LASP

more more more IPR please...

I have to hand it to the Commission and some of the Commissioners for their shameless ability to put political interests before democracy. The Commission has lost out twice on the CII directive and more recently on the mutual recognition of patent laws within the EU. However, it is determined, by whatever means, to ensure that software patents become a reality in Europe. In its latest memorandum entitled, "Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) at the heart of the Commission’s job and growth initiative  " issued on 3 May 2006, it pushes the idea that the more patents we have, the more innovation we have. It mentions the failure to pass the CII Directive in a manner which suggests to the reader that this is a further failure for fostering innovation in Europe. Am I feeling guilty for criticising the CII Directive...not just yet. What the Commission fails to mention is that the study it commissioned before the CII directive had very different conclusions as to whether software patents result in more innovation and as many of you who follow this topic will know, the majority of studies in this area which are not sponsored by vested interest groups, actually suggest software patents hinder innovation in the ICT sector. The memorandum is an unsubtle effort to keep pushing for the extension of patentable subject matter, and in particular, software patents dressed in some cosy language relating to costs savings and harmonisation. Cui bono?

The memorandum contains a list of companies with the top number of applications to the European Patent Office. It is not surprising that there are a number of non-EU companies on this list, particularly Japanese and US companies and that the majority of these companies are in the Electronics or software sector. It is not difficult to see how for the EPO, software patents are such an attractive proposition, being potentially a much bigger revenue generator than pharmaceutical patents. As shown in the US, if the logic behind software patents is accepted, 1 piece of software can lay claim to numerous patents whereas this is not the case for a new drug. The scale of applications and therefore fees is much greater for software patents. However, just because it's good for the EPO doesn't mean it's good for us as consumers and the ICT industry.

The Commission is clearly trying to bundle all 'IPR' together so that we don't differentiate between different IPR when considering the issue of innovation. I have been accused of propaganda in the past but this is a wonderful piece of propaganda.