[Patents] Re: Technical effect

[Edward Avis epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk]

>From: Steve Probert <steve.probert@patent.gov.uk>

>>Unisys claim to have patents in Europe (including the UK) for the LZW
>>algorithm.  I'm not sure how this has a technical effect, or qualifies
>>as 'software not as such', if IBM's homophone checker did not.
>
>>How is the criterion of technical effect applied in practice?
>
>Data compression is a technical problem.  Eg. How do you store large
>amounts of program/data on a disk that does not have sufficient
>capacity?

>On the other hand, IBM homophone checker looks at words two sea
>weather they are spelt correctly.

...which you could do as a preliminary check before compressing the text
to store it on a disk.  Removing inconsistent spellings will help the
compression work better.  Thus it solves a technical problem.

I still contend that _any_ non-trivial computer program can have a
'technical effect' if you look for it.  Thus the distinction between
software and 'software that has a technical effect' is meaningless.

>In the UK such an invention would probably be excluded from
>patentability as a method for performing a mental act, as well as a
>program for a computer.

I often work through algorithms in my head before implementing them, or
as an aid to debugging.  Does this mean they are methods for performing
a mental act?

Does the 'mental act' exclusion override the EPO's reinterpretation of
what is a computer program?  In other words, if an intellectual method 
can have a technical effect, is it patentable as a 'method for
performing a mental act not as such'?

-- 
Ed Avis
epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk