Some background on this debate.

Critics fear that the draft directive due to go before the European Parliament would give larger companies the ability to collect patents on software processes. They also warn that firms could use the rules to stifle innovation in the field.

Supporters of the legislation claim that it would encourage software development by allowing companies to better protect their intellectual property.

Well, OK, that´s about where we came in isn´t it?

So the Commission is trying to run one set of rules through  the system and the P. wants something different.

The European parliament has renewed it opposition to the software patents directive, by making substantial alterations to the draft.

The Financial Times says it has seen a copy of the amended directive, penned by the bill’s rapporteur, Michel Rocard. Under the terms of Rocard’s draft, software would only be patentable if it controlled a physical process, or a controllable force of nature. Patents would not be allowed for software that handles "the treatment, the manipulation, the representation and the presentation of information"

It would not be surprising for the European parliament to have made this move: its opposition to the terms proposed by the European commission has been long standing, and vociferous.

Back in September 2003, MEPs moved to significantly restrict the scope of the directive. Almost all of those changes were thrown out by the Council of Ministers, provoking accusations of anti-democratic behaviour from opponents of the bill.

Since then, new member states have brought fresh opposition to the text, even at council level, with Poland voting the bill down several times before the text was finally accepted and sent back to parliament for a second reading.

In normal circumstances, parliament would be restricted to introducing changes it proposed during the first reading. However, because the readings have crossed two presidencies, this requirement has been waived.

Unsurprisingly, the representatives of big business are not happy. Mark MacGann, president of Eicta told the FT: "This proposal would eliminate much of the patent protection accessible today by the industry in Europe. It goes against the fundamentals of existing patent law in Europe. Patents based on data processing would no longer be enforceable."

Err, the people running this conference are Eicta. This is a lobbying exercise aimed at MEPs in the run up to the vote.

The current speaker from, Phillips Medical is trying to outline why copyright won´t work. Copyright protects an expression of something, patents a method of doing something. As software is a method of doing something, it should be protected by patents. Seems fair enough. Of course I´m getting just one side of the story at present.