(Ez a nyilatkozat még május 18.-a előttről származik.)
1. Támogatjuk Olaszország (Belgium által támogatott) kérését, hogy a 7a megállapítás (recital) a Direktíva főszövegébe kerüljön, hogy jobban egyértelműsítse a Direktíva célját, ami a jelenlegi szituáció fenntartása arra vonatkozólag, hogy mi képezheti szabadalom tárgyát.
2. Támogatjuk Németország (Belgium által támogatott) kérését a 13 megállapítás törlésére, és a "However" szó törlésére a 13a megállapításból.
3. Támogatjuk Németország (Belgium és Dánia által támogatott) kérését, hogy a "technikai hozzájárulás" ("technical contribution") jelenlegi definícióját a 2(b) cikkelyben váltsa fel a a következő szövegezés, az Európa Parlament 107-es és 69-es módosítása enyhén megváltoztatva:
" (b) "technical contribution" means a contribution to the state of the art in a technical field, which is new and not obvious to a person skilled in the art. The technical contribution shall be assessed by consideration of the difference between the state of the art and the scope of the patent claim considered as a whole, which must comprise technical features, irrespective of whether or not these are accompanied by non-technical features, whereby the technical features must predominate. The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a technical field. The mere processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes. "
4. Támogatjuk az Európa Parlament véleményét és Luxembourg kérését a 6. cikkely megváltoztatására, hogy egyértelműen kimondja: a számítógépen implementált újítások használata interoperabilitási célokra nem képezheti szabadalomsértés tárgyát.
" Article 6a: Use of patented techniques 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. " Denmark's proposal for the interoperability issue is unacceptable.
5. Támogatjuk az Európa Parlament véleményét, amely szerint a szólásszabadságot szabadalmi igények nem korlátozhatják. Ezért kérjük az 5.2 cikkely cseréjét a következő szövegre:
"2. Member States shall ensure that the production, handling, processing, distribution and publication of information, in whatever form, can never constitute direct or indirect infringement of a patent, even when a technical apparatus is used for that purpose."
6. Az 5., 8. és 11. megállapítás értelmében kérjük az alábbi 5.1b cikkely beillesztését:
"1b. Member States shall ensure that whenever a patent claim names features that imply the use of a computer program, a well-functioning and well documented reference implementation of such a program shall be published as a part of description without any restricting licensing terms."
1. We support the request of Italy (supported by Belgium) to transfer recital 7a to the main body of the Directive in order to clarify better that the purpose of the draft Directive is to maintain the current situation as to what can be patentable.
2. We support the request of Germany (supported by Belgium) to delete recital 13 and the word "However" in recital 13a.
3. We support the request of Germany (supported by Belgium and Danmark) to replace the current definition of "technical contribution" in Article 2(b) with the following wording, which is based on European Parliament’s amendments 107 and 69 slightly modified :
"(b) "technical contribution" means a contribution to the state of the art in a technical field, which is new and not obvious to a person skilled in the art. The technical contribution shall be assessed by consideration of the difference between the state of the art and the scope of the patent claim considered as a whole, which must comprise technical features, irrespective of whether or not these are accompanied by non-technical features, whereby the technical features must predominate. The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a technical field. The mere processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes."
4. We support the Eeuropean Parliament's position and request of Luxembourg to amend Article 6 to explicitly state that any use of a computer-implemented invention for interoperability purposes should not constitue a patent infringement.
" Article 6a: Use of patented techniques
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. " Denmark's proposal for the interoperability issue is unacceptable.
5. We support the position of European Parliament that freedom of publication may not be limited by patent claims. Therefore we request Article 5.2 to be replaced with the following text:
"2. Member States shall ensure that the production, handling, processing, distribution and publication of information, in whatever form, can never constitute direct or indirect infringement of a patent, even when a technical apparatus is used for that purpose."
6. With respect to recital 5, 8 and 11, we request to insert Article 5.1b with the following text:
"1b. Member States shall ensure that whenever a patent claim names features that imply the use of a computer program, a well-functioning and well documented reference implementation of such a program shall be published as a part of description without any restricting licensing terms."
