[ILUG] Fwd: Mary Harney's Answer on Software Patents

[Ciaran O'Riordan]

"Steven Satelle (Service Desk)":
> Conall O'Brien wrote:

> <snip who="mary harney?">
[first bit]
> In addition, the text as agreed makes it explicit that a computer program
> as such cannot constitute a patentable invention,

[second bit]
> and that inventions
> involving computer programs, whether expressed as source code, object code
> or any other form, which implement business, mathematical or other methods
> and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical
> interactions between a program and the computer, network or other
> programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable.
> </snip>
> 
> Does that mean they are saying software patents will not be possible of is
> it hocus pocus and they fully intend to do it. Or is it that they have their
> heads in the sand and dont see that that will happen?

heads in sand.

[re: first bit]
Software will not be patentable as such.

This sounds great, but "as such" means "as software" - so you can't patent
software by itself, but you can patent "an invention involving a computer, a
mouse, and a piece of software".

So software will be patented - just not "as [purely] software".

[re: second bit]
"technical effect" isn't clearly defined.  Is speeding up a program a
technical effect? is displaying graphics a technical effect? etc.


[re: in general]
Patent offices are paid for the patents they accept, not the ones they
reject, so they interpret stuff as broadly as possible to bring in as much
income as possible (and they answer to no one).  If we're to block software
patentability - we have to get a text that absolutely locks out software -
it has to be air tight like the parliaments version.  (the software
patenteers are asking for "compromise" i.e. please leave in a few loopholes)

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan
http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/
Irish Free Software Organisation: http://ifso.ie