[Patents] Re: [Patents] Re: Just trying to clear-up some possible miscomprehensions

[Jean-Paul Smets jp@smets.com]

simeon williamson wrote:

> Under most patent systems there can be direct or contributory
> infringement.  Contributory infringement is where something (like a
> computer program) has not been claimed per se, only say a method of how
> a computer does something, but is nevertheless deemed to be an essential
> element for putting the invention into practice.  This is how computer
> programs have been held to infringe patents in the past.  Under the new
> practice at the EPO however computer programs will be directly
> infringing products.
> 

And this changes everything : it is possible to sue without any warning
someone who does a direct infringement while contributory infringement
requires to make sure that the contributory infringer is aware of what
he/she is doing before being able to sue him/her.

That's why it is very dangerous to have patents on programs per se. Who
is going to publish a program considering the high liabilities in case
of infringement lawsuit if one can get sued even if he/she does not know
he/she is doing something wrong. This is especially true considering
that programmes contain thousands of potentially patented processes,
some of which are kept secret for 18 months by the patent office.

Regards,

JPS.
begin:vcard 
n:Smets;Jean-Paul
tel;cell:+33-(0)662 05 76 14
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.smets.com
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:jp@smets.com
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Jean-Paul Smets
end:vcard