[Patents] Re: SMEs' awareness

[kodama@netcourrier.com (kodama@netcourrier.com)]

> Our aim is that it actually won't be patentable, as stated in the EPC
> and further explained in our regulation proposal

There is no such a regulation in the EPC.

There is no provision in the EPC disabling software patents.

I know you refer to A.52, but your interpretation is a narrow one.
I suppose you know very well that it could be interpreted in different man=
ners.
So refering to it to tell that current practice is illegal, is an inconsis=
tant argument.


> Both sides seem to be against the hypocrisy.  You, Breese, Greg and
> the EPO want to resolve the conflict in favor of current EPO practise,

Please do not decide for me what I want to or what I do not want to.
I have never said such a thing =21=21 =

Shall I come back arguing about your hunger for labelling people ???



> the rest of us want to resolve it in favor of a return to legality,
> based on the sound doctrines that were developped in 1976-80.

But please, refer to the business situation of this time. =

The conditions of these doctrines do not exist anymore, and there is no us=
e to be as protective as we were in the past.

The world is evolving, and you can not refer to 1976's doctrines  to deter=
mine what is to do in 2001. Especially for software business, there is rea=
lly no connection.




> While the phenomena you describe exists, it is the EPO and the patent
> inflationists who are to blame.  And the UKPTO, the European Commission

That does not answer to the point I wrote.


> unlimited patentability just like in the US, the only difference being
> that, while US patents can be directly converted into valid EP patents, =


That is wrong and not supported.
Perhaps, you may ask for opinion to Mr. Breese. Whether he manages to have=
 EP application, having a US priority, being directly granted ??



> European SME applicants are scared off by some mysterious
> rhetoric which claims that there are still some limitations on what
> can be patented.

????? Who is broadcasting this ?
I can not follow your line of argumentation.


>From EPO point of view, there is no special limitations.

Classic critera like novelty and inventive step or new (and probably not d=
efinitive) criterion of =22technical character=22 should not be advertised=
 (except novelty): this is the job of the patent counsel to deal with that=
=2E

S.C.

----- La messagerie itin=E9rante sans abonnement NetCourrier -----
Web: www.netcourrier.com - Minitel : 3615 NETCOURRIER
T=E9l=E9phone: 08 36 69 00 21