Hola. Estoy de acuerdo que no hay motivos económicos para apostar por las patentes de software.
En lo que no estoy de acuerdo es que la directiva es necesaria para harmonizar la legislación europea.
Permitidme copiar un fragmento de mensaje en otro foro.
-----
I'm a bit lost. In fact the Commission goals is to cover the
irregular behaviour of the EPO (for unknown reasons, maybe simply
for cowardy, because fixing the EPO is more work than giving it
legal cover). Those goals are of course not sane, so you don't
mean those, you mean the stated goals of the Commission. Those
are harmonization of the interior market and clarification of
a situation with big legal uncertainity.
Harmonization is not needed because the laws are very very very
similar in all the UE, and there's even one law, the European
Patent Convention that is unique for all EU countries, you can't
make it more uniform than that.
What might be diverging is the interpretation of the laws in the
courts, since the courts are faced by the EPC on one hand and the
practice of the EPO on the other, that does not follow the EPC.
The cause of this discrepancies is the unjustified practice of the EPO
and that should be fixed, not the laws.
About bringing certainity, that's a joke. The way to bring certainity
is to have the EPO follow the EPC. The directive would increase uncertainity:
a- They say the only thing clear from years of deliberation is that
there is much confusion about patentability of software (sure, as
always when administrations break the law).
b- They say we cannot put up with this anymore, and a clarification is
needed, everyone seems to agree that the confusion must stop and the
EPO must follow clear and predictable rules.
c- They give only one example of things that would not be patentable,
the 1 click, amazon's patent.
d- (Impressive) They can't even be sure, under the new rules that their
own example is not patentable. It only passes from "who knows" to
"highly unlikely". And they don't think they should give opinion on
that because the EPO is considering the case.
So what the hell are they writing those new rules for? (sorry, it
wasn't they who wrote them, but someone in the BSA). If they don't
feel inclined to interfere with the EPO, that is, they don't hope for
any control of the EPO, and even themselves are not convinced of how
to apply the rules to an example, they've quit any clarification
attempt before starting it.
Fine new rules. The only news is there are no longer rules, and even
that is clear as mud.
If you mean what can we ask to be done to fulfill more sane goals,
such as promoting innovation, competition and wellfare, then
easy, we need enforcement of the current law (EPC).
You may want to read an alternative to the proposed directive
or a bigger action plan.
-----
Hay un buen estudio sobre el caso sueco, que muestra como el problema no es que haya leyes divergentes, sinó
que la Oficina Europea de Patentes (EPO)se salta la ley. Los jueces tienen que escoger entre uan institución o la ley que la gobierna, y el problema es que ambas opciones son contradictorias y no deberían serlo. Por eso jueces distintos de un mismo país actuan distinto, no es un problema de que un país haga blanco y otro negro. La solución es reformar la institución, no hacer una directiva.
Sobre las respuestas a la consulta de la comisión, hay un mejor estudio de ellas. Sobre la propia directiva, los enlaces que has pasado, son los oficiales y estan bien como referencia, pero difunden bastante desinformación, como explica este FAQ. Es mejor para mi gusto este análisis.
Para más información sobre el tema (en catalán), la campaña de Caliu.
Sobre el foro público, me parece que proinnova está en ello, ya se anunciará cuando esté listo. Es cierto que lo que se envie a la OEPM debería quedar registrado (aunque sea sin validez legal) en un sitio público. Y quizás debiera enviarse también a más sitios.
[ Padre ]
|