The landslide rejection, by 648 votes to 14 with 18 abstentions, was the final nail in the coffin for the directive on the patentability of computer-implemented interventions (CII) as the EC had already announced that it will not try to re-introduce the proposed legislation.
The directive was designed to standardize technology patent laws across the European Union but divided technology vendors, business users and politicians alike, prompting a long and often bitter debate about whether it contained a loophole allowing widespread software patents.
The fact that both pro- and anti-patent campaigners welcomed the rejection of the directive highlighted the political and technological complexity involved, especially after the recent addition of amendments that failed to suit either side.
The formerly pro-directive European Information & Communications Technology Industry Association (EICTA) – which counts the likes of Microsoft Corp, IBM Corp, Nokia Corp and Intel Corp amongst its members – welcomed its rejection, claiming it represented a vote for the status quo.
Another pro-directive group, the Campaign for Creativity, meanwhile claimed the vote represented a rejection of anti-patent amendments and a lost opportunity for Europe to establish a common ground.
On the anti-directive side, the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure – which had been backed by open source vendors such as Red Hat Inc, MySQL AB, and Sun Microsystems Inc – claimed the vote was a response to bad legislative proposals and procedures.
That view appeared to be confirmed by Josep Borrell, president of the European Parliament. This is perhaps the most unanimous vote we’ve ever had, he said. This is the first time, if I’m not wrong, that the European Parliament has rejected a common position of the Council.
We’ve done so after having previously asked the Commission to withdraw it, he added. The Commission ignored us totally, this is the result now, and I hope the Commission is going to note that, and the Council as well. The Commission proposes but it doesn’t decide. It’s the legislative bodies that decide.
The vote was a pyrrhic victory for the directly elected European Parliament, which formally voted to request a restart for the directive in February 2005, only for the appointed Commission to reject its request, leading to the directive’s formal adoption by the Council of Ministers – which represents the governments of member states – in March 2005.
The Council of Ministers had previously ignored variety of amendments passed by the European Parliament in September 2003, instead reaching a controversial ‘political agreement’ on the directive that removed those amendments in May 2004.
Under the co-decision procedure, the European Parliament and Council of Ministers have to agree on the terms of proposed legislation, something that was clearly not going to be possible with the CII directive.
We were not going to be able to find satisfactory amendments during this session that would yield a directive that covered all the concerns of the software industry and did not cause collateral damage of quite large proportions to the electronics industry and many other industries, commented Liberal Democrat MEP and patent attorney, Sharon Bowles.
The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) had tabled the rejection of the directive but Bowles invited the Commission to now turn to previously stalled Community Patent legislation. Speakers from all sides who said they were now going to vote against the common position did indicate that they did not wish that to be the end of the matter, said Bowles.
We did want the Commission to bring it back again and in particular we wanted the Commission to bring it back again within the broader framework of getting the Community Patent system up and running.
The Community Patent plan to create a single European patent system has been debated since the 1970s but stalled in 2004 as the Competitive Council failed to agree on the details. Bowles said the Community Patent would provide a cheaper and better way for small and medium sized enterprises to get patent protection, while the Community Patent also had an advantage over the CII as it covered enforcement as well as patentability.
Dutch Liberal MEP and ALDE shadow-rapporteur, Toine Manders, maintained the group’s opposition to software patents, however. We first want to have the Community Patent and something embedded in it about software as such, which is not patentable according to article 25 of the convention of Munich, he said.
European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, Charlie McGreevy, indicated in a speech in February that the Commission will make another attempt at reaching agreement on the Community Patent.
