Re: [Patents] US patent reform strategy inaugurated by myths & lies

[Erik Josefsson <erikjosefsson@telia.com>]

On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 16:22, Stefano Costa wrote:

> Personally I think that a better checking rule for prior art and a shorter
> patent grant period (like 5 years) is something that can make a workable
> solution.

Your concern about limiting the patent system is shared by most
economists. On the recent meeting in Paris at IFRI also the law-scholars
said a limitation to the patent system is both desireable and necessary
(the lawyer from IBM was an exception).

The first option for Europe should of course be to investigate how the
existing european law (EPC) does the job and to what extent and why it
doesn't.

I suggest you have a look at the following picture of a queuing
apparatus:

http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/drawing.pdf?PN=EP0086199&PNP=US4675647&CURDRAW=1&DRDB=@RTDDRDB

According to the Swedish Patent Office, the Swedish Court
of Patent Appeals and the Swedish Supreme Administrative
Court, this apparatus is not an invention because it does not solve a
technical problem (the problem how to organize a queue is solved with a
calculation rule).

According to the EPO, a technical realisation of a calculation rule is
patentable.
http://www.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/t921002ex1.pdf
(page 8, viii (a)).

I suggest that denying patent protection of physical realisations of
calculation rules would be a possible way to achieve the desired goal.

The swedish interpretation of the law limits the patent system, the EPO
interpretation does not.

Which one would you like to endorse?

//Erik