From wfk@xos.nl  Fri Feb 16 14:42:59 2001
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:42:59 +0100
From: Willem Konynenberg wfk@xos.nl
Subject: [Patents] Dutch MP's demand triviality criteria in the law before allowing SW pats

Ram'on Garc'ia Fern'andez wrote:
> Making clearer in the law the exclusion of interfaces cannot hurt.
> The clearer the better.

I think it *can* hurt, actually, given how such "clarifications" in law
text tend to be interpreted.
Consider how the current clarification to point out that the fact that
software is not patentable does not mean that anything that in some way
uses software in any way can, for that reason alone, not be patentable
was twisted into meaning "only software as such is not patentable, but
software with a technical effect is".
If you put "clarifying" text in law text to explain that interfaces
cannot be patented, someone may well find an interpretation of the
resulting set of articles to claim that "only interfaces as such are
not patentable, but interfaces that are a part of a technical solution
to a problem are", and then not the interface, but the use of the
interface in *any* application gets patented, even without a particular
application being part of the patent...


As in war, in law you must think like the enemy to defend yourself... ;-)

-- 
     Willem Konynenberg <wfk@xos.nl>




