No EU software patents 

The basic principle behind patents is that if a person or company invests time and money to invent something new, they should be able to get a temporary monopoly over its production - in return for putting its details into the public domain.

That makes sense if one is talking about manufacturing, but not in the context of ideas, such as computer software or mathematical methods - and, indeed, the laws (both UK and EU) embody that.  To be acceptable, patent applications must relate to things that are "technical" and "industrial", while "the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run", a "computer-implemented business method", and a "data processing method" are all explicitly excluded.

Big business can afford to employ lawyers to find and exploit loopholes in the law. The biggest loopholes are that the terms "technical" and "industrial" are not explicitly defined, but instead are established by case law - with those big-business lawyers arguing for their employers.  In addition, the use of the word "industrial" has moved on.  A hundred years ago, its meaning was very similar to "manufacturing" - "the motor industry", "the steel industry", "the chemical industry" illustrate that kind of usage.  Nowadays, in contrast, it is common to hear phrases like "the tourism industry" and "the retail industry", which really don't fit the old concept at all.  "The dot com industry" takes that to a degree which largely negates the exceptions in patent law.

Yet another loophole can be found in the explicit exclusions.  Look at how the bit meaning "doing what computers do" is worded.  Did you notice that the computer user isn't mentioned?  That could be interpreted to mean that what the user sees, hears, etc. when using a computer isn't excluded.

Computer software is an area where it isn't necessary to be big to develop something new and useful - Microsoft and Apple were both started by kids working at home, and many operators in this area (especially those using Open Software) are still very small.  To use a case at hand, I've written this Website in my attic.  Would you believe that I can't afford to employ a patent lawyer?  And I'm just an extreme example - lots of small software businesses can't afford that either.

The trouble is that the lawyers are phrasing patent applications very carefully, to avoid what seems to me to be the intention of the law - for instance by phrasing specifications in highly generic terms, backed up by key examples that are fine.  Then, after the patent is granted, the lawyers fight to impose the patent over the wide generic area, which includes cases that really don't fit within "the meaning of the act" - and close down small businesses who can't afford the legal fees.  I am assured that if the big boys wanted to look at me, this Website could be shut down for patent infringements!

While the direct effects of allowing software to be patented fall on those who write and use Open Software, or who create websites, everyone who uses a computer will be affected indirectly: the big boys won't have to try as hard if the competition can be controlled using patent law.  For instance, Microsoft Windows™ will probably be better in future if it has to compete with Linux.

The EU is currently working upon formalising its patent law in a directive that will apply to all EU member states.  The stated aim has been to base the directive upon codifying the current situation - which ought to be fine, except that the current situation has the loopholes mentioned above - and rather than closing them, the wording of the directive seems to open them even wider.

The process will come to an end fairly soon.  Time in the European Parliament has been scheduled for July 5th and the deadline for opinion, 2nd reading, is two days later.  It is time to lobby MEPs and relevant party advisers now, ready for July.