[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Monday 01 August 2005 7:04 pm, Neil Williams wrote:
> The bill is dead but the UKPO and EPO are still allowing their own
> interpretation of case law that has already led to tens of thousands of
> software patents. The fight is far from over.
Some interesting news on UKPO/EPO case law interpretations:
26 July 2005 -- In a recent court ruling at the highest court of the
UK, a software patent was rejected on the basis of Article 52 EPC with
reasoning that criticises current doctrines of the European Patent
Office and rejected directive proposal from the Commission and Council
and demands a "harder" exclusion of software.
From the judgement:
35. The same approach cannot be taken to computer programs. The
reason why computer programs, as such, are not allowed to be
patented is quite different. Although it is hotly disputed now
by some special interest groups, the truth is, or ought to be,
well known. It is because at the time the EPC was under
consideration it was felt in the computer industry that such
patents were not really needed^[14]
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2005/1589.html#note14
were too cumbersome (it was felt that searching the prior art
would be a big problem
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2005/1589.html#note15,
and would do more harm than good
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2005/1589.html#note
Some good news!! (Someone in the court system understands!)
Comment by James Heald (FFII)
This could be sharper: I'd like to have seen it more closely related
to the EPC. I like the stress that this should be a tightening of
procedure, not a relaxation. But of course it doesn't work if it
allows the definition of what is technical to slip, and therefore what
sort of contribution can be considered technical. "Technical" must be
held to mean something beyond the functioning of a programmed
computer, and characteristics which only relate to that functioning.
Interesting, if it can be read as a UK attempt to "embrace and extend"
the EPO doctrine - ie constructively engage with the formalism, but
simultaneously give it a much less permissive application, and hope
that the shift will percolate back to Munich.
--
Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpBUKI281e6X.pgp
Description: PGP signature