[Patents] Report on software patents.

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

> Joaquin Seoane (proffesor of the Universidad Polit=E9cnica de Madrid) and=
 me
> have finished a report on software patents for the public consultation pe=
riod.

Great!
=20
> You can get it at:
>=20
> http://www.dit.upm.es/~joaquin/report_en.pdf
>=20
> How should we send it by e-mail to the European Commission? Should we sen=
d
> it through consultation@eurolinux.org? That address did not handle attach=
ments
> well. Do you recommend us to use consultation@eurolinux.org anyway?

You could send a short mail with a href to this report.

Also, we might want to link to the report from within the consultation
page and/or the reference pages, if it fits the concept of those pages.
We'll have to check.  We also have to put some order into the other
consultation contributions and write a summary that points to the most
interesting ones.  A lot of help is needed from everyone.

Meanwhile the EC directive proposal at

=09http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/eurili/indexen.html

has underdone some refinements.  Ideas on how to further improve
and promote it are always welcome.

http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/eurili/indexen.html

    We propose that the European Commission draft its planned directive on
    the software patent problem along the lines of the following text.

     _________________________________________________________________
                                                                        =20
  =20
Regulation about the invention concept of the European patent system and
   its interpretation with special regard to programs for computers
  =20
   Led by the understanding that the borderline between patentable and
   non-patentable objects pertains to the patent system's relations to
   the outside world and therefore requires particularly clear and
   explicit decisions at the legislative level
  =20
   impressed by the experience that previous legislative decisions, such
   as those expressed in Art 52 EPC in an excessively brief and abstract
   fashion, have given rise to misunderstandings and inconsistencies at
   the jurisdictional level
  =20
   concerned by the prospect that new rules created by various lawcourts
   could impede knowlege diffusion and innovation in the information
   society
  =20
   we clarify the following:
  =20
    1. The term "programs for computers", in short "computer programs"
       refers to the program at all design levels from the conceptual
       plan to an instruction executable by a human operator or by a
       processor. A computer program is a plan and an instruction, an
       interface and an implementation, a problem and a solution, a
       process and a product, all in one.
    2. A technical invention described by means of a computer program
       can, at a conceptual level, be distinguished from the program as
       such. Likewise a "method for the production of chessboards" can be
       distinguished from the chess game as such. The particle "as such"
       in Art 52 (3) EPC is to be understood only from its syntactic
       function in the above sentences: it serves to differentiate
       between two mutually independent categories by which a potentially
       patentable object could be described. A "computer program with a
       further technical effect" belongs to the category of computer
       programs and can therefore not be distinguished from a "computer
       program as such".
    3. Computer Programs are not inventions in the sense of European
       patent law. Chemical processes, tyre braking processes and other
       technical processes controlled by computer programs can be
       inventions, as far as they are distinguishable from the computer
       program not only at a conceptual but also at a practical level.
       I.e. the solution of the problem must lie in a technical realm
       beyond the realm of programming, and the exclusion rights derived
       therefrom must be directed to material objects outside of the
       program, such as e.g. chemicals or automobile engines. The same
       applies to all categories of non-patentable object listed in Art
       52 (2) EPC.
    4. A "technical" process is one that uses natural forces to directly
       cause a transformation of matter. Objects that contain both
       technical and non-technical features are inventions only if the
       part that is claimed to be new and inventive, i.e. the core of the
       invention, lies in the technical realm. A technical process
       controlled by a computer program on known hardware is an invention
       if and only if it uses natural forces in a new way to directly
       cause a success in production of material goods that could not
       have been predicted by mere computation based on prior knowledge.
     _________________________________________________________________
  =20
                                                                        =20

 =20