Department of Trade and Industry Response to Software Patents

Copy of letter from Patricia Hewitt MP, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to Keith Bradley MP, dated 17 January 2005. The letter says:

Dear Keith,

Thank you for your letter of 22 December enclosing correspondance from your constituent Mr Marek Isalski, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 concerning the patenting of computer-implemented inventions.

In the UK, patents have been grated for computer-implemented inventions for decades - as many as 20% of current patent applications and grants are for such inventions and vast growth has been seen in the internet and software industru. as well as in the development and spread of open-source software, during this time. The growth in open-source software has taken place against a backdrop of existing patents: there is no reason to suppose that clarification of the existing law would hamper this growth or make open source software less available.

In considering the best ways to encourage innovation in the UK, we believe that a fair and effective intellectual property system, for software as well as for other areas of technology, plays a central part in developing and protecting new ideas. The approach adopted by the UK Government and the European Commission in the proposed Directive is to clarify the current position on patentability of computer-implemented inventions and confirm that only those inventions that involve a technical contribution can be protected by patents. We believe that this is beneficial for both innovators and users of software, especially small firms who will be able to work in conditions of greater certainty regarding patentability and would serve to help the continued development of the software industry in the UK and Europe.

Not only does the proposed directive set out the present legal position as it applies in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. but it also represents an element of the patent system that is being used extensively and effectively by many small and medium-sized enterprises. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the present system is causing any harm to the economy at large. The only significant problem with the present system is that it is complex. and as a resjlt many people do not understand what can and cannot be protected by patents. That is why the UK has continued to support the Directive as an effective way of clarifying the current law, not changing it. I do not want to see patentability further restricted and I do not want to see further rules in this area causing greater uncertainty for small businesses in particular.

I should also add that government policy in the area covered by this Directive was not formed without first considering whether there was a case for reform. My view, and that of my colleagues in government, was only formed after considering the results of a public consultation exercise that was carried out in the autumn of 2000. The consultation exercise showed that there were arguments on both sides, and a clear need to clarify the existing legal position; but there was no obvious case for changing the law. That is why the UK has continued to support the Directive as an effective way of clarifying the current law, not changing it.

Best wishes,

Patricia Hdewitt (sic)