From phm@a2e.de Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:06:47 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:06:47 +0200 (CEST)
From: PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de
Subject: [Patents] Re: FT Germany article

> but that was also achieved by people at DG 13, since the community
> patent is essential, and it prevents them piggy-backing swpat onto a
> larger issue that would mask it.
> 
>   It was not really intended that way by DG15, because now they will
> have swpat more visible, since standing by itself, and having to move
> on its onw power, rether than harnessing that of the community patent.

Still the community patent will have to contain some regulation on the
scope of patentability.  And DG15 could still piggyback software onto the
community patent by stating that current EPO practise, including the
rulings of 1997 which are to form the basis of new guidelines on software
patenting, forms the basis of all decisions for the community patent.
Also, by the mere fact of having a community patent, the EU becomes a
treaty partner to the EPC and can then decree that "TRIPS applies", using
the definitions of "field of technology", "industriality", "invention"
that the EPO is currently using.

Thus, even without a software directive, just by passing the community
patent, the EU commission can legalise the patentability of software in
Europe. 

-phm





