From epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:31:20 +0100 (BST)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:31:20 +0100 (BST)
From: Edward Avis epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk
Subject: [Patents] Re: Press release about the BT patent on hyperlinks

>From: Steve Probert <steve.probert@patent.gov.uk>

>Subject: [Patents] Press release about the BT patent on hyperlinks.

>However, having looked at GB1581136, there is no doubt in my mind that
>we would have granted it under the law as it stands today (assuming
>novelty and inventive step etc.).  In simple terms, it is not a computer
>program as such, and the present exclusion therefore would not apply.

But surely, if it is possible for a computer program to infringe on a
given patent, then the patent does cover computer programs, 'as such' or
otherwise.

I am beginning to think that the way to decide the scope of
patentablility is for the law to lay down what things can infringe on a
patent, rather than which patents can be granted.  For example, instead
of saying that 'patents cannot be granted for computer programs', say:

'A computer program does not infringe on any patent.  An object which
contains a computer program infringes on a given patent if and only if a
similar object, not containing any computer software, would infringe on
that patent.'

Well, that isn't proper legalese but it's what I had in mind.  This
would mean that the scope of patentablility would be decided by the law
and interpreted by the courts, rather than left to the patent
offices.  In light of the EPO's wonderfully ingenious approach to
reinterpreting the EPC, that can only be a good thing.

Of course this is all just speculation, for the time being the most
important thing is to stop patents being blindly extended to computer
software without considering the economic and political effects.

-- 
Ed Avis
epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk





