumAmA>

<Article>Paragraphe 1</Article>

1. rejette la position commune;

Or. <Original>{FR}fr</Original>

Justification

En proposant la brevetabilité des inventions mises en oeuvre par ordinateur, la Commission ouvre la voie à la brevetabilité du savoir humain. De plus, cette directive ne répond pas aux enjeux économiques, scientifiques et culturels du secteur du logiciel ainsi qu'à la nécessité de promouvoir l'innovation. Pour toutes ces raisons et pour répondre à la forte opposition de scientifiques, d'éditeurs de logiciels, la position commune doit être rejetée

</AmendA><AmendA>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmA>41</NumAmA>

<Article>Apartado 1</Article>

1 Rejects the Common Position.

 

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The Common Position was questioned by several Member states in the Council, even when the political agreement was finally adopted earlier this year. This means that there are strong doubts about the content of the Common Position.</AmendA>

</RepeatBlock-AmendA>

Position commune du Conseil

<RepeatBlock-AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>42</NumAmB>

<Article>Title</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This replacement is to be performed at all places in the text where the expression ”computer-implemented invention” is used.

In their press release upon adoption of the "Common Position", the Council says that that their text did not allow patening of software as such but only of washing machines, mobile phones etc, which they called "computer-aided inventions".

When a solution is "aided" by a computer, such as is the case e.g. in "computer-aided design" and "computer-aided manufacturing" (CAD/CAM), the claim is usually not directed to the software as such, but to an industrial engineering process. A computer can aid such a process but not implement it. A computer alone can only implement a software solution, and software together with a computer is nothing more than software as such and thus not an "invention" in the sense of patent law. The Council has good reasons to avoid this misleading term in its press release. The same reasons apply to the whole directive text.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>43</NumAmB>

<Article>Title</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This replacement is to be performed at all places in the text where the expression ”computer-implemented invention” is used.

In their press release upon adoption of the "Common Position", the Council says that that their text did not allow patening of software as such but only of washing machines, mobile phones etc, which they called "computer-aided inventions".

When a solution is "aided" by a computer, such as is the case e.g. in "computer-aided design" and "computer-aided manufacturing" (CAD/CAM), the claim is usually not directed to the software as such, but to an industrial engineering process. A computer can aid such a process but not implement it. A computer alone can only implement a software solution, and software together with a computer is nothing more than software as such and thus not an "invention" in the sense of patent law. The Council has good reasons to avoid this misleading term in its press release. The same reasons apply to the whole directive text.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Mojca Drčar Murko, Toine Manders, Diana Wallis</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>44</NumAmB>

<Article>Title</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The title of the directive should undoubtedly express its scope, which is dealing with computer -operated devices, not with software. The word "implemented" might suggest that patenting of software is under circumstances possible.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>45</NumAmB>

<Article>Artículo 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

El término "invención aplicada a través de ordenador" no es utilizado por los informáticos. De hecho, no se utiliza en absoluto. Fue introducido por el OEP en mayo de 2000 para legitimar las patentes de métodos empresariales, al igual que para equiparar la práctica de OEP a la de Japón y EEUU. El término "invención aplicada a través de ordenador" implica que las normas de cálculo formadas en los términos del ordenador de uso general sean invenciones patentables.

Esta implicación está en contradicción con el artículo 52 CEP, según el cual los algoritmos, los métodos y los programas empresariales para los ordenadores no son invenciones en el sentido de la ley de patentes. No puede ser objetivo de la presente directiva declarar todas las clases de ideas "aplicadas a través de ordenador" como invenciones patentables. El objetivo debe ser, más bien, aclarar los límites de la patentabilidad con respeto al procesamiento de datos automáticos y sus diversos campos (técnicos y no técnicos) de aplicación, y esto debe expresarse con una redacción sencilla e inequívoca.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>46</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Only software solutions can be "computer-implemented". The aim of the directive is not to state that software solutions are inventions in the sense of patent law.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>47</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Only software solutions can be "computer-implemented". The aim of the directive is not to state that software solutions are inventions in the sense of patent law.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>48</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The term ‘implemented’ is not suitable, as computer-implemented software is not an invention, as software is not patentable. The computer and its program are used only to control a hardware invention, hence the change of word. Moreover, the expression computer implemented invention is not in use among specialist, on the contrary of the expression "computer-assisted" such as in the software "computer-assisted design/ computer-assisted manufacturing".

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Hans-Peter Mayer</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>49</NumAmB>

<Article>Artikel 2</Article>

Or. <Original>{DE}de</Original>

Justification

Der hier vorgelegte Änderungsantrag soll den Bereich, in dem Software vom Patentschutz im Rahmen einer technischen Entwicklung mit umfasst ist, näher fixieren und genauer abgrenzen.

</AmendB>

 

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>50</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2, point a)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

In their press release upon adoption of the "Common Position", the Council says that that their text did not allow patening of software as such but only of washing machines, mobile phones etc, which they called "computer-aided inventions". When a solution is "aided" by a computer, such as is the case e.g. in "computer-aided design" and "computer-aided manufacturing" (CAD/CAM), the claim is usually not directed to the software as such, but to an industrial engineering process. A computer can aid such a process but not implement it. A computer alone can only "implement" (= run) a software solution, and software running on a computer is nothing more than software as suc hand thus not an "invention" in the sense of patent law.

As long as the old term is still in use, it has to be defined here as a synonym.

This amendment removes wordings from the Council text which are unclear and redundant and whose only purpose seems to be to suggest that the claimed invention can consist in nothing but software running on a computer.

This amendment is a simplified version of an amendment adopted in 1st reading.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>51</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2, point a)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

In their press release upon adoption of the "Common Position", the Council says that that their text did not allow patening of software as such but only of washing machines, mobile phones etc, which they called "computer-aided inventions".

When a solution is "aided" by a computer, such as is the case e.g. in "computer-aided design" and "computer-aided manufacturing" (CAD/CAM), the claim is usually not directed to the software as such, but to an industrial engineering process. A computer can aid such a process but not implement it. A computer alone can only "implement" (= run) a software solution, and software running on a computer is nothing more than software as suc hand thus not an "invention" in the sense of patent law.

As long as the old term is still in use, it has to be defined here as a synonym.

This amendment removes wordings from the Council text which are unclear and redundant and whose only purpose seems to be to suggest that the claimed invention can consist in nothing but software running on a computer.

This amendment is a simplified version of an amendment adopted in 1st reading.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>52</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2, point (a)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Reference to the European Patent Convention definition is clearer.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Andrzej Jan Szejna</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>53</NumAmB>

<Article>Artykul 2 point a)</Article>

Or. <Original>{PL}pl</Original>

Justification

Stwierdzenie to stawia znak równości pomiędzy "wynalazek realizowany przy pomocy komputera" a "wymagający dodatkowo użycia komputera".

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>54</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2, point a)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This is very close to EP 1st reading article 2a ; this amendment aims at ensuring that software cannot be patentable, but rather only computer-assisted hardware inventions, software needs to be excluded from the ‘technical’ field, as Parliament did at first reading.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>55</NumAmB>

<Article>Artículo 2, punto a)</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

El artículo 52 del CEP establece claramente que un programa de ordenador independiente (o un programa de ordenador como tal) no puede constituir una invención patentable. Esta enmienda aclara que una innovación es solamente patentable si se ajusta al artículo 52 del EPC, independientemente de si un programa de ordenador forma parte de su aplicación o no.

Esta enmienda se adoptó en una forma ligeramente diferente en la primera lectura del PE. Se establecía "invención aplicada a través de ordenador" en vez de" invención asistida por ordenador". La razón para este cambio de la terminología se encuentra en la justificación para el artículo 1.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Malcolm Harbour</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>56</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2 point a)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Reference to the EPC clarifies the text.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Edith Mastenbroek, Evelin Lichtenberger</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>57</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2, point b)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Upon close reading, it appears that according to the Council's text the "technical contribution" may consist solely of non-technical features. The text is full of redundant statements and misleading ambiguities, but does contain some usable elements.

The concept of "technical contribution" has pervaded the discussion about the directive and generated great confusion and therefore to some extent deserves to be clarified. While intuitively and in the subjective belief of most discutants the "technical contribution appears to be related to the question of patentable subject matter (Art 52 EPC), the EPO used the term as a means of abolishing the subject matter test by mixing it into the

non-obviousness test (Art 56 EPC) in obscure ways, which national courts and ministerial patent officials have found difficult to follow. It is thus particularly important that, as far as the written law uses this term, it is understood to be connected to the concept of "invention" (patentable subject matter) and dissociated from all other conditions of patentability.

A similar amendment that was adopted in first reading by the EP. This amendment adds some ideas of the Council such as that of subtracting the prior art from the claimed object. If worded carefully like here, this can help provide further clarification.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Andrzej Jan Szejna</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>58</NumAmB>

<Article>Artykul 2 point b)</Article>

Or. <Original>{PL}pl</Original>

Justification

Jeśli parametry stanu układu materialnego ulegają zmianie mamy do czynienia ze zmianą stanu techniki. Jeśli natomiast ten nowy stan prowadzi do korzyści o charakterze ekonomicznym lub innym, wówczas mówimy o wkładzie technicznym.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>59</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2, point b)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This is very close to EP 1st reading article 2a ; In order to ensure that software cannot be patentable, but rather only computer-controlled hardware inventions, software needs to be excluded from the ‘technical’ field, as Parliament did at first reading.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>60</NumAmB>

<Article>Artículo 2, punto b)</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

El texto del Consejo combina la prueba de la invención (contribución técnica) con otras pruebas no obvias (escalón de invención) y nuevas, debilitando, por ello, todas las pruebas, desviándose del artículo 52 CPE, y creando problemas prácticos.

Las "cuatro fuerzas de la naturaleza" son un concepto reconocido de epistemología (teoría de la ciencia). Mientras que las matemáticas y el procesamiento de datos son abstractos y sin relación al que se relaciona con las fuerzas de la naturaleza, podría, sin embargo, sostenerse que algunos métodos empresariales dependen de la química de las células cerebrales del cliente. Éstas son fuerzas no controlables, es decir, sujetas a la libre voluntad.

Por tanto el término "fuerzas controlables de la naturaleza" excluye claramente lo que necesita ser excluido y sin embargo proporciona bastante flexibilidad para la inclusión de posibles campos futuros de ciencia natural aplicada más allá de las actualmente reconocidas "4 fuerzas de la naturaleza".

Este concepto se ha formulado en la mayor parte de las jurisdicciones e incluso se ha incorporado a la legislación de países como Japón y Polonia. La justificación clásica para el carácter técnico de las "invenciones aplicadas a través de ordenador" no es que el significado de" técnico" haya cambiado, sino que el ordenador efectivamente consume la energía de una manera controlada, y que la "invención" debe "considerarse como un todo".

Los críticos de esta opinión, por ejemplo el Tribunal Federal Alemán de Patentes, argumentan que la solución es completada mediante un cálculo anterior abstracto, y solamente durante la aplicación no inventiva sobre un sistema de procesamiento de datos, entran en juego las fuerzas de la naturaleza.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>61</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2, point (b)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The definition of “technical contribution” has to be clear in order to determine what is patentable and what is not. Reference to “technical features” is too vague.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>62</NumAmB>

<Article> Article 2 point b) </Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Upon close reading, it appears that according to the Council's text the "technical contribution" may consist solely of non-technical features. The text is full of redundant statements and misleading ambiguities, but does contain some usable elements.

The concept of "technical contribution" has pervaded the discussion about the directive and generated great confusion and therefore to some extent deserves to be clarified. While intuitively and in the subjective belief of most discutants the "technical contribution appears to be related to the question of patentable subject matter (Art 52 EPC), the EPO used the term as a means of abolishing the subject matter test by mixing it into the non-obviousness test (Art 56 EPC) in obcure ways, which national courts and ministerial patent officials have found difficult to follow. It is thus particularly important that, as far as the written law uses this term, it is understood to be connected to the concept of "invention" (patentable subject matter) and dissociated from all other conditions of patentability.

A similar amendment that was adopted in first reading by the EP. This amendment adds some ideas of the Council such as that of subtracting the prior art from the claimed object. If worded carefully like here, this can help provide further clarification.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>63</NumAmB>

<Article> Article 2 point b) </Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Upon close reading, it appears that according to the Council's text the "technical contribution" may consist solely of non-technical features. The text is full of redundant statements and misleading ambiguities, but does contain some usable elements.

The concept of "technical contribution" has pervaded the discussion about the directive and generated great confusion and therefore to some extent deserves to be clarified. While intuitively and in the subjective belief of most discutants the "technical contribution appears to be related to the question of patentable subject matter (Art 52 EPC), the EPO used the term as a means of abolishing the subject matter test by mixing it into the non-obviousness test (Art 56 EPC) in obcure ways, which national courts and ministerial patent officials have found difficult to follow. It is thus particularly important that, as far as the written law uses this term, it is understood to be connected to the concept of "invention" (patentable subject matter) and dissociated from all other conditions of patentability.

A similar amendment that was adopted in first reading by the EP. This amendment adds some ideas of the Council such as that of subtracting the prior art from the claimed object. If worded carefully like here, this can help provide further clarification.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Arlene McCarthy</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>64</NumAmB>

<Article>Article2, point b)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Ensures compatibility with the software copyright directive and ensures users have access to interoperable programme systems and networks.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Jean-Paul Gauzès</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>65</NumAmB>

<Article>Articel 2, point b)</Article>

Or. <Original>{FR}fr</Original>

Justification

L’article 2(b), combiné avec l’article 2(c) suggéré, propose une définition non-tautologique de l’expression « contribution technique ». Il est clair qu’une contribution technique correspond à une solution technique : une solution à un problème dans un domaine technique. L’évaluation mentionnée à la seconde phrase de l’article 2(b) est relative à une approche largement utilisée pour la détermination de l’activité inventive. La seconde phrase est par conséquent supprimée de l’article pour se référer seulement à une contribution technique.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Othmar Karas</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>66</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2, point (b) a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

<OptDel></OptDel>

Justification

<OptDelPrev>It is necessary to design the meaning of interoperability.</OptDelPrev>

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>67</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2 point (b) a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

It is necessary to make clear that the term "technical" demands the identification of a physical effect. Such an effect must be produced in addition to effects with regard to digital representation of information and such caused merely by the interaction between software and hardware with regard to operability.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>68</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2, point (b a) (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

These definitions are essential, especially to clarify the term “field of technology”.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Arlene McCarthy</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>69</NumAmB>

<Article>Article2, point b a) (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment clarifies that the physical use of a computer cannot be considered as the “technical contribution”.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>70</NumAmB>

<Article> Article 2 point b a) (new) </Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment clarifies the term "field of technology" from Art 27 TRIPs.

It is an improved version of the Parliament's first reading article 2(c).

A discipline is normally characterised not by its domain of application but by the way in which it gains knowledge. For patent granting, what matters is where the achievement lies, not to which domain it is applied. Also, "industrial applicability" is a requirement is a separate requirement of patentability. Patentability requirements should stand on their own, relying on each other as little as possible.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>71</NumAmB>

<Article> Article 2 point b a) (new) </Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment clarifies the term "field of technology" from Art 27 TRIPs.

It is an improved version of the Parliament's first reading article 2(c).

A discipline is normally characterised not by its domain of application but by the way in which it gains knowledge. For patent granting, what matters is where the achievement lies, not to which domain it is applied. Also, "industrial applicability" is a requirement is a separate requirement of patentability. Patentability requirements should stand on their own, relying on each other as little as possible.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>72</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2, point b a)(new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This is very close to EP 1st reading article 2a ; In order to ensure that software cannot be patentable, but rather only computer-controlled hardware inventions, software needs to be excluded from the ‘technical’ field, as Parliament did at first reading.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Jean-Paul Gauzès</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>73</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2, point b bis) (nouveau)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

La première phrase codifie essentiellement une doctrine utilisée dans la jurisprudence actuelle allemande (« Logikverifikation » de 1999, BGHZ 143, 255) et propose quelques exemples de types de résultats à considérer. Les signaux électriques, radios et lumineux, qui ont fait l’objet d’une mention dans le document de travail 2002/0047 (COD), sont caractéristiques de la technologie moderne.

La seconde phrase clarifie que le traitement de l’information pour exécuter ou soutenir des activités tels que mentionnées à la première phrase est considéré comme technique, alors que le traitement à d’autre fins (par exemple : méthode de gestion) ne peut être considéré comme technique. Cette limite reflète la pratique actuelle en Allemagne et en Europe.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>74</NumAmB>

<Article>Artículo 2, punto b bis) (nuevo)</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

El hecho de que los aparatos programables, tales como un ordenador genérico, hagan uso de efectos físicos para procesar la información no debe utilizarse para permitir la protección de patentes a programas que funcionan por medio de tales instrumentos.

Esta enmienda también aclara el término no definido de ADPIC "campo de tecnología"

Esta enmienda corresponde a la letra c del artículo 2 del texto consolidado de la primera lectura del Parlamento Europeo.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>75</NumAmB>

<Article>Artículo 2, punto b ter) (nuevo)</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

Se quiere evitar que las innovaciones en la "industria de la música" o la "industria de los servicios jurídicos" se ajusten con los requisitos de ADPIC relativos a la "aplicabilidad industrial". El concepto de "industria" abarca amplios significados y es utilizado frecuentemente en la actualidad de manera inapropiada en el contexto de la ley de patentes.

Esta enmienda corresponde a la letra d) del artículo 2 del texto consolidado de la primera lectura del PE.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>76</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2, point b b)(new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This is very close to EP 1st reading article 2a ; In order to ensure that software cannot be patentable, but rather only computer-controlled hardware inventions, software needs to be excluded from the ‘technical’ field, as Parliament did at first reading.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>77</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2, point (b b) (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Information goods can be reproduced on millions of computers within seconds at near to zero cost. More than material goods, information goods are suitable for production by freelancers. The economics differ, and the business models for information goods tend to be closer to those of the service sector than of the classical "industry" sector.

This amendment clarifies, using a negative definition, a central term of Art 27 TRIPs which has been used in several provisions and amendments within this directive. If the term is to retain any limiting meaning at all, production information goods can not fall within it.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>78</NumAmB>

<Article> Article 2 point b b) (new) </Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Information goods can be reproduced on millions of computers within seconds at near to zero cost. More than material goods, information goods are suitable for production by freelancers. The economics differ, and the business models for information goods tend to be closer to those of the service sector than of the classical "industry" sector.

This amendment clarifies, using a negative definition, a central term of Art 27 TRIPs which has been used in several provisions and amendments within this directive. If the term is to retain any limiting meaning at all, production information goods can not fall within it.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>79</NumAmB>

<Article> Article 2 point b b) (new) </Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Information goods can be reproduced on millions of computers within seconds at near to zero cost. More than material goods, information goods are suitable for production by freelancers. The economics differ, and the business models for information goods tend to be closer to those of the service sector than of the classical "industry" sector.

This amendment clarifies, using a negative definition, a central term of Art 27 TRIPs which has been used in several provisions and amendments within this directive. If the term is to retain any limiting meaning at all, production information goods can not fall within it.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>80</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2, point (b c) (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

It is necessary to define the term “interoperability” in the articles.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>81</NumAmB>

<Article> Article 2 point b c) (new) </Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendments clarifies, using a positive defintion, a central term of Art 27 TRIPs which has been used in several provisions and amendments within this directive.

Innovations in the "music industry" or "legal services industry" should not meet the TRIPS requirement of "industrial applicability". The word "industry" is nowadays often used in extended meanings which are not appropriate in the context of patent law.

In the tradition of patent law, "industry" refers to the primary and secondary sector, i.e. it includes agriculture. The distinction between these sectors and the tertiary (software and service) sector is economically meaningful. E.g. in the anti-trust procedings against IBM, the company was split into two along these lines.

This amendment corresponds to article 2(d) in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading, except that "automated" was replaced with "commercially organised", so as to approximate the original meaning in the legal tradition more closely.

It should be noted that the requirement of industrial applicability in itself has very little excluding force. Most advances in the area of mathematics or business methods are applicable to industry, no matter how the term is defined.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>82</NumAmB>

<Article> Article 2 point b c) (new) </Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendments clarifies, using a positive defintion, a central term of Art 27 TRIPs which has been used in several provisions and amendments within this directive.

Innovations in the "music industry" or "legal services industry" should not meet the TRIPS requirement of "industrial applicability". The word "industry" is nowadays often used in extended meanings which are not appropriate in the context of patent law.

In the tradition of patent law, "industry" refers to the primary and secondary sector, i.e. it includes agriculture. The distinction between these sectors and the tertiary (software and service) sector is economically meaningful. E.g. in the anti-trust procedings against IBM, the company was split into two along these lines.

This amendment corresponds to article 2(d) in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading, except that "automated" was replaced with "commercially organised", so as to approximate the original meaning in the legal tradition more closely.

It should be noted that the requirement of industrial applicability in itself has very little excluding force. Most advances in the area of mathematics or business methods are applicable to industry, no matter how the term is defined.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>83</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2, point b c)(new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

To garantee that pure software cannot be patented, but only material inventions controlled by computers, we must exclude the field of software from the field od what is "technical" as did the Parliament in its 1st reading. The world of software is the world of digital information.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Michel Rocard</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>84</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 2, point b) quinquies (nouveau)</Article>

Or. <Original>{FR}fr</Original>

Justification

Il est essentiel, d'autre part, dans le cadre de cette directive, de fournir une définition précise de l'interopérabilité et des actes qui lui sont nécessaires.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>85</NumAmB>

<Article>Artículo 3</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

La primera frase fue ya incorporada en el artículo 2 b) de la resolución aprobada por el PE. La segunda frase mezcla la "invención" o "contribución técnica" con la condición de escalón de invención.

El Consejo saca esta "contribución técnica en el escalón de invención" de la Oficina Europea de Patentes, donde se utiliza para permitir que ordenadores genéricos que funcionan con programas informáticos sean considerados invenciones patentables.

Con las definiciones del Parlamento, no es necesaria ninguna condición adicional para la patentabilidad aparte de los mencionados en el artículo 52 del CEP (según lo mencionado en el artículo2 b))

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>86</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 3</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The definition of inventive step supplied by the Council is not suitable, as it refers to the definition of a technical contribution, which is not itself explicitly defined, but which does, however, make reference, by means of the word ‘contribution’, to an inventive step. In order to break this vicious circle, inventive step needs to be defined in relation to itself. In order for a new computer program executed on a technical device not to be a patentable invention, the inventive step has to be evaluated solely in relation to the technical features of the patent claim.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>87</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 3</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The inventive step should be in the technical contribution for the computer-implemented invention to be patentable.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>88</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 3</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Even the Council's Art 2(b) agrees that the "technical contribution" must be new and involve an inventive step, and not vice versa. The second sentence makes it absolutely clear that the "technical contribution" requirement is closely connected to the requirement of patentable subject matter and dissociated from that of non-obviousness.

Moreover, this amendment deletes the attribute "computer-implemented", since the above logic applies to all patentable inventions. There is no advantage in creating sui generis software patent law.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>89</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 3</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Even the Council's Art 2(b) agrees that the "technical contribution" must be new and involve an inventive step, and not vice versa. The second sentence makes it absolutely clear that the "technical contribution" requirement is closely connected to the requirement of patentable subject matter and dissociated from that of non-obviousness.

Moreover, this amendment deletes the attribute "computer-implemented", since the above logic applies to all patentable inventions. There is no advantage in creating sui generis software patent law.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Andrzej Jan Szejna</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>90</NumAmB>

<Article>Artykul 3</Article>

Or. <Original>{PL}pl</Original>

Justification

Artykuł ten podnosi praktyczne znaczenie stosowanego wynalazku, w którym elementy nowości dotyczą zarówno software'u, jak i hardware'u i zmieniają dotychczasowy stan techniki.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>91</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 3 second subparagraph (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This first sentence of this amendment restates the former EP 1st reading amendment 4.1 first part and the second sentence restates former EP 4.3 which were deleted by Council.

The definition of the inventive step of the CCP is insufficient because it refers to the definition of what a technical contribution is, but this is not defined precisely in the text although there is a reference (with the word "contribution") to an inventive activity. to break this vicious circle we must define the inventive activity as such. So that a new computer programme executed on a technical apparatus can not constitute a patentable invention, the inventive step must be assessed in relation to the sole technical characteristics of the patent claim.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Edith Mastenbroek, Evelin Lichtenberger</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>92</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 3, second subparagraph (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment clarifies Art 27 TRIPs by a negative definition of "fields of technology".

Data processing is a branch of mathematics, a mental activity whose innovative advances lie in the area of abstraction, and whose technical aspects, if existent at all, are known and trivial. This amendment in no way affects the patentability of the computers themselves, or of any processes involved in implementing the abstract data processing machine into silicon, wood or DNA.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>93</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 3 second subparagraph (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment clarifies Art 27 TRIPs by a negative definition of "fields of technology".

Data processing is a branch of mathematics, a mental activity whose innovative advances lie in the area of abstraction, and whose technical aspects, if existent at all, are known and trivial. This amendment in no way affects the patentability of the computers themselves, or of any processes involved in implementing the abstract data processing machine into silicon, wood or DNA.

Strictly speaking, the amendment does not even exclude software from patentability. Rather, it forbids certain extensive interpretations of Art 27 TRIPs which have been used to circumvent Article 52 of the European Patent Convention and to reduce the freedom of the judiciary to interpreting this article in meaningful ways (i.e., this amendment makes sure that one cannot interpret TRIPs in a way which makes it require software patents, but does not say anything about whether or not it allows them).

This amendment corresponds to article 3 in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading..

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>94</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 3, second subparagraph (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment clarifies expressly that a patent application has to disclose an invention clearly and comprehensively, so that it can be implemented by someone working in the field. The expression “a person skilled in the art” is a well-established term of patent law which means someone of ordinary skill in the relevant technical field.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>95</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 3 second subparagraph (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment clarifies Art 27 TRIPs by a negative definition of "fields of technology".

Data processing is a branch of mathematics, a mental activity whose innovative advances lie in the area of abstraction, and whose technical aspects, if existent at all, are known and trivial. This amendment in no way affects the patentability of the computers themselves, or of any processes involved in implementing the abstract data processing machine into silicon, wood or DNA.

Strictly speaking, the amendment does not even exclude software from patentability. Rather, it forbids certain extensive interpretations of Art 27 TRIPs which have been used to circumvent Article 52 of the European Patent Convention and to reduce the freedom of the judiciary to interpreting this article in meaningful ways (i.e., this amendment makes sure that one cannot interpret TRIPs in a way which makes it require software patents, but does not say anything about whether or not it allows them).

This amendment corresponds to article 3 in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading..

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>96</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 3 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment clarifies expressly that a patent application has to disclose an invention clearly and comprehensively, so that it can be implemented by someone working in the field. The expression “a person skilled in the art” is a well-established term of patent law which means someone of ordinary skill in the relevant technical field.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>97</NumAmB>

<Article>Artículo 4, apartado 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

Las últimas enmiendas de la Comisión incorporadas en la reunión del Consejo 18 de mayo de 2004 redefinen un programa de ordenador como tal para hacer referencia al código de fuentes o al código automático de un programa individual de ordenador.

Nadie está interesado en las patentes de tales programas de ordenador individuales. Estas inserciones no responden a ningún propósito regulador sino que más bien imponen una interpretación del artículo 52 CEP que priva de sentido a la ley y es rechazada por el Tribunal Federal Alemán e incluso por la OEP.

La doctrina de los "efectos técnicos más allá de la interacción física normal" es un formalismo introducido con la única intención de convertir los métodos empresariales aplicados por ordenador en patentables, según lo explicado en el apéndice 6 de un informe enviado por la OEP a las oficinas de patentes de EEUU y Japón: http://www.european-patente-office.org/tws/appendix6.pdf

El cambio de "invención" a "innovación" es necesario porque "invención" es sinónimo de "materia legal" en el CEP.

La redacción original sugiere que todo lo que se puede hacer en un ordenador es por definición una invención (y por lo tanto llega a ser patentable si es igualmente nuevo, no obvio e industrialmente aplicable).

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>98</NumAmB>

<Article>Artículo 4, apartado 2</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

Ver justificación de la enmienda al artículo 4 apartado 1 de Manuel Medina Ortega.

</AmendB>

 

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>99</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 4 paragraph 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Art 52(2) EPC states that programs for computers are not inventions in the sense of patent law. It is a good idea to transfer this provision into EU law. The additional provision of Art 52(3) (exclusion only pertains to computer programs as such) should be reflected in an additional clause (amendment to Art 4.2), which also clarifies the above provision. The EU law should be clearer, not less clear, than Art 52 EPC.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>100</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 4 paragraph 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Art 52(2) EPC states that programs for computers are not inventions in the sense of patent law. It is a good idea to transfer this provision into EU law. The additional provision of Art 52(3) (exclusion only pertains to computer programs as such) should be reflected in an additional clause (amendment to Art 4.2), which also clarifies the above provision. The EU law should be clearer, not less clear, than Art 52 EPC.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>101</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 4, paragraph 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Art 52(2) EPC states that programs for computers are not inventions in the sense of patent law. It is a good idea to transfer this provision into EU law. The additional provision of Art 52(3) (exclusion only pertains to computer programs as such) should be reflected in an additional clause (amendment to Art 4.2), which also clarifies the above provision. The EU law should be clearer, not less clear, than Art 52 EPC.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members> Toine Manders</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>102</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 4, paragraph 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Although for the legal point of view it is clear that the directive will not affect the open-source, it must be clearly pointed out that the objective of the directive is to make the computer-implemented inventions patentable and not computer programmes as such. The target group it concerns are inventors and not computer programmers.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>103</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 4, paragraph 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

A patent cannot claim a monopole on software, whatever carrier the software is on because this would mean that software is patentable.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>104</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 4, paragraph 1 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Definition of the computer program is important for determining the patentability.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>105</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 4 paragraph 2</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment proposes to replace the Council's amendment with a text which concretises the meaning of Art 52(2) and 52(3) EPC. This proposal is based on the explanation given in the original EPO Examination Guidelines of 1978 and subsequent caselaw.

The Commission’s last minute amendments inserted at the Council 18 May 2004 meeting redefine a "computer program as such" to referring to the "source code or machine code" of an individual computer program, as defined by copyright. This is meaningless in the context of patent law. The effect of the Council's proposal can only be to make Art 52 EPC meaningless.

The "normal interaction between programs and computers" is about as well defined as the "normal interaction between the cook and the recipe". It is a legal formula which the EPO invented in 1998 in order to circumvent Art 52 EPC. Only two years later, the EPO itself commented this formula as follows:

There is no need to consider the concept of "further technical effect" in examination, and it is preferred not to do so for the following reasons: firstly, it is confusing to both examiners and applicants; secondly, the only apparent reason for distinguishing "technical effect" from "further technical effect" in the decision was because of the presence of "programs for computers" in the list of exclusions under Article 52(2) EPC.

If, as is to be anticipated, this element is dropped from the list by the Diplomatic Conference, there will no longer be any basis for such a distinction. It is to be inferred that the Board of Appeals would have preferred to be able to say that no computer-implemented invention is excluded from patentability by the provisions of Articles 52(2) and (3) EPC.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>106</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 4 paragraph 2</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment proposes to replace the Council's amendment with a text which concretises the meaning of Art 52(2) and 52(3) EPC. This proposal is based on the explanation given in the original EPO Examination Guidelines of 1978 and subsequent caselaw.

The Commission’s last minute amendments inserted at the Council 18 May 2004 meeting redefine a "computer program as such" to referring to the "source code or machine code" of an individual computer program, as defined by copyright. This is meaningless in the context of patent law. The effect of the Council's proposal can only be to make Art 52 EPC meaningless.

The "normal interaction between programs and computers" is about as well defined as the "normal interaction between the cook and the recipe". It is a legal formula which the EPO invented in 1998 in order to circumvent Art 52 EPC. Only two years later, the EPO itself commented this formula as follows:

There is no need to consider the concept of "further technical effect" in examination, and it is preferred not to do so for the following reasons: firstly, it is confusing to both examiners and applicants; secondly, the only apparent reason for distinguishing "technical effect" from "further technical effect" in the decision was because of the presence of "programs for computers" in the list of exclusions under Article 52(2) EPC.

If, as is to be anticipated, this element is dropped from the list by the Diplomatic Conference, there will no longer be any basis for such a distinction. It is to be inferred that the Board of Appeals would have preferred to be able to say that no computer-implemented invention is excluded from patentability by the provisions of Articles 52(2) and (3) EPC.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Andrzej Jan Szejna</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>107</NumAmB>

<Article>Artykul 4, paragraph 2</Article>

Or. <Original>{PL}pl</Original>

Justification

W tym punkcie zawarte są dwa stwierdzenia: pierwsze, eliminujące możliwość wykorzystania komputera lub sieci lub innego urządzenia sterującego do opracowywania programów będących przedmiotem patentowania, drugie, wykluczające programy wewnętrzne komputerowe, a także wszelkie metody matematyczne oraz różne algorytmy, a także metody prowadzenia działalności gospodarcze, jako rozwiązanie możliwe do patentowania.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>108</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 4, paragraph 2</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The definition of inventive step supplied by the Council is not suitable, as it refers to the definition of a technical contribution, which is not itself explicitly defined, but which does, however, make reference, by means of the word ‘contribution’, to an inventive step. In order to break this vicious circle, inventive step needs to be defined in relation to itself. In order for a new computer program executed on a technical device not to be a patentable invention, the inventive step has to be evaluated solely in relation to the technical features of the patent claim.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members> Toine Manders</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>109</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 4, paragraph 2</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

A technical amendment to define more clear in the text that inventions involving computer programs, which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run are not patentable .

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>110</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 4, paragraph 2 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This is EP 1st reading article 3. This ensures that software is not considered technical, which is important for compliance to TRIPS.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>111</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 4 paragraph 2 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Nobody ever writes software without trying to optimise the use of computing resources.

This amendment makes sure that this fact does not justify the granting of a patent. This codifies both UK case law (Gale's application) and Germany’s case law (BpatG’s ruling in the Error Search case). As the German court found: if an improvement of efficiency in the use of computing ressources, such as time or data space, is deemed to be a technical contribution, then all computer-implemented business methods become patentable.

This amendment corresponds to article 6 in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading, except that "computer-implemented" was changed into "computer-aided".

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>112</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 4 paragraph 2 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Nobody ever writes software without trying to optimise the use of computing resources.

This amendment makes sure that this fact does not justify the granting of a patent. This codifies both UK case law (Gale's application) and Germany’s case law (BpatG’s ruling in the Error Search case). As the German court found: if an improvement of efficiency in the use of computing ressources, such as time or data space, is deemed to be a technical contribution, then all computer-implemented business methods become patentable.

This amendment corresponds to article 6 in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading, except that "computer-implemented" was changed into "computer-aided".

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>113</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 4, paragraph 2 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Self explanatory.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>114</NumAmB>

<Article>Artículo 4 bis (nuevo)</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

Se garantiza el cumplimiento del ADPIC asegurándose que los programas informáticos no pertenezcan al ámbito de la tecnología. Obsérvese que esto no excluye a los dispositivos utilizados para el procesamiento de los datos de la patentabilidad.

Un ordenador puede solamente llevar a cabo dicho procesamiento, pero crear una nueva clase de ordenadores es un progreso en la ingeniería electrónica y no en el procesamiento de datos.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>115</NumAmB>

<Article>Artículo 4 ter (nuevo)</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

Se garantiza que hacer que un programa funcione con mayor rapidez o que use menos memoria no pueda ser utilizado como justificación para conceder una patente.

Esta enmienda corresponde al artículo 6 del texto consolidado en primera lectura del PE.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Andrzej Jan Szejna</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>116</NumAmB>

<Article>Artykul 5, paragraph 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{PL}pl</Original>

Justification

Bardzo ważne jest, by uznać za "nową jakość", która będzie miała zdolność patentową, skojarzenie maszyn i urządzeń, z dodatkiem komputera lub innych sieci lub urządzeń programowalnych, łącznie ze stosownymi programami. Za kryterium tej "nowej jakości" powinno się przyjąć nowe, dotychczas nieznane cechy użytkowe wyżej wymienionych skojarzeń - urządzenie plus komputer plus program.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>117</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5 paragraph 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This is 1st reading article 7.1 ; it guarantees that only technical inventions can be claimed.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>118</NumAmB>

<Article>Art)iculo 5, apartado 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

Un proceso llevado a cabo por un ordenador por definición corresponde a los programas informáticos que son ejecutados por dicho ordenador. Hay que garantizar que solamente las invenciones técnicas, posiblemente ejecutadas bajo control del ordenador, puedan reivindicarse, y no solamente los programas informáticos que se utilizan para su control (ni esos mismos programas informáticos cuando se ejecutan en un ordenador de mesa ordinario cuando no es utilizado para controlar dicha invención técnica).

Esta enmienda corresponde al artículo 7.1 del texto consolidado en primera lectura por el PE.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>119</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5 paragraph 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Software in combination with generic computing equipment is still not more than software (as such). Suggestions that software can be patentable are outside the scope of this article and should be avoided.

This amendment roughly corresponds to article 7.1 in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading (except that ”implemented” has been replaced with ”aided”, ”device” with ”apparatus” and ”technical production” has been deleted from ”technical production process”).

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>120</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5 paragraph 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Software in combination with generic computing equipment is still not more than software (as such). Suggestions that software can be patentable are outside the scope of this article and should be avoided.

This amendment roughly corresponds to article 7.1 in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading (except that ”implemented” has been replaced with ”aided”, ”device” with ”apparatus” and ”technical production” has been deleted from ”technical production process”).

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>121</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5, paragraph 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Software in combination with generic computing equipment is still not more than software (as such). Suggestions that software can be patentable are outside the scope of this article and should be avoided.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>122</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5 paragraph 1 a(new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Freedom of publication, as stipulated in Art 10 ECHR, can be limited by copyright but not by patents. Patent rights are broad and unsuited for information goods. This amendment does not make any patents invalid, rather it limits the ways in which a patent owner can enforce his patents. Such a provision should be complemented by other provisions which make sure that information patents are not granted in the first place.

This amendment is a simplified and reduced version of article 7 paragraph 3 in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>123</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5 paragraph 1 a(new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Freedom of publication, as stipulated in Art 10 ECHR, can be limited by copyright but not by patents. Patent rights are broad and unsuited for information goods. This amendment does not make any patents invalid, rather it limits the ways in which a patent owner can enforce his patents. Such a provision should be complemented by other provisions which make sure that information patents are not granted in the first place.

This amendment is a simplified and reduced version of article 7 paragraph 3 in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>124</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5, paragraph 1 b (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

A program listing is an excellent means of describing to a skilled person what a computer-aided process does. This amendment ensures that the obligation of disclosure is taken seriously, and that software is treated as a means of describing the invention, rather than as an invention in itself. The Commission's objection that patent law does not normally require the disclosure of a full reference implementation does not apply, because this amendment does not ask for a reference implementation but only for an accurate description.

This requirement makes it a little more difficult to block people from doing things you even haven't done yourself, but which are obviously possible since the computing model is perfectly defined and you always know in advance what is theoretically possible with a computer. When you publish working source code you at least offer some real knowledge on how to solve the problem, unlike when you say in the claims language that a "processor means coupled to input output means so that they compute a function such that the result of said function when output through said output means solves the problem the user wanted to solve".

Note that this amendment does not require that the source code for all programs of the patent owner which use these features be disclosed. He only has to provide a single, simple text which describes the monopolised functionality in a programming language.

This amendment roughly corresponds to article 7 paragraph 5 in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading (it’s been made more clear that only an example must be provided).

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>125</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5, paragraph 1 b (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

A program listing is an excellent means of describing to a skilled person what a computer-aided process does. This amendment ensures that the obligation of disclosure is taken seriously, and that software is treated as a means of describing the invention, rather than as an invention in itself. The Commission's objection that patent law does not normally require the disclosure of a full reference implementation does not apply, because this amendment does not ask for a reference implementation but only for an accurate description.

This requirement makes it a little more difficult to block people from doing things you even haven't done yourself, but which are obviously possible since the computing model is perfectly defined and you always know in advance what is theoretically possible with a computer. When you publish working source code you at least offer some real knowledge on how to solve the problem, unlike when you say in the claims language that a "processor means coupled to input output means so that they compute a function such that the result of said function when output through said output means solves the problem the user wanted to solve".

Note that this amendment does not require that the source code for all programs of the patent owner which use these features be disclosed. He only has to provide a single, simple text which describes the monopolised functionality in a programming language.

This amendment roughly corresponds to article 7 paragraph 5 in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading (it’s been made more clear that only an example must be provided).

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Andrzej Jan Szejna</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>126</NumAmB>

<Article>Artykul 5, paragraph 2</Article>

Or. <Original>{PL}pl</Original>

Justification

***

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Malcolm Harbour</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>127</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5, paragraph 2</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

An inventive product which can be realised by a computer program must be able to be distributed by carrier

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>128</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5 paragraph 2</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

It is contradictory to say that computer programs at the same time cannot be inventions, and saying that they nevertheless can be claimed in a patent. Additionally, the condition after the "unless" in the Council version can always be fulfilled.

The Commission purposefully did not include these so-called "program claims" in its original proposal, as allowing patent monopolies on programs on their own is hard to defend if you at the same time want to maintain that "program as such" are not patentable.

Getting rid of this Council amendment is one of the most basic requirements. In first reading, the EP rejected a similar amendment, and the replacement is part of an amendment which was adopted (article 7 paragraph 2 of the consolidated version).

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>129</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5 paragraph 2</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

It is contradictory to say that computer programs at the same time cannot be inventions, and saying that they nevertheless can be claimed in a patent. Additionally, the condition after the "unless" in the Council version can always be fulfilled.

The Commission purposefully did not include these so-called "program claims" in its original proposal, as allowing patent monopolies on programs on their own is hard to defend if you at the same time want to maintain that "program as such" are not patentable.

Getting rid of this Council amendment is one of the most basic requirements. In first reading, the EP rejected a similar amendment, and the replacement is part of an amendment which was adopted (article 7 paragraph 2 of the consolidated version).

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>130</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5, paragraph 2</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Self-explanatory.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>131</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5 paragraph 2</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This is 1st reading article 7.1 ; it specifies that a computer program cannot be claimed either on its own or on any carrier : that would be tantamount to allowing software patentability on the basis of considering that software can possess patentable technical features. The programme claims are considered as patents on software as such, therefore these should not be included in this Directive.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>132</NumAmB>

<Article>Articulo 5, apartado 2</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

Es contradictorio decir que los programas informáticos no pueden al mismo tiempo ser invenciones y alegar, sin embargo, que pueden reivindicarse en una patente. Además, la condición después de "a menos" puede cumplirse siempre.

La Comisión decididamente excluyó las llamadas "reivindicaciones de programas" en su propuesta original, ya que permitir monopolios de patentes en programas individuales es complicado defender si se quiere al mismo tiempo mantener que programas como tales no son patentables.

Eliminar esta enmienda del Consejo es una de las exigencias esenciales. En primera lectura, el PE rechazó una enmienda similar, y el nuevo texto forma parte de una enmienda que fue adoptada (artículo 7 párrafo 2 de la versión consolidada).

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>133</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5, paragraph 2</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

It is necessary to make clear that the program on its own cannot be the object of claims but as part of the computer-implemented invention which is realized by its execution. Only in this context the claims raised in accordance with paragraph 1 extend to the program.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Andrzej Jan Szejna</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>134</NumAmB>

<Article>Artykul 5, paragraph 2 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{PL}pl</Original>

Justification

Ograniczenia w wymianie informacji mogą wyhamować rozwój nauki i badań podstawowych.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>135</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5 paragraph 2 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This is 1st reading article 7.3 ; it aims at ensuring freedom of information.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>136</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5, paragraph 2 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Only when software elements are used in the context of realising the computer-implemented invention the claims raised in accordance with paragraph 1 extend to the software and infringements may take place. This should not only be mentioned in Recital 17 but also in Article 5.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Malcolm Harbour</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>137</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5, paragraph 2 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Complements the clearer wording of 5.2.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Andrzej Jan Szejna</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>138</NumAmB>

<Article>Artykul 5, paragraph 2 b (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{PL}pl</Original>

Justification

***

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>139</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5 paragraph 2 b (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Only inventions can be patented.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Andrzej Jan Szejna</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>140</NumAmB>

<Article>Artykul 5, paragraph 2 c (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{PL}pl</Original>

Justification

Chodzi o zapewnienie autorom programów komputerowych z jednej strony praw autorskich z drugiej zaś strony o wyeliminowanie pseudowynalazków - poprzez konieczność ujawnienia konkretnych programów komputerowych w przykładach patentowych.

</AmendB>

 

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>141</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Freedom of publication, as stipulated in Art 10 ECHR, can be limited by copyright but not by patents. Patent rights are broad and unsuited for information goods. This amendment does not make any patents invalid, rather it limits the ways in which a patent owner can enforce his patents. Such a provision should be complemented by other provisions which make sure that information patents are not granted in the first place.

This amendment is a simplified and reduced version of article 7 paragraph 3 in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>142</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 5 b (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This proposal establishes that certain acts can be carried out safely with the peace of mind that they do not constitute patent infringement. In particular this applies to acts done privately or for experimental purposes, as long as they are not done commercially. Likewise academic and research use is immune if non-commercial.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>143</NumAmB>

<Article>Artículo 5 bis (nuevo)</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

Los términos de "distribución y "publicación" tienen más en cuenta los casos de demandas de patentes para métodos comerciales (de hecho el tratamiento de la información) que existen en los Estados Unidos y que no deberían existir en la Unión Europea.

Esta enmienda corresponde a una versión más restrictiva del artículo 7 párrafo 3 en el texto consolidado de la primera lectura del PE con el objetivo de alcanzar un compromiso con el Consejo.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>144</NumAmB>

<Article>Artículo 5 ter (nuevo)</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

Estas enmiendas, a pesar de lo que se pueda pensar, no sirven para promover los programas de red abierta sino para asegurar que la obligación de publicidad, que es inherente al sistema de patentes, se tome en serio y para que un programa informático esté, como cualquier otro objeto de información, en el lado revelado de la patente en vez de en su lado de exclusión /monopolio.

Esto hace un poco más difícil impedir que alguien haga cosas que ni siquiera ha hecho él mismo, pero que son obviamente posibles desde que el modelo de computación se definió perfectamente y se sabe siempre lo que se puede hacer con un ordenador.

Obsérvese que esta enmienda no requiere que el código de fuentes para todos los programas del titular de la que usa estas características se revelen. Solamente tiene que proporcionar una única y simple aplicación de la funcionalidad que está monopolizando.

Esta enmienda corresponde al artículo 7 párrafo 5 del texto consolidado de la primera lectura del PE.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Michel Rocard</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>145</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 6, paragraphe 1 bis (nouveau)</Article>

Or. <Original>{FR}fr</Original>

Justification

La préservation de l'interopérabilité suppose la capacité, non seulement de pouvoir le cas échéant effectuer des opérations de rétro-ingéniérie pour déterminer les caractéristiques des protocoles et interfaces de communication avec lesquelles il s'agira de communiquer, mais également de pouvoir réaliser et commercialiser effectivement de tels produits interopérables.

L'article 6.2, autorisé par l'article 30 de l'accord ADPIC, est nécessaire pour empêcher de possibles graves distorsions de la concurrence sur le marché intérieur du fait que la mise sur le marché de produits interopérables constituerait toujours une contrefaçon des revendications d'un brevet.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>146</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 6 second subparagraph (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Article 6 of the Council only refers to the exemption provided for by the copyright directive; this means that a developer is allowed to use reverse engineering to make his software interoperable with that of a competitor but afterwards he needs to be able to distribute, sell and use the interoperable software he developed.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Andrzej Jan Szejna</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>147</NumAmB>

<Article>Artykul 6, second subparagraph (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{PL}pl</Original>

Justification

****

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Toine Manders</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>148</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 6, paragraph 2 (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

<OptDel></OptDel>

Justification

<OptDelPrev> A compulsory license subject to Art. 31 TRIPs ensures access to interoperability technology, an incentive to innovate because the patentee receives an adequate remuneration, an incentive to early publication of new technology because patenting still makes sense and an adequate remuneration for the patentee thereby balancing the public interests above with the patentee's private interest.

Paragraph 3 ensures that a dominant player cannot force somebody else to waive his patent rights</OptDelPrev>

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Othmar Karas</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>149</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 6 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

<OptDel></OptDel>

Justification

<OptDelPrev>It is necessary to have the interoperability exception in articles.</OptDelPrev>

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>150</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 6 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment aims at keeping interoperability as one of the cornerstones of the information and communications technology. Electronic products need to be able to communicate and interoperate.

To strike the proper balance between the rights of the patent owner to enjoy the full benefits of the patent, the third party´s interest to develop interoperating products, as well as the public interest to prevent unjustified monopolies on standards.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>151</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 6 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Where an interface protected by a patent is necessary to allow interoperability, the use of the interface cannot be regarded as a matter of patent infringement.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>152</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 6 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

<OptDel></OptDel>

Justification

<OptDelPrev>Where an interface protected by a patent is necessary to allow interoperability, the use of the interface cannot be regarded as a matter of patent infringement.</OptDelPrev>

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>153</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 6 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{DE}de</Original>

<OptDel></OptDel>

Justification

<OptDelPrev>************</OptDelPrev>

</AmendB>

 

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>154</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 6 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Interoperability must be ensured in articles and it should not be considered as patent infringement.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Arlene McCarthy</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>155</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 6 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Ensures compatibility with the software copyright directive and ensures users have access to interoperable programme systems and networks.

</AmendB>

 

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>156</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 6 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Interoperability of data processing systems (e.g. computers) lies at the foundation of the information economy and allows for fair competition by all players large and small.

Article 6 of the Council only refers to the exemption provided for by the Copyright directive. This means that a software developer is allowed to find out how to make his data processing system interoperable with that of a competitor, but afterwards he cannot necessarily use his gained knowledge, since that could be covered by patents.

This amendment makes sure that patents also cannot be used to prevent interoperability. It was passed in an almost identical form by ITRE and JURI prior to the first reading (”data processing systems” read "computer systems or networks"). In first reading, a more sweeping version of this amendment was passed, which appeared as Article 9 in the consolidated version.

The expression ”for the sole purpose” reverts to the spirit of the original ITRE/JURI version of the interoperability exemption (which is more limited), which was also supported by Luxembourg and several others in the Council (but didn’t make it).

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>157</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 6 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Interoperability of data processing systems (e.g. computers) lies at the foundation of the information economy and allows for fair competition by all players large and small.

Article 6 of the Council only refers to the exemption provided for by the Copyright directive. This means that a software developer is allowed to find out how to make his data processing system interoperable with that of a competitor, but afterwards he cannot necessarily use his gained knowledge, since that could be covered by patents.

This amendment makes sure that patents also cannot be used to prevent interoperability. It was passed in an almost identical form by ITRE and JURI prior to the first reading (”data processing systems” read "computer systems or networks"). In first reading, a more sweeping version of this amendment was passed, which appeared as Article 9 in the consolidated version.

The expression ”for the sole purpose” reverts to the spirit of the original ITRE/JURI version of the interoperability exemption (which is more limited), which was also supported by Luxembourg and several others in the Council (but didn’t make it).

</AmendB><Amend>Emendamento presentato da <Members>Giuseppe Gargani</Members>

Emendamento <NumAm>158</NumAm>

<Article>Articolo 6 bis (nuovo)</Article>

Or. <Original>{IT}it</Original>

Motivazione

Il riconoscimento della tutela in cambio della condivisione della conoscenza, principio fondante del “contratto” di brevetto, per essere realizzato necessita di strumenti adeguati di pubblicità/condivisione, che nel caso del software oggi non esistono e non sono previsti nella proposta di Direttiva. Ciò tenderà inevitabilmente a svantaggiare le PMI del settore e a creare un ulteriore ampliamento del contenzioso.

</Amend><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>159</NumAmB>

<Article>Artículo 6 bis (nuevo)</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

La interoperabilidad de los sistemas de procesamiento de datos (como, por ejemplo, los ordenadores) subyace a la economía de la información y permite la competencia leal por todos los operadores grandes y pequeños.

El artículo 6 del texto del Consejo solamente hace referencia a la exención prevista por la directiva de los derechos reservados. Esto significa que se permite a un creador de programas informáticos descubrir cómo hacer interoperable su sistema de procesamiento de datos con el de un competidor, pero no puede más tarde utilizar el conocimiento adquirido, puesto que éste podría estar cubierto por patentes.

Esta enmienda asegura que las patentes tampoco puedan ser utilizadas para impedir la interoperabilidad. Esto se aprobó de una forma casi idéntica por ITRE y JURI antes de la primera lectura(la segunda parte subrayada decía " sistemas de ordenador o redes"). En primera lectura, una versión más liberal de esta enmienda fue aprobada y aparece en el artículo 9 en la versión consolidada.

La mención "el único propósito" hace referencia al espíritu de la versión original ITRE/JURI de esta enmienda.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>160</NumAmB>

<Article>Artículo 6 ter (nuevo)</Article>

	Artículo 6 ter
	1. El desarrollo, examen, creación, utilización, oferta para venta o licencia o importación de un programa de ordenador que incorpore una invención aplicada a través de ordenador no requerirá la autorización del dueño de la patente en caso de que:
	(a) la invención implantada en ordenador sea indispensable para conseguir la interoperabilidad de dicho programa del computador con otro u otros programas de ordenador y siempre que no esté disponible una alternativa igualmente eficiente e igualmente efectiva no patentada de conseguir tal interoperabilidad entre dichos programas;
	(b) el programa de ordenador utilice la invención implementada en el ordenador para conseguir tal interoperabilidad.
	2. Para lo relativo a este artículo “interoperabilidad” se define como la capacidad de un programa de ordenador para comunicar e intercambiar información con otro programa de ordenador y utilizar mutuamente la información intercambiada, incluyendo la capacidad de usar, convertir o intercambiar formatos de ficheros, protocolos, esquemas o información de interconexión o convenciones, de forma que permita a este programa de ordenador trabajar con otro programa de ordenador y con los usuarios en todas las formas en que esta previsto su funcionamiento.

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

Esta enmienda intenta resolver el problema que puede presentarse cuando sea necesario el acceso al sistema lógico de interconexión de una invención aplicada a través de ordenador para permitir la interoperabilidad.

Debe garantizarse el acceso cuando el uso de la invención aplicada a través de ordenador es indispensable para la interoperabilidad pero solo si no hay otra alternativa disponible. En caso de interconexión patentada es necesario conseguir un equilibrio entre el derecho del dueño de la patente a disfrutar del beneficio completo de la patente y los intereses de terceros de utilizar la invención para producir productos interoperables.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Francesco Enrico Speroni</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>161</NumAmB>

<Article>Articulo 7</Article>

Or. <Original>{IT}it</Original>

Justification

Visto e considerato che l’economia europea si basa, in maniera particolare, sulla rete di piccole e medie imprese, che fanno della qualità dei propri prodotti un vantaggio competitivo, e che le stesse potrebbero subire negativamente l’attuazione della direttiva in oggetto, appare corretto intervenire per controllare i possibili effetti sfavorevoli che si avranno nel tessuto economico e produttivo degli Stati membri.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members> Katalin Lévai</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>162</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 7</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The Commission has to monitor the impact of computer-implemented inventions not only on the aspect of innovation and competition but from the aspect of employment, especially in small and medium-sized enterprises which could be affected negatively, and which take a very important part in the employment situation of the EU, in connection with one of the EU's main priorities, the Lisbon Strategy.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Alexander Nuno Alvaro, Diana Wallis, Toine Manders, Janelly Fourtou</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>163</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 7 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment relates to Article 10 (Monitoring) adopted by the European Parliament during First Reading.

Currently, SMEs participate actively in Europe’s CII patents system. Indeed, SMEs represent the majority of applicants for CII patents. To ensure ongoing and active participation by SMEs—and to provide opportunities to enhance their involvement—this amendment proposes the creation of a committee focused on SME-related issues, with a mandate to recommend necessary reforms.

</AmendB><Amend>Amendment by <Members>József Szájer</Members>

Amendment <NumAm>164</NumAm>

<Article>Article 7 bis (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment proposes that the European Commission studies the possibility of an “SME Fund” to assist SMEs in fully participating in, and benefiting from, the computer-implemented invention patent regime.

 

</Amend><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>165</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 8, introductory sentence</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

It is necessary to set a clear deadline for the Commission report, but also for the first review of the Directive in accordance with article 9. The timeframe of 5 years should be split into two so that the Commiccion effectively reports to the European Parliament and the Council by three years and reviews the Directive by five years after entry into force.

</AmendB>

 

<Amend>Amendment by <Members>József Szájer</Members>

Amendment <NumAm>166</NumAm>

<Article>Article 8, phrase introductive</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The foreseen possibility of monitoring and reporting on the effects of the directive seems to be absolutely ineffective on the software market. To the three years of monitoring, in fact, two additional years have to be added for the transposition in the Member states, and one minimum year necessary for a revision of the act. This timetable seems to be incompatible with the dynamicity of this market.

</Amend>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Alexander Nuno Alvaro, Diana Wallis, Toine Manders, Janelly Fourtou </Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>167</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 8, point (a) a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

<OptDel></OptDel>

Justification

<OptDelPrev>This amendment relates to Article 10 (Monitoring) adopted by the European Parliament during First Reading.

Existing statistics demonstrate fairly broad participation in the CII patents process by SMEs. However, there is consensus among all interested parties that additional and more comprehensive statistical data on CII patents would be welcomed. The above amendment would ensure that such data is compiled.</OptDelPrev>

</AmendB>

<Amend>Emendamento presentato da <Members>Giuseppe Gargani</Members>

Emendamento <NumAm>168</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 8, point a a) (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment relates to Article 10 (Monitoring) adopted by the European Parliament during First Reading.

Existing statistics demonstrate fairly broad participation in the CII patents process by SMEs. However, there is consensus among all interested parties that additional and more comprehensive statistical data on CII patents would be welcomed. The above amendment would ensure that such data is compiled

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>169</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 8, point (b)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Last part of the Common position text is not necessary.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>170</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 8, point f)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Not necessary in this article.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>171</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 8, point f)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The aim of the present Directive is not to modify the European Patent Convention neither to legalize patents on software, therefore there is no need to envisage a modification of this Convention.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>172</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 8, point (g) a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

<OptDel></OptDel>

Justification

<OptDelPrev>Parliament and the Council should be informed about the practice of granting patents under this Directive. Special attention should be given to the interpretation of the most relevant legal definintions.</OptDelPrev>

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>173</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 8, point (g) a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Self explanatory.

</AmendB>

<Amend>Amendment by <Members>József Szájer</Members>

Amendment <NumAm>174</NumAm>

<Article>Article 8, letter (g a) new</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment proposes that the European Commission studies the possibility of an “SME Fund” to assist SMEs in fully participating in, and benefiting from, the computer-implemented invention patent regime.

</Amend>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>175</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 8, point (g) b (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

<OptDelPrev>This amendment addresses the concerns that have been expressed about the grant of trivial, or undeserving, patents. It provides a new initiative for the Commission to report to the European Parliament and the Council on whether difficulties have been found in practice caused by patents that should not have legitimately been granted. This will encourage the European Patent Office and national Patent Offices to maintain the highest standards for examining patent applications, thus minimising the risk of undeserving patents being granted.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>176</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 8, point (g) b (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

<OptDel></OptDel>

Justification

<OptDelPrev>To provide an assessment whether the aims leading to the adoption of this Directive have been achieved.</OptDelPrev>

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>177</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 8, point (g) c (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

<OptDel></OptDel>

Justification

<OptDelPrev>The evolution of the patent systems in other major jurisdictions, especially the possibility to have a world-wide patent system, should be closely monitored.</OptDelPrev>

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Toine Manders</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>178</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 8, second subparagraph (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

<OptDel></OptDel>

Justification

<OptDelPrev> With a view to legal certainty and reaching the Lisbon objectives it is desirable that there is one single patent system across the European Union.</OptDelPrev>

</AmendB>

 

 

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>179</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 8 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment recognises that the Member States are also Contracting States of the European Patent Convention and that Member States have some influence the practice of the European Patent Office, specifically with respect to maintaining high standards of examining patent applications in particular with respect to inventive step and “technical contribution” as defined in this directive.

Furthermore, this amendment requires Member States (in Council) to report to the European Parliament each year on what they have actually done to influence the EPO in this regard and on the progress that has been made towards the goal of minimising the grant of undeserving patents.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>180</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 9</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

<OptDel></OptDel>

Justification

<OptDelPrev>Self-explanatory.</OptDelPrev>

</AmendB>

 

<AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni </Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>181</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 1</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Distortions in competition are harmful only when they are unjustified. States may, within their competencies, make use of these, which is something that the Directive cannot prejudge.

The Directive covers the patentability of technical inventions assisted by information technology.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>182</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 2</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

See justification amendment on article 1.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>183</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 5</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

See justification article 1.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>184</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 5 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

 

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>185</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 6</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

<OptDelPrev>Slef-explanatory.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>186</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 6</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

It must be made clear that there are limits as to what can be subsumed under "fields of technology" according to Art 27 TRIPS and that this article is not designed to mandate unlimited patentability but rather to avoid frictions in free trade, which can be caused by undue exceptions as well as by undue extensions to patentability. This interpretation of TRIPS is indirectly confirmed by lobbying of the US government last year against Art 27 TRIPS, on the account that it excludes business method patents, which the US government wants to mandate by the new Substantive Patent Law Treaty draft.

In its first reading, Parliament deleted this recital, and therefore the amendment that proposed the above change was not voted upon. Deletion is better than keeping the original, but clarification regarding the applicability and interpretation of the TRIPs agreement is better.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>187</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 6</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

It must be made clear that there are limits as to what can be subsumed under "fields of technology" according to Art 27 TRIPS and that this article is not designed to mandate unlimited patentability but rather to avoid frictions in free trade, which can be caused by undue exceptions as well as by undue extensions to patentability. This interpretation of TRIPS is indirectly confirmed by lobbying of the US government last year against Art 27 TRIPS, on the account that it excludes business method patents, which the US government wants to mandate by the new Substantive Patent Law Treaty draft.

In its first reading, Parliament deleted this recital, and therefore the amendment that proposed the above change was not voted upon. Deletion is better than keeping the original, but clarification regarding the applicability and interpretation of the TRIPs agreement is better.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>188</NumAmB>

<Article>Considerando 6</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

Debe dejarse claro que hay límites en cuanto a lo que puede incluirse bajo "campos de tecnología" según el artículo 27 ADPIC y que este artículo no pretende crear una patentabilidad ilimitada sino evitar las fricciones en el libre comercio que podrían causarse mediante excepciones indebidas así como por extensiones indebidas respecto a la patentabilidad.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>189</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 6</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Patents are intended for inventions of a material nature. Copyright is intended for works of a conceptual nature, and this includes software. Software, like books, music or intellectual methods, is not therefore a field of technology within the meaning of TRIPS.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>190</NumAmB>

<Article>Considerando 7</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

El artículo 52 EPC dice que los programas de ordenadores no son invenciones en el sentido de la legislación sobre patentes, es decir, que un sistema que consiste en un equipo informático genérico de ordenador y una cierta combinación de normas de cálculo que funcionan en él no son patentables. No dice que tales sistemas puedan patentarse declarándolos para ser "no como tal" o "técnico". La exclusión de programas para los ordenadores no es una excepción, es parte de la regla para definir qué es una "invención".

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>191</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 7</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Art 52 EPC says that programs for computers etc are not inventions in the sense of patent law, i.e. that a system consisting of generic computing hardware and some combination of calculation rules operating on it can not form the object of a patent. It does not say that such systems can be patented by declaring them to be "not as such" or "technical". This amendment reconfirms Art 52 EPC. Note that the exclusion of programs for computers is not an exception, it is part of the rule for defining what an "invention" is.

This amendment corresponds to recital 7 in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>192</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 7</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Art 52 EPC says that programs for computers etc are not inventions in the sense of patent law, i.e. that a system consisting of generic computing hardware and some combination of calculation rules operating on it can not form the object of a patent. It does not say that such systems can be patented by declaring them to be "not as such" or "technical". This amendment reconfirms Art 52 EPC. Note that the exclusion of programs for computers is not an exception, it is part of the rule for defining what an "invention" is.

This amendment corresponds to recital 7 in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>193</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 8</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The aim is not to legislate on the patentability of software, but on that of computer-controlled inventions.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>194</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 8 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment recognises that the Member States are also Contracting States of the European Patent Convention and that Member States have some influence on the practice of the European Patent Office, specifically with respect to ensuring that the European Patent Office complies with this directive.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>195</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 8 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment recognises that the Member States are also Contracting States of the European Patent Convention and that Member States have some influence the practice of the European Patent Office, specifically with respect to maintaining high standards of examining patent applications in particular with respect to inventive step and “technical contribution” as defined in this directive.

Furthermore, this amendment requires Member States (in Council) to report to the European Parliament each year on what they have actually done to influence the EPO in this regard and on the progress that has been made towards the goal of minimising the grant of undeserving patents.

 

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>196</NumAmB>

<Article>Considerando 9</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

Los creadores de innovaciones pueden beneficiarse de su creatividad sin patentes. Si los derechos de patentes "protegen" o sofocan la innovación, y si actúan en interés de la sociedad en conjunto, esa es una cuestión que solamente puede ser contestada por el estudio empírico, no por afirmaciones dogmáticas en la legislación.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>197</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 9</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Innovators can benefit from their creativity without patents. Whether patent rights "protect" or stifle innovation and whether they act in the interests of society as a whole is a question that can only be answered by empirical study, not by statements in legislation.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>198</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 9</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Innovators can benefit from their creativity without patents. Whether patent rights "protect" or stifle innovation and whether they act in the interests of society as a whole is a question that can only be answered by empirical study, not by statements in legislation.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>199</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 9</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

It is important to specify the temporary nature of patents and the system needed for enforcing them in a proper manner.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>200</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 9</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Self explanatory.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>201</NumAmB>

<Article>Considerando 10</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

Los derechos reservados no sólo se aplican a los trabajos literarios, sino también a los libros de texto, manuales de operación, programas de ordenador y todas las clases de estructuras de información. Los derechos reservados son el sistema de "propiedad intelectual" para programas de ordenador y no son solamente un sistema para un aspecto lateral o "literario" de los programas de ordenador. Si los derechos reservados no cubren la "idea subyacente" de un libro o de un programa, no se trata de una indicación de una insuficiencia de derechos reservados sino de la necesidad de mantener libres las "ideas subyacentes" o conceptos generales, de modo que diversos creadores tengan ocasión de obtener la propiedad mediante trabajos individuales basados en éstos conceptos generales.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>202</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 10</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Copyright does not only apply to literary works, but also to textbooks, operation manuals, computer programs and all kinds of information structures. Copyright is the system of "intellectual property" for computer programs, not only a system for a "literary" side aspect of computer programs.

If copyright does not cover the "underlying idea" of a book or a program then that is not an indication of an insufficiency of copyright but rather an indication of the need to keep "underlying ideas" (general concepts) free, so that many different creators have a chance to obtain property in individual works based on these general concepts.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>203</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 10</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Copyright does not only apply to literary works, but also to textbooks, operation manuals, computer programs and all kinds of information structures. Copyright is the system of "intellectual property" for computer programs, not only a system for a "literary" side aspect of computer programs.

If copyright does not cover the "underlying idea" of a book or a program then that is not an indication of an insufficiency of copyright but rather an indication of the need to keep "underlying ideas" (general concepts) free, so that many different creators have a chance to obtain property in individual works based on these general concepts.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>204</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 10</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Rules for designing programs cannot be patentable as they are comparable to mathematical proofs.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>205</NumAmB>

<Article>Article 10 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Clarification of “technical contribution”. Whereas the positive definition of technical contribution is rather difficult and is necessarily open to interpretation, it is nevertheless important to make clear which interpretations of this term as not envisaged in the framework of this Directive.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>206</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 11</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The references to industrial application and inventiveness are necessary for the technical aspect to be sufficiently highlighted.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Andrzej Jan Szejna</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>207</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 11</Article>

Or. <Original>{PL}pl</Original>

Justification

Należy koniecznie zdefiniować "charakter techniczny", dla którego to pojęcia wszystkie pozostałe zawierające określenia nawiązujące do techniki lub technologii są wtórne. Pojęcie "technologia" jest węższe od pojęcia "techniki" i w tym ostatnim się mieści. Zdolność patentowa w dotychczasowym prawie patentowym zawsze dotyczyła układów materialnych oraz procesów zachodzących w ramach tych układów. Odwoływanie się do " czterech sił natury" jest archaiczne i mało precyzyjne.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>208</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 11</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment is a reminder of the conditions of patentability.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>209</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 11</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The Council text is not in line with Art 52 EPC. Art 52(2) EPC lists examples of non-inventions. It is not permissible to subsume these under "inventions" and then test their technical character. Moreover, while it can not be inferred from Art 52 EPC that all technical innovations are inventions, it can, based on a unanimous tradition of patent law, be assumed that all inventions have technical character.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>210</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 11</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The Council text is not in line with Art 52 EPC. Art 52(2) EPC lists examples of non-inventions. It is not permissible to subsume these under "inventions" and then test their technical character. Moreover, while it can not be inferred from Art 52 EPC that all technical innovations are inventions, it can, based on a unanimous tradition of patent law, be assumed that all inventions have technical character.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>211</NumAmB>

<Article>Considerando 11</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

El texto del Consejo no coincide con el artículo 52 CEP. El artículo 52 (2) CEP enumera ejemplos de no invenciones. No procede incluir éstos bajo el concepto de "invenciones" para probar así su carácter técnico. Por otra parte, mientras que no puede deducirse del artículo 52 CEP que cualquier innovación técnica sea invención, sí se puede asumir, basándonos en una tradición unánime del derecho de patentes, que todas las invenciones tienen carácter técnico.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>212</NumAmB>

<Article>Considerando 12</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

Esta enmienda fue incorporada de su propia cosecha por el Consejo. Intenta ahondar aún más en el concepto de la OEP " contribución técnica del escalón de invención".

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Andrzej Jan Szejna</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>213</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 12</Article>

Or. <Original>{PL}pl</Original>

Justification

Charakter techniczny odzwierciedla zazwyczaj stan układu materialnego w danym momencie. Wniesienie zmian w charakter techniczny powoduje zmiany parametrów stanu tego układu materialnego.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Malcolm Harbour</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>214</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 12</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Clarification of the text

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>215</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 12</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendments was newly inserted by the Council. It attempts to further codify the EPO’s “technical contribution in the inventive step” doctrine. What one invents is his contribution to the state of the art, and for this contribution to be patentable it has to (among other things) involve an inventive step. Not the other way round.

The justification for the replacement text is the same as the one for article 2 (b) (amendment 4)

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>216</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 12</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This definition of an inventive step is tautological, as any technical contribution already involves an inventive step.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>217</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 12</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendments was newly inserted by the Council. It attempts to further codify the EPO’s “technical contribution in the inventive step” doctrine. What one invents is his contribution to the state of the art, and for this contribution to be patentable it has to (among other things) involve an inventive step. Not the other way round.

The justification for the replacement text is the same as the one for article 2 (b) (amendment 4).

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>218</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 12</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Self-evident.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Andrzej Jan Szejna</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>219</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 13</Article>

Or. <Original>{PL}pl</Original>

Justification

Zachodzi tu wyraźna spójność pomiędzy ustępem 13 a ustępami 11 i 12.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Malcolm Harbour</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>220</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 13</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Clarification of the text. The Council proposal si misleading.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>221</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 13</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

When judging the patentability of an invention, patent offices have always made a clear distinction between criteria of technical expertise and inventive step. Absence of technical expertise will mean that the patent will not be granted, regardless of any inventive step criterion. If this were not the case, any purely new invention would pass the test of inventiveness, which could lead to a considerable reduction in the quality of patents granted. The amendment is a reminder of the method used to assess technical expertise.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>222</NumAmB>

<Article>Considerando 13</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

El texto del Consejo define los requisitos de los programas de ordenador para ser invenciones técnicas. Retira el requisito independiente de la invención ("contribución técnica") y lo fusiona en el carácter no obvio de "paso inventivo". Esto lleva a incoherencias y consecuencias prácticas indeseables.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>223</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 13</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Slef-explanatory.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>224</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 13</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The Council text declares computer programs to be technical inventions. It removes the independent requirement of invention ("technical contribution") and merges it into the requirement of non-obviousness ("inventive step"). This leads to theoretical inconsistency and undesirable practical consequences, as explained in detail in the justification of the amendment to article 4.

This amendment corresponds to recital 14 in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>225</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 13</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The Council text declares computer programs to be technical inventions. It removes the independent requirement of invention ("technical contribution") and merges it into the requirement of non-obviousness ("inventive step"). This leads to theoretical inconsistency and undesirable practical consequences, as explained in detail in the justification of the amendment to article 4.

This amendment corresponds to recital 14 in the consolidated text of the EP’s first reading.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>226</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 14</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The initial wording is open to misunderstanding, as it implies that there could be a contribution to the state of the art that is not technical. It is important to distinguish what is technical from what is not.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Andrzej Jan Szejna</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>227</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 14</Article>

Or. <Original>{PL}pl</Original>

Justification

Stwierdzenie to jest spójne w stosunku do tych, które zawierają ustępy 11, 12 i 13 i stanowi swoiste powtórzenie.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>228</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 14 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The method of data processing does not cover the interfaces referred to in the Recital which belong to a field of technology.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>229</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 15</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

A contribution to the state of the art must by definition be technical in nature.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>230</NumAmB>

<Article>Considerando 16</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

La naturaleza del problema resuelto debería ser irrelevante para la patentabilidad. Lo que cuenta es la naturaleza de la solución. No se inventan los problemas sino las soluciones. Y la invención debe ser técnica o bien tener carácter técnico.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>231</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 16</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The original wording is incomplete, as it does not state that the method in question must be a technical process. It should not be concluded from this that non-technical methods, such as business or mathematical methods, could be patentable.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>232</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 16</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The nature of the problem solved should be irrelevant to patentability. It’s the nature of the solution that counts. Problems are not invented, but solutions are, and it’s the invention that must be technical (or have technical character).

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Andrzej Jan Szejna</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>233</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 16</Article>

Or. <Original>{PL}pl</Original>

Justification

Programy komputerowe stanowią swoiste algorytmy, wskazujące kolejność poszczególnych kroków w przekazywaniu informacji, a więc są częścią teorii i jako takie bez stosownego odniesienia do układu materialnego, ale nie komputera, nie mogą być przedmiotem patentowania. Istotą stwierdzenia zawartego w ustępie 16 jest podkreślenie intencji, iż jedynie nowe rozwiązanie teoretyczne w formie programu w skojarzeniu z urządzeniem użytkowym (nie komputerem) lub procesem materialnym mogą stanowić nową jakość łącznie podlegającym ewentualnemu patentowaniu.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>234</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 16</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The nature of the problem solved should be irrelevant to patentability. It’s the nature of the solution that counts. Problems are not invented, but solutions are, and it’s the invention that must be technical (or have technical character).

This was a new recital from the Council.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>235</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 16</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The nature of the problem solved should be irrelevant to patentability. It’s the nature of the solution that counts. Problems are not invented, but solutions are, and it’s the invention that must be technical (or have technical character).

This was a new recital from the Council.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>236</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 16 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

The dividing line between the material and immaterial world, and hence between what is patentable and what is not, can be defined with legal certainty. Once a physical signal is digitised, it becomes symbolic information, which can be manipulated in an abstract fashion in software, with no possible technical effect. A technical effect can be observed only in the case of signals of a nature capable of producing the desired effect, whilst a digital signal may be stored and processed independently of the technologies used to represent it.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>237</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 17</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

As software is not patentable, a patent cannot be infringed by the use of software under any circumstances. Patent claims may refer only to technical devices or processes, regardless of whether software is used to control the process claimed.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>238</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 17</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Self-explanatory.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>239</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 17 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment further clarifies what has to be disclosed in a patent application. In particular, the patent application has to explain the technical problem that the invention is seeking to overcome, and its solution, in a way that can be understood. It also has to describe any advantages, if there are any, that the invention brings over and above what has been done before.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>240</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 17 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment further clarifies what has to be disclosed in a patent application. In particular, the patent application has to explain the technical problem that the invention is seeking to overcome, and its solution, in a way that can be understood.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>241</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 17 b (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Transparent reference implementation, where feasible, helps the information diffusion.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>242</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 18</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Self-explanatory.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>243</NumAmB>

<Article>Considerando 18 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

Esta enmienda supone que es el dueño de la patente quien tiene que probar que la excepción para el pleno disfrute de los derechos de su patente. El riesgo de que cualquier persona pueda simplemente ignorar una patente reclamando que es de aplicación esta excepción queda mitigado por la capacidad del dueño de la patente de iniciar una acción convencional por infracción si cree que las estrictas condiciones de esta excepción no son aplicables. El tribunal competente podría considerar entonces la aplicación de la excepción a las circunstancias del caso, de acuerdo con las previsiones del ADPIC, incluso si la excepción entra en conflicto, de forma no razonable, con la explotación normal de la invención.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Tadeusz Zwiefka, Barbara Kudrycka</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>244</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 19</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Similarly to Council recital 13, this amendment claims that there are non-technical inventions. See the justification under the amendment to recital 13 for more information.

This was a new recital from the Council.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Fausto Bertinotti</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>245</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 19</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Similarly to Council recital 13, this amendment claims that there are non-technical inventions. See the justification under the amendment to recital 13 for more information.

This was a new recital from the Council.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Manuel Medina Ortega</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>246</NumAmB>

<Article>Considerando 19</Article>

Or. <Original>{ES}es</Original>

Justification

Del mismo modo que la enmienda al considerando 13, esta enmienda reivindica que hay invenciones no técnicas.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>247</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 20</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Self-explanatory.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Klaus-Heiner Lehne</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>248</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 20</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Self-evident.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Alexander Nuno Alvaro, Diana Wallis, Toine Manders, Janelly Fourtou</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>249</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 20 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment relates to Article 10 (Monitoring) adopted by the European Parliament during First Reading.

Currently, SMEs participate actively in Europe’s CII patents system. Indeed, SMEs represent the majority of applicants for CII patents. To ensure ongoing and active participation by SMEs—and to provide opportunities to enhance their involvement—this amendment proposes the creation of a committee focused on SME-related issues, with a mandate to recommend necessary reforms.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Malcolm Harbour</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>250</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 21</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

More concise drafting appropriate to selectively define the purpose of Articles 81 and 82.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>251</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 21</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Interoperability, i.e. the possibility of conversion of convention between 2 systems is a key element to prevent monopoles.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>252</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 21</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Slef-explanatory.

</AmendB>

<AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Alexander Nuno Alvaro, Diana Wallis, Toine Manders, Janelly Fourtou</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>253</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 21 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This amendment relates to Article 10 (Monitoring) adopted by the European Parliament during First Reading.

Existing statistics demonstrate fairly broad participation in the CII patents process by SMEs. However, there is consensus among all interested parties that additional and more comprehensive statistical data on CII patents would be welcomed. The above amendment would ensure that such data is compiled.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendement déposé par <Members>Piia-Noora Kauppi</Members>

Amendement <NumAmB>254</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 21 a (new)</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Self-explanatory.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>255</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 22</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

This addition makes it possible to maintain interoperability.

</AmendB><AmendB>Amendment by <Members>Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni</Members>

Amendment <NumAmB>256</NumAmB>

<Article>Recital 23</Article>

Or. <Original>{EN}en</Original>

Justification

Idem justification artile 1.

</AmendB>

</RepeatBlock-AmendB>