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

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 11:45:39PM +0100, James Heald wrote:

> Actually, it is what the Lib Dems think about exactly these definitions 
> that we are most critically concerned about:  whether they realise how 

Again from the letter; any typos mine. Kept punctuation the same as far as I
can tell.

"Article 2
Definitions

For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:

(a) "computer-implemented invention" means any invention the performance of
which involves the use of a computer, computer network or other programmable
apparatus, the invention having one or more features which are realised
wholly or partly by means of a computer program or computer programs:

(b) "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 or not these are accompanied by non-technical
features."

He also says:

"I do not know, but I suspect that the definition of a 'technical
contribution' in the Council's text may be too vague for the computer users
and professionals that you refer to."

So it sounds like he might at least be willing to listen.

-- 
Paul

I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to
understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised
for telling one another when the best fruit is. -- Terry Pratchett