Open Source And Industry Alliance
US Phone: +1 202.783.0070
Fax: +1 202.783.0534
http://www.osaia.org

For Immediate Release
July 6, 2005

For further information contact:

Will Rodger
Director of Public Policy
will@osaia.org
+1 202-486-6774

Following the overwhelming vote in the European Parliament rejecting the so-called computer-implemented inventions directive, a statement published by the European Commission generously identifies OSAIA as the leading critic of the directive and the push towards greater patentability of software. OSAIA and its parent organization, the Computing and Communications Industry Association, support patent protection when reasonably applied, but recognize that excessive patent practices can be extremely harmful to the very innovation they are supposed to promote.

“We were certainly pleased to play a role in this crucial debate,” stated Ed Black, President and CEO of CCIA. “The Commission’s draft of the directive would have greatly expanded the patentability of pure software inventions across Europe, leading to a U.S.-style patent regime and crippling innovation. However, credit for stopping it belongs to many other organizations and, principally, the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, which fought against the directive from the beginning.”

The directive was originally proposed by the Commission in February 2002 in the name of harmonizing patent practice among the member states of the European Union. Yet as a practical matter, the directive would have endorsed Europe’s drift towards U.S. practice and legitimized over 30,000 software patents issued by European Patent Office. In September 2003, the European Parliament drastically amended the directive to clearly proscribe patents on pure software.

However, the Council of the European Union ignored the Parliament’s concern and adopted an even more pro-patent version of the directive than the original Commission version. The Parliament’s massive rejection by a vote of 648-14 signaled its frustration with the process and the uncertainty of the possible outcomes that might have resulted from the hundreds of filed amendments that it would have had to vote on.