Re: SW patent reply from Graham Watson (LibDem MEP)

> ==
> "LDEPP Members have also supported greater legal certainty in the EU, and
a
> restrictive definition of when patentability will be allowable. Indeed,
the
> amendment that they supported has now re-appeared in the Council's common
> position, as well as a specific exclusion clause for computer programs.
>
> Article 4
> Conditions for patentability
>
> In order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be
> susceptible of industrial application and new and involve an inventive
step.
> In order to involve an inventive step, a computer-implemented invention
must
> make a technical contribution.
>
> Article 4a
> Exclusions from patentability
>
> 1. (new) A computer program as such cannot constitute a patentable
invention
>
> 2. A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a
> technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer,
> network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions involving
> computer programs, whether expressed as source code, as object code or in
> 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."
> ==
>
> I'm not great at reading these things, but that looks pretty good to me.
> There is some more stuff in here - definitions of 'computer-implemented
> invention' and 'technical contribution', which he suspects will be too
vague
> - but I'm not going to type all that in unless someone actually wants it.
>
> -- 

I hate to say this but "normal physical interactions" is not a restriction
but more patent law dogma that enables software patents. It has been adopted
from EPO case law practise. "Legal certainty" usually means software patent
legality. It is essential to be familiar with the newspeak in order to
assess what is and is not a real restriction- unfortunately many MEPs cannot
or do not want to make the distinction. I believe that even the Consilium
draft contains this supposed "restriction". The computer program "as such"
by itself merely reconfirms the PTO stance that software can be divided into
"technical" and "non-technical i.e. as such" according to patent office
whim.

 I recommend that you read

http://www.beauprez.net/softpat/ffii-talk140404.html

This will show you where the phrase originated from and why it is totally
ineffective.

Sincerely,

Christian