Re: [Trad April] Re: FR->EN Proofreading request: Brevet unitaire : mais qui veut encore du projet actuel ?

[Thérèse Godefroy <godef.th AT free.fr>]

Le lundi 30 septembre 2013 à 20:19 +0200, Thérèse Godefroy a écrit :
> Le lundi 30 septembre 2013 à 13:27 -0400, abram connelly a écrit :
> > I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure of the protocol to submit changes or
> > proofread.
> > 
> > I've read it over and made a few minor modifications.  Please let me
> > know if it looks good.  Any other feedback would be welcome.
> > 
> > Abe
> > 
> 
> Thanks a lot, Abe. You did exactly the right thing: make modifications
> on the pad and post on the list. :)
> Jeanne (or Fred) will look it over tomorrow.
> 
> Thérèse
> 

Hello Jeanne,

The translated HTML is attached, in case you'd like to publish it.

Thérèse

On Thursday 26 September 2013, fifteen companies including Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc., published an open letter to express their concerns about the Unitary Patent. They stress the insufficient safeguards and the risk of seeing the number of patent trollsPatent trolls are companies which do not produce anything, but operate on a business model that is solely based on patent infringement lawsuits. For additional information on the danger that they represent in Europe, refer in particular to the last part of the article “Only Gandalf can protect Europe from the Unitary Patent”, by Gérald Sédrati-Dinet. explode in Europe. April, who has long denouncedPlease refer to the http://www.unitary-patent.eu website for further information. the risks that the Unitary Patent project presents, welcomes the endorsement of its views. This is in line with the open letter signed by nearly 500 European businesses in 2012. Unfortunately, the remedies advocated by the companies in the present letter fall short of securing an end to software patents and promoting genuine innovation-oriented policies.

The two issues that this text puts forward are bifurcation (i.e. the option to try a patent infringement seperately from trying the validity of the patent) and injunction (i.e. the option, for a patent holder, to have a product banned pending the final decision of a judge), which are two of the patent trolls' favourite weapons.

Effectively, bifurcation may cause some companies to be convicted for patent infringement even when the patent is invalid, since the decision on patent validity is handed down at a later date. Moreover, the injunctions allow banning a product from the market, including when the patents involved are trivial.

Despite both issues being valid, the problems associated with the Unitary Patent are farther-reaching. Changing the procedural rules, as these letters suggest, is not going to improve the Unitary Patent sufficiently to make it innovation-oriented and compliant with the European legislation. Its very structure, which relinquishes all power to the patent microcosm, must be reconsidered rather than subjected to a purely cosmetic amendment.

Furthermore, even though the open letter rightly brings up the patent troll issue, it does not provide a comprehensive answer. Stating again clearly, once and for all, that software patents are forbidden in EuropeFor additional information on the dangers associated with software patents, see April's overview [FR]. would be the only way to efficiently mitigate this threat.