[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Friday 24 June 2005 7:44 am, Darke, Clive wrote: > > it is illegal for me to *discuss* > > > > anything *technical* with them that is not in the public domain. > > As a "technical" trainer, this has woken me up. Most of what I teach is > OSS, but I also teach proprietry Unix. Do you have a www link to this? Yes: http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/trivial/index.en.html See the section on: The broken regulative: technicity, industriality http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/invention/index.en.html At the end of the nineties, the terminology around the "technical invention" was still in use at the EPO. However it only rarely served to exclude patentable subject matter. Most of the time it served to play political games. It allowed the EPO to pretend that it was doing what the law and the politicians wanted it to do. From this purpose, a complex Doublespeak developed around terms such as "technical problem", "technical contribution", "computer-implemented invention" etc. The analysis of this Doublespeak is a task of sociolinguistics which is beyond the scope of this overview. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/tech/index.en.html Any "computer-implemented" innovation is in principle considered to be a patentable "invention". The additional requirement of "technical contribution in the inventive step" does not mean what most people think it means. http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/epc52/moses/index.en.html Computer programs are both unpatentable and patentable in Europe. How did the European Patent Office's Technical Boards of Appeal gradually manage to patent the unpatentable? Where taboos and artificially induced complexity mine the road, satiric comparison is often the fastest way to a thourough understanding. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpwgU0Rsj0GZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature