[Patents] simple questions

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

> According to the Courts in the UK (and the Boards of Appeal of the
> EPO), computer programs that are capable of producing a technical
> effect when run on a computer are patentable.  They are not regarded
> as computer programs as such.  They are more than just a computer
> program.  They are technical inventions that just happen to be
> implemented using a computer program.  In almost every such case,
> alternative means might have been used to implement the invention, and
> the Courts have taken the view that it is the invention that must be
> considered, not the means by which the applicant has suggested that it
> might be implemented.

Then why don't they just grant a patent on the invention without reference
to a computer program? 
The DPMA and EPO guidelines in the 80s contained methods of examining
whether such an invention is really a technical invention or is just a
pseudo-technical "clothing" (Einkleidung) of a computer program using
words such as "input device", "terminal", "keyboard" etc which refer to
non-inventive externalities.
For something to be a technical invention, it must teach a new way of
using natural forces, based on new empirical knowledge.
In that case, nobody would complain about such a patent, and implementing
the teaching by a computer program would neither be an infringement nor
would it really bother the patent holder.

> A method of doing business is a bit like an elephant - Not very easy
> to describe in writing, but we all know one when we see one.  For
> example, methods of raising taxes, buying and selling shares, running
> an auction, managing a pension fund, hotel management etc. are all
> typically methods of doing business.  In the UK, a method of doing
> business is a method of doing business however it is done.  Using the
> Internet (or any other technical equipment) will not make it
> patentable.  So whether it is an old business method or a new one
> makes no difference - it is an excluded item.

How is this distinguished?
 
The EPO allows patenting of business methods ("not as such") that wouldn't
work without "technical means" such as the Internet.  In fact it seems
impossible to establish any delimiting criteria for distinguishing such
business methods from "computer programs with a technical effect", since
the innovative part doesn't lie in the "technical" area in either case.

Claiming that you allow computer programs to be patented but not business
methods is just another deceptive means of soothing the public.

The EPO and its friends are a dishonest and self-serving predatory group.

-phm