UK IP Review - Final Report
ipo.gov.uk
ipo.gov.uk
"In Europe, in contrast to Japan and the US, there are restrictions laid down by the EPC on how far computer programs may be patented. Programs considered to make a “technical contribution” – such as controlling a robot, or making the internal operation of a computer more efficient – can be patented; general application programs – such as word processing software – cannot."
...
"In this case, the Review believes the balance of evidence lies in continuing to withhold patent recognition of non-technical computer programs as part of a sustained effort to deal with the growing and dangerous problem of thickets. The UK should seek to convince its European partners of the force of this case.
Similar considerations apply to the patenting of business methods (for example, particular pricing and marketing schemes) which are also allowed in the US but not in Europe – and unlike in the computer program area, there is no sizeable European lobby arguing for their patenting. Here, the correct course is clear: Europe should continue to resist the patenting of business methods."
In order to limit the effects of these barriers to innovation, the Government should:
• take a leading role in promoting international efforts to cut backlogs and manage the boom in patent applications by further extending “work sharing” with patent offices in other countries;
• work to ensure patents are not extended into sectors, such as non-technical computer programs and business methods, which they do not currently cover, without clear evidence of benefit;
• investigate ways of limiting adverse consequences of patent thickets, including by working with international partners to establish a patent fee structure set by reference to innovation and growth goals rather than solely by reference to patent office running costs. The structure of patent renewal fees might be adjusted to encourage patentees to assess more carefully the value of maintaining lower value patents, so reducing the density of patent thickets."
Let's hope Vince Cable and the rest of the government take these recommendations seriously and are not looking across the atlantic through rose tinted spectacles (as many of the Conservatives seem to be doing w.r.t. some other areas of economic policy).
Quote:
A higher total volume of patents leads to increasing transaction costs, particularly in markets which are patent intensive. The cost/benefit trade-off of the patent system may shift away from the socially optimal position – i.e. where innovation incentive benefits outweigh transaction costs by the largest margin.
And (sequential here refers to innovation that gradually build on past innovation, with computer programs specifically mentioned as a case of that):
This means that while for non-sequential inventions, such as a new drug or medical treatment, having a patent system generally yields higher welfare than not having one; in a fully sequential case, higher welfare and more innovation may be more likely to result from the absence of patenting opportunities. Over time, as digital technology becomes pervasive across the economy, this represents a serious concern.
At least they have a very good understanding of the problem of software patents.
Maybe that's just me, though.
The report itself seems like a fairly realistic assessment of the current situation and at least advocates some steps in the right direction for the future, though, so let's hope it does better than other recent efforts.