Hopeful signs are emerging for the future of economic prosperity in Europe despite some serious opposition. The European Parliament recently moved to scrap the ratification of an informal agreement reached last year by EU member states and supported by the European Commission, that would have made important strides forward in the legal recognition of intellectual property rights.

The Computer Implemented Inventions Directive (CIID), which would protect intellectual property and standardize EU software patent law, now appears dead. This leaves in place a patchwork of national patent laws that effectively stifles a common set of laws and regulations in Europe.

These sorts of delays and backsliding by the Parliament represent serious threats to European economies and could add to a dangerous precedent in light of the EU’s ruling against software company Microsoft. The 21st Century has ushered in the Information Age; computers and software represent the field with perhaps the greatest potential for innovation and wealth-creation in developed nations.

In spite of the opposition of the Parliament to the CIID, the European Commission has not abandoned its mandate to protect intellectual property, and is pushing ahead with a plan to standardize copyright and licensing for on-line music.

This commitment recognizes that the rule of law expressed in the recognition and respect for intellectual property is absolutely critical to the flourishing of information technology. In the Internet-era, the protection of non-material property rights is just as important, if not more, than the protection of material property rights.

The ownership of property is not merely a right to property, but is better conceived a fundamental human right, and is affirmed as such by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others” (Article 17). It is simply myopic to view “property” as merely physical objects, rather than that effort, talent, time and risk (i.e., lives) that go into producing legitimate property.

This is affirmed throughout the social teaching of the Catholic Church especially in the encyclical Centesimus Annus by Pope John Paul II where he writes, “In our time, in particular, there exists another form of ownership which is becoming no less important than land: the possession of know-how, technology and skill. The wealth of the industrialized nations is based much more on this kind of ownership than on natural resources.”

The essential link between economic productivity and intellectual property (or between things and persons) in the Information Age is underscored, as “at one time the decisive factor of production was the land, and later capital understood as a total complex of the instruments of production – today the decisive factor is increasingly man himself, that is, his knowledge, especially his scientific knowledge, his capacity for interrelated and compact organization, as well as his ability to perceive the needs of others and to satisfy them.”

One of the key roles of government is the ardent defense of an exclusive right to market one’s ideas in the form of intellectual property. Even the European Constitution, which itself has met serious opposition, states, “Intellectual property shall be protected” (Article II-77.2). Indeed, intellectual property can be viewed as the cornerstone of modern enterprise, since it works as a morally necessary incentive for human creativity. This defense of intellectual property by the government is fundamental to constructing a framework within which economic activity can prosper, to the benefit of all.

Respect for property rights qua human rights on the national and international level is, therefore, vital to meeting the needs of the human family. And the lack of such protections is having real economic consequences for Europe. A 2001 study by the World Customs Organization concluded that about one third of software across Western Europe is pirated and that “counterfeit music CDs have become more valuable, by weight, than cannabis – a kilo of cannabis will fetch EUR 2,000, while a kilo of counterfeit CDs is worth EUR 3,000.”

The popularity of digital media and broadband distribution has only exacerbated the availability of pirated materials. Music, movies, and software are readily available for download via global file-sharing software. Without the legal protection from such electronic theft, the proliferation of such piracy can only increase.

And this is precisely why the European Parliament’s move to forestall the implementation of substantive and necessary protections of property rights is so troublesome. As the CIID appears dead, we can only hope that future policies protecting intellectual property, like the Commission’s proposals for music copyright standardization, will not be defeated. Further delays would only serve to embolden the purveyors of software and music piracy, giving them more time and opportunity to sow the seeds of economic destruction.


  • K

    While it’s completely correct to say that property rights are one of the bases upon which any valid economy is founded, IP has often gone overboard — things like One-Click Patents are absurdities. This is more a process-based issue than an IP/Patent availability issue, but nonetheless is a major issue. Patents need to be “non-obvious,” and increasingly, with respect to IT issues this is a difficult decision for a lot of patent examiners to make.
    As well, we need to remember that Microsoft is basically a de facto Monopoly, and Monopolies are anti-thetical to free-trade.
    So while IP law must, indeed, take effect in Europe, it should be structured in such a way to make it exceedingly difficult to be used simply as a tool for patent holding companies and litigation shops. It should also be structured, if possible so as not to _encourage_ monopolies.

  • Jonas Maebe

    As the previous poster mentioned, it is naive to think that more intellectual property rights inherently equates to more economic production. There has to be a balance somewhere.

    Most economic literature suggests that in case of software patents, the balance may be very well negative. An interesting article on this very subject was published yesterday at [url=http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/2641]eGov Monitor[/url].

  • Jan Hansen

    The patent system rests on the assumption that society will benefit more from mindsharing in the long run and thus accepts the higher prices that monopolies impose for disclosure inventions. When 1000′s of patents are granted each year the system breaks down. Society has to live with higher prices but gain nothing in return.
    The software sector has tradionally had low barriers to entry, because every avgarage Joe developer could start writing a program and bring it to market at relatively low cost.
    If software sector around the world is allowed to turn into a patent minefield it will no longer be possible.
    Developers would have to read through 1000′s of patents to ensure their programs will not infringe on any of these patents. This task is made even more difficult because it is possible to obtain a patent on even blatantly obvious inventions.

  • Marten

    “The Computer Implemented Inventions Directive (CIID), which would protect intellectual property and standardize EU software patent law, now appears dead. This leaves in place a patchwork of national patent laws that effectively stifles a common set of laws and regulations in Europe.”

    You misunderstood the purpose of the directive.

    “These sorts of delays and backsliding by the Parliament represent serious threats to European economies and could add to a dangerous precedent in light of the EU’s ruling against software company Microsoft.”

    These two issues are 100% unrelated. One is an anti-trust ruling, the other a legislative act.

    “As the CIID appears dead, we can only hope that future policies protecting intellectual property, like the Commission’s proposals for music copyright standardization, will not be defeated.”

    Again Copyright and patent law are 100% unrelated. And those who opposed software patents did so because their copyright claims get invalidated.

    “Further delays would only serve to embolden the purveyors of software and music piracy, giving them more time and opportunity to sow the seeds of economic destruction.”

    Okay. Let’s get it straight. It is worth to shut up when you do not know what is going on. Non-patenting of software has *nothing* to do with software piracy.

    I am tired to talk to clueless people.

  • Bernard Hugueney

    It’s too bad that you fell for the strawman argument (anti-software patent = anti-IP) of software patents proponents even if it is rebutted again and again (http://www.ag-ip-news.com/GetArticle.asp?Art_ID=2081)

    Most software patents opponents are not anti-IP pirates: they are software writers living off some kind of “IP” (copyrights).

    We are against software patents because the prevent us to create IP (in form of copyrighted software that we could sell).

    I hope this clears the confusion.