[Patents] simple questions

[Steve Probert steve.probert@patent.gov.uk]

>The EPO and its clique are a bunch of dishonest, law-breaking and
>self-serving oppressors relying on brute force.  Even if they manage to
>adapt the law to their practise in November, this will be an unjust law,
>which any honest citizien will have to disobey.

Don't beat about the bush.  If you don't like the EPO, just say so.

Seriously though, at some point we will need a fully informed debate in 
Europe about the pros and cons of extending the field of patentable subject 
matter.  Should patents be granted for computer programs as such?  Should 
patents be granted for methods of doing business?  The US has already made 
its choice on both of these matters, but there is a danger that any 
consultation exercise will misfire over here because of a misunderstanding 
about what is patentable now.

I would be interested to learn more about the Federal Patent Court decision 
to which you refer.  You say that the Court rejected claims to a "computer 
program" or "computer program product" for not being acceptable as statutory 
subject matter under Art 52.2c.  Did the Court, at the same time, accept a 
claim to a (conventional) computer running the program?  In other words, is 
this just an example of form being exalted over substance?

Steve Probert