WRITTEN QUESTION E-1794/03 by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission. Software patents.
Date: 2003-05-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European patent, innovation, patent law, software

C 65 E/92

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

(cid:1) Articles III-1, III-4 and III-5, which reproduce Articles 3(2), 12 and 13 of the EC Treaty;

(cid:1) Article III-1a, which provides that, in defining and implementing its policies, the Union shall aim to

combat all forms of discrimination.

However, the Commission regrets that the Convention did not subject Article III-5 in its entirety to
qualified-majority voting. Maintaining the unanimity requirement in paragraph 1 of this article will create a
significant obstacle in future to the adoption of the measures needed to combat discrimination based on
sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

Moreover, the Commission is disappointed that racism and xenophobia are not included in the areas of
crime listed in Article III-167 of Section 4 on judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Part III) of the draft
constitution. It is a pity that this vital aspect of Union activity is becoming less visible and suffers from
having no clear legal basis when these deplorable phenomena are still rife in both the present and the
future Member States.

(2004/C 65 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1794/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Software patents

In recent research undertaken on the subject (1), it has been argued that a patent system may interfere with
competition and innovation. This argument relies on the notion that innovation is both ‘sequential’
(i.e. each invention builds upon its predecessor) and ‘complementary’ (i.e. a diversity of innovators raises
the chances of discovery). This argument therefore goes against the traditional reasoning for a patent
system.

Does the Commission in any way agree with the argument? How does the Commission respond to it in
relation to the Community patent?

(1) Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation, by James Bessen and Eric Maskin, July 2002, Harvard University and

MIT.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

The Commission is aware of the research referred to by James Bessen and Eric Maskin. The authors of the
paper argue that sequentiality and complementarity are characteristics of industries such as those for
computer software and hardware. This may indeed be the case, but in no way does it go ‘against the
traditional reasoning’ behind patent systems. In fact, sequentiality and complementarity are, to a greater or
lesser extent, characteristics of all innovation, although the degree of interdependence between inventions
varies considerably between sectors.

The Commission welcomes all research which contributes to the debate on the scope and utility of patent
protection, particularly in high technology sectors. The work by Bessen and Maskin in this field is indeed
highly interesting and the model that the authors develop in their paper is undoubtedly elegant and
sophisticated. However, like all models of this kind, there are simplifications involved, and caution has to
be exercised in applying the results of such work to the real world.

Following an extended period of consultation and reflection, the Commission came to the conclusion that
in the field of software inventions, insufficient grounds had been shown to justify either a significant
extension, or restriction, of the scope of what should be regarded as patentable. In particular, there was
little hard evidence of the interfering effect which patents are alleged by some to have on innovation. This
is why the proposal for a directive on computer-implemented inventions involves harmonisation and

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/93

clarification of certain aspects of the law, but is based substantially on current practice. The proposed
directive does, however, include a provision for the Commission to report on any effects the directive may
have on innovation, competition and business.

As regards the Community Patent, the objective of this initiative is to create a Community-wide unitary
right granted by the European Patent Office and enforced within a single Community jurisdiction. It is
however not the intention in this context to modify the substantive conditions for patentability as they are
currently expressed in the European Patent Convention and the national patent laws of the Member States.

(2004/C 65 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Iraq (cid:1) serious danger to civilians from unexploded landmines and looting activities

According to Human Rights Watch, following the end of the recent war in Iraq, civilian casualty figures
have shot up compared with the number of casualties during the war itself, principally because of the large
quantities of unexploded ordnance (cid:1) landmines, grenades and other explosive devices (cid:1) left behind in
residential areas following the sudden collapse of the Iraqi military command and control structure and the
resulting flight of military personnel who abandoned their equipment. Many of the victims are children
who suffer serious injury from playing with explosive devices. At the same time looting is continuing,
while snipers, conjectured to be Baath Party members, seeking to destabilise the country, are injuring and
killing many innocent civilians. In addition, countless documents are being destroyed in Iraq. According to
Amnesty International, British troops were involved in the mass destruction of electricity supply company
documents in Basra.

At the same time, American armed monitoring forces in Iraq are ignoring appeals for mine clearance and
more patrols. Appeals by international human rights organisations for at least some level of policing have
also been disregarded.

What measures will the Council take in an effort to ensure that the occupying and monitoring forces in
Iraq comply with international agreements and effectively protect the Iraqi civil populace from the above
dangers which are threatening not only their individual lives and welfare but also the very structure of the
State?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

The Council agrees with the Honourable Parliamentarian that the issue of unexploded landmines and other
ammunition is a serious danger to the population. It is well aware of the security situation in Iraq, which
causes severe difficulties to both the population of Iraq and to the occupying forces in the country, who
have the responsibility at this point of time of securing the country and protecting the population.
The European Council
in Thessaloniki welcomed the improving humanitarian situation but expressed
concerns by the continuing challenge to provide security to the civilian population.

The Council has, however, no reason to doubt that the occupying forces comply with international
agreements and obligations relating to the protection of the Iraqi people.