The very essence of a patent system is to hinder competition, that is purpose of that right and there is nothing to argue about it. There is no point in arguing that patents are designed to "to encourage competition".

But maybe you mix "competitiveness" and "competition". When I write "There is no point in arguing that patents are designed to "to encourage competition"" I simply state the fact, "more competition" is not always healthy and the legislators that installed the patent system found that they need a patent system to solve the problem with "too much" competition.

It is a simple static view. Under a laissez-faire regime you have a "free market". The patent system is designed to stop "too much" competition, a tool. So you install a patent system as an incentive system as a means of market intervention.

One justification why a market without a patent system could lead to a failure is mentioned by you: disclosure.

Defacto monopoly rights are always a problem and we abolished most of them. The patent system is a bit different.

Patents are as you know tools against too much competition.

That's the way they are being abused nowadays, but it is not the way they were once intended. The sad part of the story about the patent system is that patents were created to encourage competition and exchange of ideas by public disclosure of specifications and principles of operation for new inventions, while still offering a reasonable level of protection for the original inventor for a time which was reasonable for the rate of technical development around a century ago. The long time for patents to expire became a problem when development speeded up towards the late 20th century, and the system was finally broken altogether when the definition of "invention" was wrongly extended to something else than physical artifacts.

(This is an over-simplification, I know, but this is not the place to cover the topic in full, and I am probably not the person to do it either.)

Very interesting. Patents are as you know tools against too much competition. Two or three years ago the Commission pretended there are no software patents in Europe and conspired against an interoperability amendment to the "CII-Directive". It is clearly unacceptable to adopt a second standard for document formats if anti-competitive concerns exist with the patent models provided. I guess the EU process will be quite useful to adress these patent issues that cannot be discussed on the BRM/ISO level. Especially the European administration needs to be asked to investigate the legal applicability of the patent models OSP and CNS throughtout the community and their potential scope. It is also time that the Commission starts to propose a patent torpedo for standards, that gives legal security to search reports. Currently standard bodies do not have the legal instruments to fully prevent submarine patents in the field of standardization. And while standard bodies as ISO require rand as the bare minimum, they do not provide any alternative standardized patent licensing model. That is why Microsoft can claim to provide RF conditions and sell their own patent models which are neither tested in court nor can anyone guarantee that they are legally proof to serve that objective. There are great concerns that both patent models exclude free software implementations of DIS 29500.

Concerned parties should approach their MEPs, the Commission or member state governments to get clarity on that issue. For instance it would be no big deal for the EU-Commission to commission a comparative legal study on the effects of the patent models proposed. We need to keep in mind that the political level is equally important.

European citizens can also submit their concerns to the consumer liaision office of DG Competition

"…the Commission encourages ISO to respect WTO principles…"
"The Commission expects ISO and its members to fully implement these principles…"
"The Commission is committed to ensuring competition based upon merit."

To me, that is clearly taking a standpoint: "We expect ISO to deal with this properly,
if not ISO has failed to prove itself as an independent and impartial standards body."

The question refers to an ongoing decision-making process at the International Standards Organisation (ISO) which is very controversial as a result of the strongly held positions of different stakeholders.

The Commission is aware that irregularities regarding decision-making at both national and international levels have been reported in the media. However, the Commission is not directly involved either in the process or in the governance of ISO, and is therefore not in a position to undertake a verification of alleged improper behaviour.

ISO is an independent international standards organisation. The responsibility for the proper functioning of ISO is primarily with its members, the national standards bodies, and it is for them to verify the reported irregularities and to consider a possible follow-up.

Generally, the corrrect functioning of international standardisation is important for the EU standardisation policy. Therefore the Commission encourages ISO and the other recognised standards bodies to respect the World Trade Organisation principles of international standardisation, namely transparency, openness, inclusiveness, impartiality and consensus, effectiveness, relevance and coherence.

The Commision expects ISO and its members to fully implement these principles in their decision-making processes. Through the agreement for cooperation between the European Standards Organisations and the Commission, European national standards bodies are also expected to respect the same principles.

The Commission is committed to ensuring competition based upon merit . In this regard, it is important that standard-setting processes are subject to open and transparent procedures, as outlined in paragraphs 159-178 of the Commission's Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to horizontal cooperation agreements(1).

(1) See http://eur-ex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2001/c_003/c_00320010106en00020030.pdf

And the answer in Portuguese from the Presidency of the Council of Ministers:

A presente resposta, que foi elaborada pela Presidência e não vincula o Conselho nem os Estados–Membros, não foi apresentada oralmente durante o período de perguntas dirigidas ao Conselho da sessão do Parlamento Europeu de Setembro II de 2007, em Estrasburgo.

A Organização Internacional de Normalização (ISO) é uma organização não governamental, actualmente constituída por organismos de normalização de 157 países.

A União Europeia não é nem pode ser membro da ISO, embora todos os Estados-Membros tenham diferentes tipos de participação nas actividades dessa organização (na qualidade de organismos membros ou de membros correspondentes).

Dado que não existem delegações dos Estados-Membros da UE, seria muito difícil pedir aos organismos nacionais de normalização para coordenarem as suas posições.

No âmbito da avaliação de impacto prévia à apresentação de uma nova proposta legislativa, a Comissão avalia as consequências de qualquer política de normalização, especialmente se for susceptível de impedir a livre concorrência.

Não compete ao Conselho impor sanções por comportamentos anti-concorrenciais. É à Comissão que o n.º 2 do artigo 85.º do Tratado CE atribui competências para tal.

Which gives with google automatic translation (if there is a portuguese reader reading, please make your own translation as a comment):

This response, which was prepared by the Presidency and not binding on the Council nor the Member States, it was not presented orally during the questions to the Council's session of Parliament on September II, 2007 in Strasbourg.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is a non-governmental organization, currently consisting of the standards bodies of 157 countries.

The European Union is not and can not be a member of ISO, but all Member States have different types of participation in the activities of this organization (as members of organizations or members correspondents).

Since there are delegations of the EU member states, it would be very difficult to ask the national standardization bodies to coordinate their positions.

As part of the impact assessment prior to the presentation of a new legislative proposal, the Commission assesses the consequences of any policy standards, especially if it is likely to prevent free competition.

There is for the Council to impose sanctions for anti-competitive behavior. It is the Commission to paragraph 2 of Article 85. TEC gives powers to do so.