ACTOnline: Study: Fragmented EU patent system impedes innovation http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-112158/actonline:study:fragmented-eu-patent-system-impedes-innovati Posts in the discussion thread "ACTOnline: Study: Fragmented EU patent system impedes innovation" - Only Germany and the UK had developed legal frameworks with regards to software. Even then there were large differences between them, with Germany allowing for business methods software to be patentable, whereas in the UK a `technical' aspect had to be included. Thus software patented in Germany would not be protected in the UK (COM (2002) 92 final). The proposal was the subject of intense debate as supporters of `open source' software argued that if the proposal became law then it would stifle competition and cooperation. However, as Leblond (2008) notes, there was clearly need for legislative clarity given the differences between member states. As a result of member state opposition, especially from Poland and Denmark, the proposal was substantially amended. In July 2005 the European Parliament rejected the proposal by 648 votes to 14, as the states who did not want the proposal naturally voted against it as Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:59:20 +0000 http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-112158#post-331441 ACTOnline: Study: Fragmented EU patent system impedes innovation http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-112158/actonline:study:fragmented-eu-patent-system-impedes-innovati#post-331441 Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:22:37 +0000 zoobab 2946 "Only Germany and the UK had developed legal frameworks with regards to software. Even then there were large differences between them, with Germany allowing for business methods software to be patentable, whereas in the UK a ‘technical’ aspect had to be included. Thus software patented in Germany would not be protected in the UK (COM (2002) 92 final). The proposal was the subject of intense debate as supporters of ‘open source’ software argued that if the proposal became law then it would stifle competition and cooperation. However, as Leblond (2008) notes, there was clearly need for legislative clarity given the differences between member states. As a result of member state opposition, especially from Poland and Denmark, the proposal was substantially amended. In July 2005 the European Parliament rejected the proposal by 648 votes to 14, as the states who did not want the proposal naturally voted against it as did those who did not want a watered down version to become law. Therefore, the legal ambiguities between states remain in place and there is little desire to reinstate the discussions."

Source: http://www.actonline.org/library/04-12-08.pdf

]]>