Marcell Gal
Managing director
and founder of XDSL Ltd.

Whatever the intent, the outcome of a potential (and tragical) "validation of patentability of software" is clearly foreseeable. SMEs that have no guts or resources to build a big portfolio of meaningless trivial patents (for counterattack) could easily be driven out of business by a bigger company that has the patent-gun portfolio. If the patentability of software is validated, our company either hijacks 95% of development resources to support the Sisiphos research of the trivial-patent-landmine battlefield in order to avoid infringement or "simply" just gives up business. Given the shear number of trivial and meaningless patents already granted (illegally) by the EPO, avoiding infringement is likely impossible even for the simplest products. The legal costs are unaffordable, even in case we are finally proven right.
Intellectual property is successfully protected by copyright law today. A competitive industry needs protection of intellectual property by copyright and protection FROM patents (not protection by patents) especially in a field that heavily relies on software. Since all automation, more and more hardware development and innovative activities in any field depend heavily on software, converting a competitive industry to a landmine battlefield would turn out tragically for the European companies and consumers.
To parody Douglas Adams in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy we could sum up the plans of the pro-patent business as follows:
"As you are no doubt aware, plans for making absolute monopolies from biggest companies on Earth call for the construction of a patent system that validates patenting of software. Regrettably, your competitive economy is one of those scheduled for demolition."