I have received the following from Rosalind Gill Liberal Democrat EP candidate for the East of England:

"Dear Mr Seago,

I have concerns about the EU Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions. The party position is as follows

We addressed the issue in the Liberal Democrat IT policy paper "Making IT Work" which was adopted at our Spring Conference in 2003. This made it clear that we are extremely sceptical about the application of patents in the software field. We state that we would "support continued widespread innovation in software by resisting the wider application of patents in this area." The full policy paper may be of interest to you and can be read in the policy section of our website at:

http://www.libdems.org.uk/index.cfm/page.folders/section.policy/ folder.policy_papers

Richard Allan MP, the Liberal Democrat Information Technology Spokesman, who has been campaigning actively for the Directive to be amended. He has raised this in correspondence and meetings with the relevant Ministers and liaised with colleagues in the European Parliament and campaign groups.

Most recently, Richard lobbied Jacqui Smith MP as the Minister representing the UK at the Competitiveness Council to try and persuade her to reconsider the Government's support for the current draft of the Directive. I attach an extract from his letter to the Minister:

"Software is very different from other inventions that are appropriate for the patent system. In the software world there is no shortage of ideas but rather the difficulty lies in implementing these ideas. It is the production of the code that is difficult and this is adequately covered by copyright law which safeguards the returns of the author. This is very different from fields such as pharmaceuticals where the hard work lies in the research that produces the discovery. There is a public interest in a patent granted to an invention that has been produced after challenging and expensive research as this enables others to use it under license conditions. There is no such public interest in awarding a patent to a computer related invention that many other people are likely to arrive at with very little outlay.

"The response from the patent authorities is often that the inventiveness test means that they will not grant patents to discoveries that others could easily arrive at. However, the speed of progress in the IT field means that what is not obvious today may frequently be obvious tomorrow.

"A very good case that highlights the inappropriateness of broad patentability in this field is the Bromcom case. This case is being conducted by the Department for Education and Skills who are seeking to break a patent awarded for the use of wireless network systems to transmit pupil data. This was deemed to be inventive in 1993 when the patent was applied for but would now be seen as trivial with today's wireless network systems.

"What we are faced with because of the Bromcom patent is a situation that is harmful to the public interest in a number of respects.

"Firstly, it could require schools to pay license fees using public money whenever they wish to implement pupil management systems over wireless networks. The DfES has presumably mounted its legal action as it sees this as a better value option than paying the license fees.

"Secondly, it has created uncertainty in the market thereby discouraging a range of suppliers from creating products in this area. It has acted to reduce the quality of product by existing suppliers.

"Thirdly, it acts as a disincentive for any new small supplier to get into this business. The fact that they would need the financial and legal expertise to deal with patent and licensing claims means that many small businesses will stay out of these product areas leading to a reduction in overall innovation.

"The Bromcom patent was issued under the existing rules. It involves hardware as well as software so is presumably covered by the Directive as a computer-implemented invention rather than being pure software. I would suggest that a very good test for the Directive would be to see if it will allow the Bromcom patent through. If the answer is yes then this contributes to the argument for there to be a tightening of the definition of patentability rather than just a continuation of the status quo as currently seems to be on offer.

"I hope that your officials will be able to liaise with the DfES to look into the Bromcom patent case as this is such a prime example of the threat that many people fear may result from the unamended Directive.

"In general terms, the fear is that we may inadvertently create a situation in which innovation is reduced rather than increased, where far from helping small businesses to exploit their products we set them at a disadvantage against large businesses that can afford patent lawyers and legal action,

and where the public interest as a whole suffers as license fees have to be paid for discoveries that would anyway be made."

The Westminster parliamentary party will continue to press the Government on this issue as the Directive proceeds through its legislative stages.

I hope this is helpful to you.

Yours

Rosalind Gill Liberal Democrat EP candidate for the East of England"