[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)

(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)

From: gepicaam@cybercable.fr (gepicaam)
Subject: [Patents] consultation questions
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 21:13:41 +0200

> Or maybe about Art 52(2) EPC, implying that the EPO is granting patents on
> subject matter that is according to the written law not patentable. This
> is what has been at the center of the public debate recently.
>
Maybe. It seems, you also agree that this wording is ambiguous ? This will
not help the clarification of the situation. But I'm personally confident in
a status quo decision...

Pierre BREESE

[Patents] consultation questions, (continued)
- [Patents] consultation questions, Robert Bielik
- [Patents] consultation questions, Lachlan S. James

(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)