Background:
The European Patent Office (EPO), which is a body founded on the 1973 Convention on the Grant of European Patents (EPC) and independent of the EU, has been granting tens of thousands of patents on computer-related technology, both including mechanical applications and pure software, for many years. Those opposing this practice claim most of it was in violation of the Convention's Article 52, which explicitly excludes "discoveries, ... mathematical methods; ... programmes for computers; ... presentations of information" from patentability. All EU member states' patent laws also exclude computer programmes from patentability. Generally, these are treated in a similar way as works of literature or music, and protected by copyright law. The US have had gradually introduced patent protection for computer programs in the 1980s and 1990s.
In February 2002, the Commission published its proposal for a directive, based on the assumption that the legal uncertainty created by the mismatch between the letter of the EPC convention and EPO's practice, as well as the different practices in the member states created legal uncertainty and had negative effects on the proper functioning of the internal market. The proposal set out, consequently, to "harmonise national patent laws with respect to the patentability of computer-implemented inventions and make the conditions of patentability more transparent".
In first reading, the Parliament amended this proposal strongly, introducing in particular much more severe conditions, which excluded computer programs from patentability. This opinion was rejected by the Council, for which reason the report had to go into second reading. While the rapporteur in first reading, Arlene McCarthy (PSE, UK) was favourable to the Commission proposal, the former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard (PSE), who became rapporteur in second reading, is much more critical of it.
On 20 June 2005, the Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee adopted a report which broadly approved the Council's common position with only a few amendments. These amendments, if adopted in Parliament, are likely to be accepted by the Council in order to avoid a third reading.
The PSE, Green and GUE groups, as well as single Parliamentarians of the PPE/ED and ALDE groups, have meanwhile tabled a set of 21 amendments, which are more in the spirit of the Parliament's vote in first reading, and unlikely to be accepted by the Council.
The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII), an anti-patentability lobbying group rooted in the Linux community, has prepared a compilation of key documents [DE] [FR].
