From pb@breese.fr Sun, 11 Jun 2000 19:24:36 +0200
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 19:24:36 +0200
From: Pierre BREESE pb@breese.fr
Subject: [Patents] Re:as such or not as such, that is the question...
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
  boundary="------------746D1B44F43C472EA0843403"

--------------746D1B44F43C472EA0843403
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit



     PILCH Hartmut wrote :

     > a software implementation of MP3 is a 'computer program as such',
     >while a hardware implentation would be a 'hardware system comprising
     >a computer program'.  The former can, according to the law, not be claimed by a
patent,
     >while the latter can.

1 - As you know, EPO T 1173/97 decision, of July 01,1998 confirms that a claim
relating to a computer program can be valid.
2 - Such a claim a software implementation that reproduce all the technical
characteristic of such a claim is a counterfeiting
3 - Your understanding seems to be :
*Art 52.2 and 3 provides that [shall not be regarded as inventions  programs for
computers as such].
*So, a granted European patent cant be opposed to a program for computers "as such".

4 - In my opinion, you make a mistake. Art 52. relates to the grant and the validity
of a patent.
*If the patent is granted, you can fight the validity, including on bases of art.
52.2 and 3.
*But the law court has to apply EPC and EPO case law for the discussion of the
validity of a granted patent relating to a computer program.
*If the claim relating to a "computer program [see T1173/97]" is considered as valid,
this claim as written [even in the field of computer program] can be opposed to a
corresponding embodiment, even if this embodiment is a software.

5 - The same situation exist in the field of playing games. Art 52 provides also
[shall not be regarded as inventions ..playing games as such...].
But this doesnt exclude the possibility of claiming and patenting a playing game.
Rubiks cube is a playing game. This game presents an innovative articulation system.
So, this Rubik's cube is patented even if it is a game, and the patent can be opposed
to games with the claimed characteristics.

For this reasons, my opinion is that MP3 patents may be enforced including for MP3
softwares, for example for the watermark extractor system used by MP3.

>
> Thanks for participating in the discussion.  I am sure it will greatly
> improve by having some IP specialists with contrasting opinions in here.

Thank you for this comment. I'm sincerely persuaded of the necessity of a dialog
between free software community and people involved in the patent approach.  I
agree with some of your positions, but in my practice, I consider that patents are a
reality, even for the field of software, and that their would be hazardous to let my
clients [must of them are start-ip] expecting that patents dont apply for computer
program in Europe.


Best regards

Pierre BREESE
European patent and trademark attorney
www.breese.fr


--------------746D1B44F43C472EA0843403
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<dd>
PILCH Hartmut wrote :</dd>

<br>&nbsp;
<dd>
> a software implementation of MP3 is a 'computer program as such',</dd>

<dd>
>while a hardware implentation would be a 'hardware system comprising</dd>

<dd>
>a computer program'.&nbsp; The former can, according to the law, not be
claimed by a patent,</dd>

<dd>
>while the latter can.</dd>

<dd>
</dd>

<dd>
</dd>

<br>1 - As you know, EPO T 1173/97 decision, of July 01,1998 confirms that
a claim relating to a computer program can be valid.
<br>2 - Such a claim a software implementation that reproduce all the technical
characteristic of such a claim is a counterfeiting
<br>3 - Your understanding seems to be :
<li>
Art 52.2 and 3 provides that [shall not be regarded as inventions  programs
for computers as such].</li>

<li>
So, a granted European patent cant be opposed to a program for computers
"as such".</li>

<p><br>4 - In my opinion, you make a mistake. Art 52. relates to the grant
and the validity of a patent.
<li>
If the patent is granted, you can fight the validity, including on bases
of art. 52.2 and 3.</li>

<li>
But the law court has to apply EPC and EPO case law for the discussion
of the validity of a granted patent relating to a computer program.</li>

<li>
If the claim relating to a "computer program [see T1173/97]" is considered
as valid, this claim as written [even in the field of computer program]
can be opposed to a corresponding embodiment, even if this embodiment is
a software.</li>

<p><br>5 - The same situation exist in the field of playing games. Art
52 provides also [shall not be regarded as inventions ..playing games
as such...].
<br>But this doesnt exclude the possibility of claiming and patenting
a playing game. Rubiks cube is a playing game. This game presents an innovative
articulation system. So, this Rubik's cube is patented even if it is a
game, and the patent can be opposed to games with the claimed characteristics.
<p>For this reasons, my opinion is that MP3 patents may be enforced including
for MP3 softwares, for example for the watermark extractor system used
by MP3.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>Thanks for participating in the discussion.&nbsp; I am sure it will
greatly
<br>improve by having some IP specialists with contrasting opinions in
here.</blockquote>
Thank you for this comment. I'm sincerely persuaded of the necessity of
a dialog between free software community and people involved in the patent
approach.&nbsp; I agree with some of your positions, but in my practice,
I consider that patents are a reality, even for the field of software,
and that their would be hazardous to let my clients [must of them are start-ip]
expecting that patents dont apply for computer program in Europe.
<br>&nbsp;
<p>Best regards
<p>Pierre BREESE
<br>European patent and trademark attorney
<br>www.breese.fr
<br>&nbsp;</html>

--------------746D1B44F43C472EA0843403--





