[Patents] Re: Press release about the BT patent on hyperlinks

[Edward Avis epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, PILCH Hartmut wrote:

>>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.
>
>That is the same.

I don't think it is, since infringement proceedings go to a law court,
which will probably interpret the law in a sensible manner, rather than
a patent court, which will probably produce a 50-page document
explaining that X is not X 'as such'.

>The EPC is actually quite clear:  a patent cannot be granted on a computer
>program (i.e. a computer program cannot infringe on a patent), but it can
>be granted on a non-program that contains a program.
>
>This would mean that MP3 software cannot be patented (= claimed = infringe
>on a patent claim), but MP3 hardware could.

What about hardware which runs a software program to decode an MP3?  If
this infringes on a claim, then in effect the claim covers software.

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