[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de
- Subject: [Patents] Revocation candidates on ffii.org
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:57:53 +0100 (CET)
Under
http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/pikta
http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/pikta/txt
you can now conveniently browse through 10000 patents which the EPO
granted more or less against Art 52.2c EPC.
The European Commission now wants to create clarity concerning the
allegedly unclear Art 52. Our clarification proposal
http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/eurili/
http://petition.eurolinux.org/consultation/ec-consult.pdf
has been further elaborated. Now it is time to validate it on existing
patents. Let's see whether the borderline is clear or whether there is a
significant "ambivalence zone" (as has been postulated by some writers).
We should create a definitive list of patents which would have to be
revoked after a clarifying directive is decreed. A rule defines itself by
the output. Any directive that doesn't give clear instructions to revoke
certain patents is not worth the paper it is written on.
-phm
_______________________________________________
Swpat mailing list
Swpat@ffii.org
http://ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/swpat
- [Patents] Revocation candidates on ffii.org, PILCH Hartmut phm
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)