Re: UKIP: More than usually patently mad - software patents fudge is a minefield

Chris wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> [Mon, 24 May 2004 23:01:40 +0100] Message from James Heald:
> 
> 
>>"The party also believes that such changes should not be forced on 
>>member states."
> 
> 
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the UK one of the first members
> states to want software patents, and the UK patent office one of it's
> strongest supporters? So effectively our presence in the EU is the only
> thing that has held off software patents for this long?

Not really.  The main thing that has held back software patents in the 
UK is an early bit of case law called "Gale's application", which held 
that a new fast algorithm for doing floating-point division could not be 
patented, even when burnt into a ROM.

As a result, the UK PO can't go quite as far as the EPO in granting 
patents on /generic/ data processing techniques, but requires them to be 
part of some identifiable larger process, so that the larger process is 
patented.   (Such a larger "technological" process might be image 
processing, or compressing/decompressing transmitted data).

There's been no EU direction on this so far, so it's not really true 
that "the EU is the only thing that has held off software patents for 
this long".

The new Directive will effectively create a new statutory 
interpretation, releasing the courts (if they wish) from the previous 
case-law.

The UK PO says that the new text upholds UK practice.  But our reading 
is that the EPO would regard generic data processing techniques as 
technical, and the new text would uphold the EPO position.


On balance, it probably is a good idea to have Europe-wide rules for 
patenting, but there's certainly room for debate as to whether the 
current EU law-making process is the best way to achieve them.