[Patents] software as such

[John Smith notobvious@hotmail.com]

I don't understand why Hartmut Pilch objects to "technical" as not occurring 
in the EPC (it does, in Rules 27 and 29) but then smuggles in "natural 
forces" as a criterion for patentability. It's not in the EPC. Indeed, the 
only place it occurs is in the German jurisprudence. The same with technical 
advance, which was in the old German law. Could we please avoid confusing 
matters by referring to obsolete national commentaries and law. (Anything on 
patent law published before 1985 is almost certainly obsolete, and any 
commentaries dealing with software patents, whenever published, are also 
obsolete because the field is so fast-moving.)

It's also worth pointing out that it is incorrect to say that the EPO 
accepts any computer running a program as "technical". The "data carrier" 
decisions, T 939/97 and T1173/97 explicitly state that there must be a 
"further technical effect" to distinguish from the normal interaction of a 
computer and a program.

So far, I haven't seen a satisfactory answer to Antonio Abrantes question. 
For someone who likes to quote Popper I thought Hartmut Pilch's answer was 
suspiciously close to naive realism and his argument that circuits, being in 
the word of logic, should be unpatentable, is, as we say in German, 
realitaetsfremd. Another simple example: if I made a superhet receiver out 
of valves or transistors and was the first to do so, should I be limited to 
my embodiment, valves or transistors? What if I made it with valves and then 
someone came along and did the same with transistors - would that not be 
copying? What if someone used an A/D converter, fed the signal to a PC and 
and carried out the conversions digitally - would that not STILL be copying? 
Do we rule out circuits by definition because they don't fit in the theory?

As for the problems patents cause SMEs: yes, they do but hey, to quote 
Morphius, welcome to the real world. Once upon a time there was an Evil 
Empire that didn't believe in patents either and along came a small outfit 
called Stac Electronics and screwed them for many millions. After that the 
BoyGod had a revelation. So now we see them trying to patent stuff, but 
they're way way back in the software league.

Finally, there's a rumor circulating that the EPO has refused a business 
method as not being technical. If true, it rather puts paid to the more 
extreme antinomian views attributed to the EPO.

"notobvious"
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.