[Patents] Re: Technical effect

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

Greg writes:
>There was a time when the US courts tried to make the same distinctions,
>where the rulings used language similar to that appearing in some UK and
>German decisions against software patents.  Eventually, and wisely, the
>US courts realized this was a false distinction, and told the US PTO to
>stop making such distinctions and rejections.

Yes but, .... computer programs have never been excluded by US statute law, 
have they?  When one realises that, it is frankly amazing how slow the US 
Courts and USPTO were to grant patents for computer programs as such.  
Indeed, the same applies to methods of doing business and all the other 
categories excluded under European patent law.  We only refuse them in Europe 
because they are specifically excluded by the law.  You have no such specific 
exclusions in the US.

>That is, if the EC itself doesn't scrap 52c ......
>And frankly, looking at the tactics being discussed here, and loser
> language like "evil", I am betting that the EC will drop 52c.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that the European Commission (EC) cannot scrap 
Art 52c.  The EPO is not a body of the European Union (EU) and is not subject 
to the EC. It is a separate organisation with different, but overlapping, 
membership.  The EC has no direct control over the EPO or the European Patent 
Convention (EPC).  At the present time, the EC is not even a party to the 
EPC.  The EC can propose various measures which, if accepted by the 15 Member 
States, would change patent law throughout the territories of the EU, but it 
would be dependent on its Member States to try and change the EPC.  In such a 
situation, the 15 Member States act as independent contracting parties to the 
EPC. There are now 19 contracting parties to the EPC - the 15 Member States 
of the EU, plus Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Monaco and Switzerland.  After 1 Nov 
2000, when Turkey joins the EPC, there will be 20.  These 20 countries, and 
not the EC, will decide whether to amend the EPC.  
The UK position (as explained in an earlier post) is that the 15 Member 
States of the EU should wait to see what the EC proposes to do within the EU, 
before deciding on any amendment of the EPC.  To do otherwise would be like 
putting the cart before the horse (as we say in the UK).

Steve Probert
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                       !