Title;29,59,41;EDD,Greens+GUE&c,UEN;++;"Clarifies meaning of directive"
;;;;
"Article 1";116;Kauppi;++;"Clarifies meaning of directive"
;;;;
"Article 2 (a)";14;JURI;--;"Would allow patenting programs as such"
;"36, 117, 42";"EDD, Kauppi, UEN";+++;"Confirm EPC Art. 52 clearly"
;;;;
"Article 2 (b)";69;PSE;+;"Confuse patentability criteria, still better than original"
;96;ELDR;-;"Confusing, creates loopholes"
;107;Kauppi;+++;"Precise and clear, matches EPC unambiguously"
;;;;
"Article 2 (ba) (new)";"97, 55, 108";"ELDR, Greens+GUE&c, Kauppi&c";++;"Defines ""technical contribution"" well"
;;;;
"Article 2 (bb) (new)";"39, 43";"EDD, UEN";++;"Clarifies the meaning of ""invention"""
;;;;
"Article 2 (bc) (new)";"38, 118, 44";"EDD, Kauppi&c, UEN";++;"Clarifies the meaning of ""industrial"""
;;;;
"Article 3";15;JURI;+;"Good, original declares programs can be inventions"
;;;;
"Article 3 (a) (new)";45;UEN;+++;"Clarifies the meaning of ""technology"""
;;;;
"Article 4";16;JURI;--;"Confuses criteria, conflicts with EPC Art. 52"
;;;;
"Article 4.1";16(1);JURI;-;"Confuses criteria, conflicts with EPC Art. 52"
;"98, 56, 109";"ELDR, Greens+GUE&c, Kauppi&c";++;"Confirm EPC Art. 52"
;;;;
"Article 4.1 (b) (new)";48;UEN;++;"Confirms EPC Art. 52 clearly"
;;;;
"Article 4.2";82;EDD;+;"Original unclear, better deleted"
;16(2);JURI;o;"Essentially same as original"
;;;;
"Article 4.3";16(3);JURI;-;"Contradictory definition of ""technical contribution"""
;"99, 57, 110";"ELDR, Greens+GUE&c, Kauppi&c";++;"Clear definition of ""technical contribution"""
;100;ELDR;-;"Adds ""grace period"" with unpredicable effects"
;;;;
"Article 4.3 (a) (new)";70;PSE;+;"Clarifies the meaning of ""technical invention"""
;;;;
"Article 4.4 (a) (new)";17;JURI;-;"Uses undefined terms, creates loopholes"
;;;;
"Article 4.4 (b) (new)";87;PPE-DE;o;
;;;;
"Article 4.4 (c) (new)";"60, 47";"Greens+GUE&c, UEN";++;"Disallows business method patents clearly"
;;;;
"Article 4.4 (d) (new)";"83, 46";"EDD, UEN";++;"Confirms EPC rules"
;;;;
"Article 5";18;JURI;--;"Could make publication illegal"
;"101, 58, 49";"ELDR, VERD, GUE, UEN";++;"Good definition of computer-implemented invention"
;"102, 111";"ELDR, Kauppi";+;"OK, but needs definition of ""technical"" somewhere"
;;;;
"Article 5 (a) (new)";62;GUE;+;"Exception for free software"
;;;;
"Article 5 (b) (new)";"103, 119";"ELDR, Kauppi&c";++;"Clarifies patent mustn't prevent publication"
;;;;
"Article 5 (c)";"104(1), 120(1)";"ELDR, Kauppi&c";+;"Clarifies patent scope"
;;;;
"Article 5 (d)";"104(2), 120(2)";"ELDR, Kauppi&c";+;"Requires reference implementation"
;;;;
"Article 5 (bis) (new)";72;PSE;+;"Good intent, poor regulatory means"
;;;;
"Article 6";19;JURI;o;
;;;;
"Article 6 (a)";20;JURI;+++;"Ensures patent cannot prevent interoperability"
;50;UEN;+++;"(same as above)"
;76;PSE;--;"Abdicates parliament power to EPO and caselae"
;105;ELDR;--;"Unclear, ambiguous exceptions"
;;;;
"Article 6 (b)";106;ELDR;o;"7-year limit; fits poorly with current practice"
;;;;
"Article 7";21;JURI;-;"Leaves patent lawyers monitoring themselves"
;71;PSE;-;"Proposes new system with no working example"
;91;PPE-DE;+;"Slightly better than 21, same basic problem"
;;;;
"Legislative Motion (Accept/Reject)";"68, 54, 52";"EDD, Greens+GUE&c, UEN";o;
;;;;
"Recital 1";30;EDD;+;"Better remove unfounded claims"
;1;JURI;-;"No substantial change to original"
;;;;
"Recital 5";2;JURI;-;"As bad as original"
;;;;
"Recital 5 (a) (new)";88;PPE-DE;+;"Confirms EPC Art. 52"
;;;;
"Recital 6";31;EDD;+;"Better remove dubious TRIPS interpretation"
;;;;
"Recital 7";32,112;EDD,Kauppi;+;"Confirms EPC Art. 52"
;;;;
"Recital 7 (a) (new)";3;JURI;+;"States EPC isn't being changed"
;;;;
"Recital 7 (b) (new)";95;ELDR;+;"Greater accountability of EPO"
;;;;
"Recital 9 (a) (new)";61;GUE;+;"Emphasizes Free Software"
;;;;
"Recital 11";33;EDD;++;"Removes conflict with EPC Art 52"
;4;JURI;-;"Confuses criteria of patentability"
;84;PPE-DE;-;"Confuses criteria of patentability"
;113;Kauppi;++;"Clarifies nature of computer programs"
;;;;
"Recital 11 (a)(new)";51;UEN;++;"Clarifies nature of computer programs"
;;;;
"Recital 11 (b)(new)";73;PSE;o;
;;;;
"Recital 12";5;JURI;--;"Contradicts EPC Art52, inconsistent"
;114;Kauppi;++;"Clarifies ""technical contribution"" requirement"
;;;;
"Recital 13";"34, 115";EDD,Kauppi;+;"Removes ambiguity about algorithm patentability"
;;;;
"Recital 13a";6;JURI;o;"Leaves business method patentability unclear"
;;;;
"Recital 13b";7;JURI;+;"Restates basic patentability limit"
;;;;
"Recital 13c";8;JURI;-;"Makes algorithms patentable, confusing wording"
;;;;
"Recital 13d";9;JURI;o;"Restates basic features of patents"
;;;;
"Recital 14";10;JURI;--;"Confusing, abdicates responsibilty to EPO"
;86;PPE-DE;-;"Would allow business method patents"
;;;;
"Recital 16";11;JURI;-;"Sounds like a plan to change EPC"
;35;EDD;+;
;;;;
"Recital 17";12;JURI;o;
;;;;
"Recital 18";13;JURI;o;
;;;;
"Recital 18 bis (new)";74;PSE;-;"Implies computer programs can be patentable"
;;;;
"Recital 18 ter (new)";75;PSE;-;"Implies computer programs can be patentable"