New: Conference proceedings!

The Conference proceedings can be downloaded now in electronic form here. This version is somewhat updated compared to what was distributed at the conference, but not yet complete as we still await the final texts and slides of some participants.

Time and Place

2004-04-14 Wednesday 14.00-18.00

European Parliament, room AG2

with simultaneous interpretation for all EU languages (speakers are encouraged to speak in their mother tongue)

Some of the researchers may also meet on tuesday afternoon to for preparations of wednesday and of the research agenda for the november conference

Organisers

FFII together with International Institute of Infonomics (MERIT)

Sponsors

Open Society Institute and others

Purpose

• measure effects of Parliament's and Council's software patent legislation proposals
• communication between software, research and legislation
• continuation of last year's discussions
• preparation of research agenda for November conference

Rules of Game

The panelists submit short written statements with pointers to the experience and expertise which they want to share.

The chairman MEP decides how to conduct a discussion on the basis of these.

It should include an opportunity for at least 5 minutes of presentation for each panelist.

Submissions received before April 8th will, unless otherwise requested, be included in a printed documentation distributed at the conference and before it.

Remote participation should be possible. A remote participant presents his paper either by videoconference or by means of a representative.

Schedule

Panel I 14:00-15:00: Recent Developments in Granting and Use of ICT Patents

Questions

how many patents of which types have been granted and enforced in various jurisdictions? How have ICT businesses been affected?

Reference Documents

EPO Patent Database, Software Patent Databases, Patents in Action

Participants[1]

Bernd Herd (Herdsoft.com, DE), Jozéf Halbersztadt (patent examiner, PL), Burak Canboy (CEO, WinRar GmbH, DE), Adrian Lozano (patent data mining expert, SE), Jean-Paul Smets (MD of Nexedi, patent owner, author of report Pro Innovation, FR), Joerg Wittenberger (SME in artificial intelligence, DE) and Roland Orré (CEO & patent owner, neurologic.se, joint presentation)

Remote Participants[1]

Jim Bessen (Researchoninnovation MIT, US),

Chair

Olga Zrihen MEP (Socialist Group, Belgium)

Preparation

on Mailing list and Wiki, coordinated by Erik Josefsson (ehj at cleosan com, SE)

Panel II 15:15-16:15 EU Legislation Benchmarking: Parliament's vs Council's version of Software Patent Directive

Questions

semantics of the different law proposals: clarity, compatibility with treaties and constitutions, effects on patent granting, effects on patent enforcement

Reference Documents

proposed directive "on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions", versions of Commission, Parliament and Council, Commission's criticism of Parliament in combination with benchmarking methods

Participants[1]

David Ellard (DG Internal Market, European Commission), Reinier Bakels (Centre for Intellectual Property Law, University of Utrecht), Oliver Lorenz (Magix AG, Legal Department, DE), Georg Jakob (law scholar at Salzburg University and president of FFS.or.at), Philippe Aigrain (software entrepreneur, formerly European Commission Infosoc, FR), Christian Beauprez (software law expert, UK), David Sant (European Patent Office),

Chair

Bent Hindrup Andersen MEP (EDD, DK)

Preparation

on Mailing List and Wiki, coordinated by Jonas Maebe (jonas maebe at ugent be, BE)

Panel III 16:30-17:30 Competitivity of Knowledge Economies

Questions

How can EU become "the most competitive knowledge economy by 2010"?

• Identify weaknesses of EU ICT economy (e.g. supply of venture capital), explain their causes and estimate impact of presence or absence of software patents on them!
• Are the EU's targets well formulated and are the political instruments adequate to the targets?
• Is the emphasis on "private R&D" as "key to regional competitivity" justified and does it take the economics of information-based goods into account?
• To what extent is the "competitivity agenda" driven by political needs (e.g. self-legitimation of EU institutions, Union Patent as a symbol of statehood, pact of EU with industry lobbies etc)?

Reference Documents

• Letters of 5 CEOs on Swpat Directive -- threaten to move R&D investments abroad if software isn't patentable, talk about "Lisbon agenda" and "competitivity"
• Grove: US competitivity suffering from patents -- In a presentation at a US conference about a perceived erosion of US competitivity in comparison to rising economies such as India and China, Intel chairman Andy Grove identifies the bloated patent system as one of two biggest negative factors in US competitivity
• Europarl ECON 2001-01-23 report about state of EU economy -- report and draft motion by Christa Randzio-Plath MEP for the European Parliament's Committee for Economic Affairs, cites numerous relevant policy documents, describes weakness of Europe's economy compared to US et al, proposes measures
• Bolkestein 2004-01-08 speech before ELDR seminar|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display= -- Frits Bolkestein Member of the European Commission in charge of the Internal Market, Taxation and Customs Reviving European Growth the need for courageous reforms Address at ELDR Seminar "Reviving European Growth" at European Parliament Brussels, 8th January 2004. According to Bolkestein, much has been achieved during his ending term, but Europe is sick, falling further behind US; Lisbon agenda correctly identifies the problem, but member states are not moving ahead, need to create a more investment-friendly environment.
• European Research Area -- Euractiv Dossier about relevant EU policies
• Strong private R&D investment of EU players -- but in the US, -- Euractiv reports that large European companies are investing in R&D abroad rather than in EU
• Economy of Knowledge Production in the United States -- study by patent economist Fritz Machlup of 1961 stresses "stickiness" of investments in knowledge production, explains where public and private sector are efficient
• Economic Studies on Software Patents -- collection of short summaries of and pointers to studies about the effects of patents on knowledge production, particularly in software

Participants[1]

Bent Hindrup Andersen (MEP, EDD Group, Denmark), Luc Soete (information economist, MERIT, Maastricht) Yann Ménière (information economist, CERNA, Paris), Birgitte Andersen (IPR policy research", Birbeck University of London, UK), Sylvain Perchaud (MD of Europe-Shareware.com, economist, Paris)

Remote Participants

Jim Bessen

Chair

Daniel Cohn-Bendit MEP (Chairman of Green Group, France-Germany)

Preparation

on Mailing List and Wiki, coordinated by Sylvain Perchaud (sylvain at europe-shareware com, FR)

Extra Panel on Day 2 Interoperability, Competition and Digital Rights

Subject Matter

Recent events involving Microsoft (DG Comp decision and the settlement with Sun) so as to show how intellectual property reinforces "closed" solutions in a context of "standards war". In particular, the issues raised here are more difficult than the usual debates about patent pools and cross licensing because here the dominant firms can use their intellectual property rights to leverage installed bases of applications and users, thus raising the hardship for alternative solutions to compete. Anti-Circumvention Provisions in recent EU directives also raise interoperability problems. The Software Patent Directive proposes to codify a right to interoperation, but this is meeting stiff opposition from patent legislators in the European Commission and the EU Council, based on extreme interpretations of the TRIPs treaty for whose imposition the EU has successfully sued Canada before the WTO. Interoperability has been a key concern of public administrations, which are adopting free software in order to ensure a more level playing field of communication between public authority and the private sector. Law for support of interoperability have been proposed.

Participants

Yann Ménière (IT researcher, Paris), Jon Johannsen (DeCSS author, Norway), Test Achat Belgium

Links

conference program as PDF file

for sending to serious people

invitation letters

in several languages for several kinds of addressees and purposes

conference planning page

with plans for the enlarged version to be conducted in november

plan for the whole day

comprising morning press conference, noon street rally, evening dinner and ffii general assembly

Footnotes

[1] still subject to confirmation and change

[2] subject to approval by German Ministry of Justice

To Do

Video conferencing

Benjamin Henrion and David Glaude may be able to set this up, based on GnomeMeeting and and a mobile internet access (due to firewall constraints within the EP's own network)