Total number of companies: 24
Total number of signatures: 109
Most recent signatures:
Press release: UK software companies oppose Unitary Patent ratification
"The implementation UPC places a burden on SMEs and independents that will exclude them from realistic protection of their innovations and will introduce unsustainable entry costs."
— Maurice Shakeshaft, CB Automation Ltd, Newark, UK
"Software patents have been a net drain on the economy and benefit a relatively small range of businesses. We should not rush into ratifying a treaty with such far-reaching implications and this should absolutely be debated by an informed parliament or we risk causing further damage to our economy. In whose interest is it to push this through?"
— Matthew Mower, Mower-Valdemarin, Maidenhead, UK
"Patent Trolls are a nasty threat to small companies that do original work."
— Laurie van Someren, Aleph1, Cambridge, UK
"Will the UK government keep the Uk free of software patents, otherwise the country will be impoverished by unnecessary litigation."
— Eion MacDonald, Lochgorm Ltd, Warrington, UK
"Software patents are an anti-competitive weapon used by large software companies to fight off the threat from innovative start-ups. We must absolutely resist them if we want a thriving UK software industry with freedom of choice for consumers."
— Michael Kay, Saxonica, Reading, UK
"Too many large companies patent obvious and/or well known algorithms and design features and then have more money to spend on lawyers to suppress competition."
— William Hall, Littlemore Scientific, Dorset, UK
"Ratification will be a step backwards for the creative industries that add so much value to UK GDP."
— Christopher King, Reading, Berkshire, UK
"The acrimonious debate over the proposed directive on computer-implemented inventions might never have arisen if the patent litigation system in Europe had been unified, thereby eliminating the possibility of disparate national rulings on the same patent matter."
— David Sant, former EPO lobbyist in Brussels
"The volunteer activists drifted away, thinking the battle won, but the corporate lobbyists for software patents were paid to stay on the job. Now they have contrived another sneaky method: the “unitary patent” system proposed for the EU."
— Richard Stallman, FSF: Europe's “unitary patent” could mean unlimited software patents
“We must moreover continue to attempt to harmonise the practise of granting patents for computer-implemented inventions at the European level. This is to be attempted by a common European patent court system in which the member states can voluntarily participate. Thereby a unified procedure and legal certainty are achieved.”
"The industry-based driving force behind the EPLA comes from the pro-software patent group as a way to ensuring that their software or potential software patents are fully enforceable across Europe."
"The large multinationals who are pushing for the European Patent Court may be more concerned about the substance of European patent law rather than the need for a single forum […] The treatment of software is certainly one area of law that seems to concern large multinationals in ITC industries a lot, but I suspect that they look at the European Patent Court more generally as a way of influencing patent policy without having to go through the more skeptical European Parliament."
— Jim Bessen, Research on Innovation
"Baumann added that the new court was not intended to "codify software patents ", but it was hoped it would provide better intellectual property protection for inventions with embedded software, such as mobile phones and satellite navigation systems."
— James Murray, IT Week
"The current situation shows why such talks are necessary – a central European patent court will help bring the certainty that, in a number of areas such as software and biotechnology, we currently do not have."
— Joff Wild, Intellectual Asset Management Magazine
"Applying the EPLA to software patents granted by the EPO would create a dangerous body of jurisprudence on an issue which was clearly discarded by the European Parliament and by European stakeholders one year ago."
"All the European institutions and industry have worked hard and constructively on the issue of CII patents for some time. Europe’s high tech industry will support the efforts of the European institutions to find broader improvements to the European patent system that will particularly benefit the interests of smaller companies."
"According to the Parliament, the Community Patent has been mentioned by a number of MEPs as the appropriate legislative instrument to address the issue of software patentability."
"Does the Community Patent restart the debate over patents for computer-implemented inventions (software patents)? Why or why not? Pilch: It restarts the push for software patents, without a debate.[…] The Community Patent plan doesn't even mention the subject of software, although, make no mistake about it, software patentability is one of the main drivers of these plans."
— NoSoftwarePatents.com, Current situation
"The purpose of the unified Patent Court is inter alia to reduce the variety of interpretations of patent scope and claim interpretation in Europe, especially at non-specialized courts."
"In July 2005, after several failed attempts to legalise software patents in Europe, the patent establishment changed its strategy. Instead of explicitly seeking to sanction the patentability of software, they are now seeking to create a central European patent court, which would establish and enforce patentability rules in their favor, without any possibility of correction by competing courts or democratically elected legislators."
"Now, currently, in a few cases in some very specific fields (biotech and IT) differences arise in how the national courts interprete the EPC. This can be solved either via a common court which would set EU (or EPOrg) wide case law, or by legislating those gray zones. However, the latest attempt to harmonise EU patent law regarding one of those grey zones (the CII directive) was the fiasco we all remember."