[Patents] Re: [Patents] Re: [Patents] Re: Patents] Answer to requests sent to french Economic

[Jean-Paul Smets jp@smets.com]

John Tobey wrote:
> 
> Jean-Paul Smets <jp@smets.com> wrote:
> 
> > Both letters include a very misleading mistake when they talk about
> > "removing software from the list of non patentable inventions in article
> > 52.2". What 52.2 is about is not software but computer programmes.
>
> Is there some legal basis for your distinction between "software" and
> "programs"?  I consider them to be equivalent in this context.
> "Program" has specific meanings in various technical contexts, for
> example:

Article 52.2 says "computer programmes as such" are not patentable.
It does not say "computer programmes" are not patentable. Article 52.3
adds that "inventions which include computer programmes are patentable".

Now, what may be the difference between software and programme.

Imagine a game software, it includes
        - icons (copyright),
        - sound (copyright),
        - texts (copyright),
        - and some computer programs in binary form (copyright and patents)

Only the latter may include the description patented processes.

When using the software, on the latter allows to instanciate a patented 
process.

JPS.