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

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

> >Pssshh, Don't say that too loud!
> >
> >What Ed says here is exactly what the lobby of patent lawyers (e.g. the
> >UNION) says. 
> 
> There is no harm in stating the truth, 

A statement like "[not] all software is technical" is not falsifiable and
therefore has very little truth value anyway.  It is a abstract dogmatic
statement and its truth depends entirely on definitions.

For some practical reasons, we must be interested in a narrow definition
for the notion of "technicity".

One of these reasons is that TRIPS art 27 stipulates that patents must be
"available ... for inventions ... in all fields of technology  ..."

It is in the patent lawyer lobby's interest to dilute the meaning of
"technicity" but not in our interest.

> What the patent lawyers forget is that the EU patent
> system exists only for the economic benefit of the EU and its member
> states.  It is not an end in itself.

very correct, but we are still bound by a system that lawyers have made
up, and even when pursuing economic benefit, we'd better learn how to
employ the notions provided by this system. 

Fortunately for us, the law as it stands is beneficial to our interests
and not to those of the lawyers.  So we should defend the law and leave
the role of bending it to them.

> Exactly.  If you accept that all software has a technical effect, then
> the EPO's judgements about 'software as such' meaning 'software without
> any technical effect' is effectively saying that no computer program at
> all is a computer program 'as such'.  This is clearly not the intended
> meaning of the EPC.

Yes, even Schiuma can be quoted to support the assertion that "software as
such" does not mean "software without any technical effect".

On the other hand, if we interpret "technical" in a narrow way as was done
until the mid 90s, the scopes of "software as such" and "software without
technical effect" come very close to each other.  Which is again helpful
for us.

-phm