Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions
2002 proposed by the European Parliament and the Council on the patentability of computer-implement
The Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (Commission proposal COM(2002) 92), procedure number 2002/0047 (COD), was a proposal for a European Union (EU) directive aiming to harmonise national patent laws and practices concerning the granting of patents for computer-implemented inventions, provided they meet certain criteria. The European Patent Office describes a computer-implemented invention (CII) as "one which involves the use of a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, where one or more features are realised wholly or partly by means of a computer program".
The proposal became a major focus for conflict between those who regarded the proposed directive as a way to codify the case law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (unrelated to the EU institutions) in the sphere of computing, and those who asserted that the directive is an extension of the patentability sphere, not just a harmonisation, that ideas are not patentable and that the expression of those ideas is already adequately protected by the law of copyright.
Following several years of debate and numerous conflicting amendments to the proposal, the proposal was rejected on 6 July 2005 by the European Parliament by an overwhelming majority of 648 to 14 votes.
History
Original draft
On 20 February 2002, the European Commission initiated a proposal for a directive to codify and "harmonise" the different EU national patent laws and cement the practice of the European Patent Office of granting patents for computer-implemented inventions provided they meet certain criteria (cf. software patents under the European Patent Convention). The directive also took on the role of excluding "business methods" from patentability (in contrast with the situation under United States law), because business methods as such are not patentable under the different European national patent laws or under the European Patent Convention.
Opponents of the original directive claimed that it was a thinly disguised attempt to make all software patentable. Supporters, however, argued that this was not the case since the proposal explained in several locations (pages 11, 14, 24, 25) that there should be no extension to the existing scope of patentability for computer programs and that pure business methods implemented in software would not be patentable. Only computer programs which provided a "technical contribution" would be patentable.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions” is 2002 proposed by the European Parliament and the Council on the patentability of computer-implement. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Proposed, directive and patentability, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “2002 proposed by the European Parliament and the Council on the patentability of computer-implement” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 30, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1122463. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2002 and 2005.
Later summaries often reconcile disputed chronology or motive more neatly than the contemporary record permits. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions primary sources, Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions archive and Proposed research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions”?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
- Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.