[Patents] Re: Patents digest, Vol 1 #59 - 1 msg

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

Simeon Williamson wrote:
 
> Despite the "unfortunate" wording in the European Patent Convention
> (Article 52(2)) patents for software have been available in Europe for
> quite some time.  For most of this period you couldn't actually have a
> claim directed to "a computer program comprising ..." but if you
> submitted a patent in that form the Examiner at the EPO dealing with the
> case would have suggested appropriate alternative wording to overcome
> the ban with a claim which would have been just as effective as one
> starting "a computer program comprising ..."  

But, if I understand correctly, only if you have judges who are willing to
go long ways to bend the existing legal framework.  The EPC article gives
people a chance to either challenge the court rouling and have the patent
revoked as illegal or have its scope limited to industrial application
frameworks, excluding software as such.  In the case of LZW this would
take the tooth out of it.

> In view of a recent
> decision on an IBM case, an EPO Board of Appeal has finally said this is
> stupid 

I would say: this is clever, but dishonest.
Do you have a reference to this ruling of the EPO board?

> and now the EPO will grant patents directed to a computer program
> provided the computer program provides a "technical" as opposed to say
> an artistic, presentational, business or mathematical effect.

This is mentioned a lot, but I have seen no legal definition of
"technical".  Where is the basis for this practise?  Only case law?
  
> The real issue about the Green paper on the Community patent and the
> patent system in Europe (I assume this is the paper everyone is
> talking about) is whether we should amend the EPC to prevent people
> being confused by the wording of Article 54(2) which at first sight
> looks like it should prevent software patents from being granted in
> Europe even though it doesn't.

or maybe whether we should amend the EPC to prevent people from viewing an
illegal practise as illegal, thus making the patent courts look "stupid".

-phm