Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 6 July 2005 - Strasbourg

7. Patentability of computer-implemented inventions

- Before the vote:

  Michel Rocard (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is every likelihood that this Parliament will shortly reject the proposed Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. All our major groups, and even – I beg their pardon – the smaller ones, have taken this decision, albeit for contradictory reasons. I have neither a mandate nor any official capacity here to comment on those reasons. However, this convergence has a common significance. On the merits of the question, we are split roughly 50/50, making the result totally unpredictable with a relative majority, and with a bilateral impossibility of achieving a qualified majority. Each of our parliamentary groups prefers to reject the text rather than to adopt the other’s opinions. Above all, however, there is a collective and unanimous anger on the part of the entire Parliament at the unacceptable way it has been treated by the Commission and the Council.

(Applause)

A total and cynical contempt for the choices made by Parliament at first reading. A total absence of any consultation by the Commission in drafting the text for the second reading. Repeated attempts even to stop discussions between Governments within the Council itself. As a matter of principle, this is scandalous enough. The crisis in Europe today has a lot to do with the deficit of democracy, an area where the Council has an overwhelming responsibility, as it has proved amply on this issue. Let us hope that this rejection is a lesson to it!

(Applause)

On the merits of the issue, the state of opinion, as reflected here, clearly shows that the problem is not yet ripe for a decision. Only with a more in-depth debate could it have matured into a wider consensus. On this vital and highly challenging subject – with several tens of billions of dollars at stake each year – a collective awareness is clearly beginning to emerge. In that context, rejection is a message directed at the European Patent Office. The European Parliament has refused to ratify the recent judicial errors by extending the scope of patentability to certain software programs. If these errors were to continue, it now seems clear that a parliamentary majority would emerge to put a stop to them.

- After the vote on the common position:

  Hans-Gert Poettering (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, what we have always heard from the Commission is that it would be unwilling to submit a new proposal in the event of the Common Position being rejected, but let me remind the House of the Interinstitutional Agreement, which we concluded on 15 September 1999 with the former President, Mr Prodi, and in which the Commission undertook to take initiatives as and when Parliament calls upon it to do so. I do not doubt that the House will call upon the Commission to submit a new proposal, and would remind the Commission that it is obliged to do so, and that that is what must happen.

(Vigorous applause)

  Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, I do not think that we can necessarily interpret this vote as an invitation to the Commission to put forward a new proposal rather similar to the one that has been rejected. I believe, therefore, that the issue should be discussed and defined together with the Commission.

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, in accordance with the procedure and purely out of courtesy, I invite the Commission to comment, if it so desires.

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Mr President, the rejection of the Council common position is the democratic right of Parliament as co-legislator with the Council. Many speakers during the debate yesterday mentioned the voice of the people and the role of democracy.

Without this directive, patents for computer-implemented inventions will continue to be issued by national patent offices and the European Patent Office under existing law. There will be no harmonisation at EU level.

(Applause)

This means that different interpretations as to what is patentable or not will continue without any judicial control by the European Court of Justice.

Since the adoption of the common position, the Commission has maintained the view that, should Parliament decide to reject the common position, the Commission would respect this and would not present a new proposal but, if Parliament invites us to do so, we will speak with the various parliamentary committees and then consider the next procedures.

Various Members have expressed the view that the Commission should present a non-sector-specific instrument and that it should seek the adoption of the Community patent.

A large amount of national patent law is already aligned with the European Patent Convention and the Community Patent Convention of 1989. Again, Commissioner McCreevy will be happy to debate these matters with you. You have already said you would invite us to the relevant committee meetings and also to the plenary sittings if you wish to do this.

On the future of the Community patent, the key to agreement on this lies in the hands of the Council. Many options have already been explored formally and informally.

  President. – Parliament is grateful to the Commission and, once again, thanks its rapporteur Mr Rocard for all the work done.