This table details the votes for which voting data is available. For details on all proposed amendments, look at the FFII Amendments page.
| Vote | Art. | Authors | Recommendation | Result | Text | Comment | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 52=54=rev.68 | EDD, VERD+GUE, UEN | + | − | reject the directive | Too many changes needed to make (the directive) good, better reject (the directive). Note: This was written before the FFII knew how heavily the directive would be amended and presumed it would be pro-patent. | 5 | |
| 29=41=59 | art 1 | EDD, VERD+GUE, UEN | + | − | Stated Purpose of directive: limits of patentability with respect to automated data processing. | Clarifies directive's purpose. The term "computer-implemented inventions" is not known to or used by professionals in computer-related fields. Inventions cannot be implemented on computers. | 5 |
| 69 | Art2b | PSE (Medina) | + | + | "technical contribution" means a contribution to the state of the art in a technical field which is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a technical field. The processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes. | Confuses patentability criteria, still an improvement. | 7 |
| 55 rev.97, 108 1e |
Art 2ba | ELDR, VERD+GUE+Kauppi | + | + | 'technical field' means an industrial application domain requiring the use of controllable forces of nature to achieve predictable results. 'Technical' means 'belonging to a technical field'. The use of forces of nature to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a technical domain. The production, handling, processing, distribution and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even when technical devices are employed for such purposes. | Defines 'technical field' well (in terms of forces of nature). | 10 |
| 16 1e | Art4.1 | JURI | − | − | In order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be susceptible of industrial application and new and involve an inventive step. | 1st part of JURI's Art. 4.1 - if adopted, it would have blocked the good 56=98=109 from ELDR, VERD+GUE+Kauppi | 5 |
| 16 2e | Art4.2 | JURI | − | + | In order to involve an inventive step, a computer-implemented invention must make a technical contribution. | Implies programs can be patentable, conflicts with EPC Art 52. Conflates separate criteria "technical contribution" and "inventive step" | 5 |
| 16 (p3) |
Art4.1 | JURI | − | − | The technical contribution shall be assessed by considering the state of the art and the scope of the patent claim considered as a whole, which must comprise technical features, irrespective whether or not such features are accompanied by non-technical features. | Implies programs can be patentable, conflicts with EPC Art 52. Suggests that the "technical contribution" may consist entirely of non-technical features! | 5 |
| 70 | Art4.3(a) | PSE | + | + | (new): In determining whether a given computer-implemented invention makes a technical contribution, the following test shall be used: whether it constitutes a new teaching on cause-effect relations in the use of controllable forces of natures and has an industrial application in the strict sense of the expression, in terms of both method and result. | Clarifies 'technical invention' | 10 |
| 47=60 | Art4c | VERD+GUE, UEN | + | + | Member States shall ensure that computer-implemented solutions to technical problems are not considered to be patentable inventions merely because they improve efficiency in the use of resources within the data processing system. | Disallows business method patents clearly | 10 |
| 72 | Art5.1a | PSE | + | ? | The member states guarantee that on computer-implemented inventions given patent claims cover only the technical contribution, which justifies the patent claim. A patent claim on a computer program, be it on the program alone or on a program available on a data medium, is inadmissible. | Good intent, poor means | 5 |
| 20=76 1e | art6a | JURI,PSE | + | + | Member States shall ensure that, wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for a significant purpose such as ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or networks so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement. | Ensures patents cannot prevent interoperability. This is the original JURI version (beware inferior imitations) | 7 |
| 76 2e | art6a | PSE | − | − | - provided that it does not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties. | Very unpredictable, creates legal uncertainty. A copy-and-paste of Art 30 TRIPs, but treaties aren't intended to provide wording for laws. | 5 |
| 71 1e | Art7 | JURI | + | ? | The Commission shall monitor the impact of computer-implemented inventions on innovation and competition, both within Europe and internationally, and on European businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises and the open source community, and electronic commerce. | Monitoring effects of swpat. Such studies by the Commission would likely be designed to confirm its own pro-swpat prejudices and as such are of dubious value, but are better than nothing. | 5 |
| 71 2e | Art7 | JURI | − | − | The Commission shall examine the question of how to make patent protection more readily accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises and ways of assisting them with the costs of obtaining and enforcing patents, in particular through the creation of a defence fund and the introduction of special rules on legal costs. It shall report on its findings to the European Parliament and the Council and present appropriate proposals for legislation without delay | Proposes new system with no working example. SMEs do not need patent protection for so-called "computer-implemented inventions", they need protection from patents. This amendment would promote litigation instead of innovation. | 5 |
| 81 | + | + | Parliamentary control amendment (text unavailable) | Make EPO more accountable to European Parliament. | 5 | ||
| 34=115 | Rec13 | EDD, Kauppi | + | + | Delete: |
Original text suggests algorithms may be patentable. | 7 |
| 74 | Rec18 | PSE | − | − | The application of this directive must not deviate from the original foundations of patent law, which means that the applicant of the patent must provide a description of all elements of the invention, including the source code, and that research into it, and as such decompilation, must be made possible. This way of working is indispensable to make compulsory licensing possible, for example if the obligation to supply the market is not fulfilled. | Implies computer programs could be patentable. | 5 |
| 75 | Rec18 | PSE (Ortega) | − | − | In any case, the law of all member states must ensure that the patents contain novelties and contain an inventive step, to prevent inventions which are already public from being appropriated, simply because they belong to a computer program. | See 74 above | 5 |