[Patents] Re: difficulty vs technicity

[Luuk.van.Dijk@xs4all.nl (Luuk van Dijk)]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 02:41:08 Ram'on Garc'ia Fern'andez wrote:

> Whatever law you put, it can be fairly interpreted according to the
> interest of the interpreter.

Interesting observation.  Here's another one:

In the talks over the criteria for better patents (specifically of
software patents, Greg), between the dutch MP's, ourselves, the FENIT and
the civil servants of the Ministry of Economic affairs, the latter party
suggested that we might want to use the guidelines of the WBSO as a model
for such criteria.

The WBSO is a dutch law to stimulate innovation, research and development.
To apply for a grant under this law you have to submit a request, explaining
in detail what is innovative about the R&D effort you want to get subsidized.

It was recognised by the lawmakers that it was very difficult to judge 
innovativity
for software R&D, amongst other reasons because of the many small incremental 
steps
customary for software developments.  In the end a commitee of specialists 
drew up
some guidelines, that are, to say the most, vague and open to interpretation.

We studied these a bit and found they were unsuitable as a model for tougher 
criteria
on patents, because they were so vague and left the end judgement to a civil 
'expert',
offering no solution to the problems that plague patent judgements.

Now the clue to this story is, that in practice /hardly anyone/ gets a grant
under the WBSO for software development, because these vague criteria are 
applied
so strictly!  Could it be that the interests of the judging party are just a 
bit
different when it comes to handing out money rather than monopolies?

Luuk