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

[Dermot McGahon]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 14:44:06 +0100 (IST), Ronan Cunniffe  
<rcunniff at stp.dias.ie> wrote:

> Then why reject all the amendments?  This text is not out-of-the-blue, it
> is a delta from something else, and that *does* suggest deliberate  
> choice.

I don't know why they've rejecting all the amendments.

I've just had a very quick look at the original directive, the amendments,
and what we have now, and I personally, would prefer the parliament amended
version, but to be honest, the one adopted (and it's not fully adopted yet,
there is another council meeting in June to formally adopt it, and that is
prior to it returning to the parliament where they would need a 2/3rds
majority to reinstate the amendments), is not _that_ bad.

But:

* It is bad that the council disregards parliament amendments.

* It's bad that under current rules which should not be allowing what
   we would call stupid s/w patents, that over 30,000 have been issued.

* It will be bad if s/w patents are given for contributions which are
   not "new and not obvious to a person skilled in the art".

If this rule was followed, silly patents wouldn't be such a problem.

So that leads me to think that the problem isn't with the directive (with
or without amendments) per se, but more with it's implementation by the
EPO.

Are they really not answerable to _anyone_?


Dermot.
--


http://swpat.ffii.org/news/04/cons0518/index.en.html

On the key issue of what should and should not count as "technical", and  
therefore patentable, the Germans had originally proposed the additions  
shown thus:

2b. A technical contribution means a contribution to the state of the art  
in a field of technology which is *new and* not obvious to a person  
skilled in the art. The technical contribution shall be assessed by  
consideration of the difference between the state of the art and the scope  
of the patent claim considered as a whole, which must comprise technical  
features, irrespective of whether these are accompanied by non-technical  
features, *whereby the technical features must predominate. The use of  
natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital  
representation of information belongs to a technical field. The mere  
processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a  
technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such  
purposes*.

The Commissions "compromise" was to cut this to:

2b. A technical contribution means a contribution to the state of the art  
in a field of technology which is *new and* not obvious to a person  
skilled in the art. The technical contribution shall be assessed by  
consideration of the difference between the state of the art and the scope  
of the patent claim considered as a whole, which must comprise technical  
features, irrespective of whether these are accompanied by non-technical  
features.