EUROPE is under constant threat from the software patents lobby and the hawks from the USPTO. They try to warp the EPO so as to better serve the clients in the United States, clearly at the expense of European ones (the multinationals can pretend to be European and American at the same time). The patent lobby has pushed for more or less the same goal all along, but occasionally the name of the process gets changed a little. The one advocated most recently by Barnier et al. [1, 2, 3] was called the "EU Patent" or something along those lines, but it's just another gown/brand for what was known as community patent, "unification", or something like the "harmonisation" McCreevy spoke about back in his days. Now they call it 'Innovation Union' (equating patents/monopolies with "innovation") and a European patents booster (from the same blog of a patent attorney which offers tips on patenting software in Europe) says that the Belgian presidency (Vincent van Quickenborne) is its pusher:
According to a recent press release, the European Commission published a Communication entitled “Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union”, which identifies ten key points required for turning Europe into a true "Innovation Union".
Mr Vincent van Quickenborne announcing talks on 'enhanced co-operation' instead of EU Patent - http://tinyurl.com/37hmmsx
#EUPatent on the agenda of the Competitiveness #EUCouncil on 10 Dec. / CC @VincentVQ
Italy found itself in a political squeeze on Thursday (25 November) as several key European countries moved to create a unified patent to protect the design of products sold across their borders.
Second BGH decision validating software patents in Germany, technical means the software runs in a computer http://ur1.ca/2fgca
The Government has revealed just how little faith it has in its vaunted "smart economy" by proposing the abolition of the one incentive SMEs had to create their own intellectual property (IP) – patent royalty tax exemptions – a leading patent lawyer has angrily railed.
Buried on page 96 of the ‘National Recovery Plan 2011 – 2014’ to remove ââ¬15bn from the State’s deficit and stimulate a recovery is a list of measures to be abolished.
Top of the list is the tax exemption for patent royalties.
It is followed by a number of other measures, like the abolition of investment allowance for machinery and plant and exploration expenditure, the approved Share Options Scheme and benefit in kind for employer-provided childcare.
“...I've used W3C IPR policy as a good example for Open Standards, in the past.”
--Carlo PianaMr. Oliva added: "but isn't that *still* a subset of both FRAND and FRAND-0? [...] i.e., it's not correct to say it's *not* FRAND, but rather that it's the non-evil subset of FRAND"
Glyn Moody also published "Tim BL: Open Standards Must be Royalty-Free", wherein he argues:
There's nothing radical or new there: after all, as he says, the W3C specifies that all its standards must be royalty-free. But it's a useful re-statement of that policy - and especially important at a time when many are trying to paint Royalty-Free standards as hopeless unrealistic for open standards. The Web's continuing success is the best counter-example we have to that view, and Berners-Lee's essay is a splendid reminder of that fact. Do read it.
The European Commission is setting out to reform Europe’s standardisation system. About time, too. Standards define what things around us look and behave like, whether soft- or hardware. Standardisation in Europe is currently dominated by a small number of organisations, and they’ve mostly done their business quietly in a corner where not many people cared to look. Except the ones with a lot of money at stake, of course.
That explains why standardisation today is still a game that’s mostly played by big corporations. At the same time, much innovation is happening elsewhere, coming from individuals and small and medium-sized companies (SMEs). Their numbers are large, but they don’t really have a voice in standardisation. Where they could participate, they often lack the time, money and specialised expertise to do so.
Comments
satipera
2010-11-28 14:47:38
twitter
2010-11-29 04:32:33
satipera
2010-11-28 11:10:09
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-11-28 13:01:44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010
The bill (or #DeBill) could just be called "Bob", but it's the actual details therein that matter.
twitter
2010-11-28 15:07:25
ACTA is too large and confused to be passed. It should be thrown out and any useful parts considered separately. The Mobbiest will be inserting malicious changes into it before it passes and no one will get what they expect. It was created in secret and no one really wants it.
PJ points to 35 year old records of the US debate about software patents. Her pick is worth quoting here,
Software patents were then, as now, all about creating monopolies to protect the position of incumbent companies like Bell Labs. The insane results of software patents in the US is the clearest evidence of how bad they are.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-11-28 15:24:32