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

[Erik Josefsson <erikjosefsson@telia.com>]

On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 11:45, Stefano Costa wrote:
> > 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).
> 
> I don't want to go in specific problems, but only on general
> issues.

This is a general issue.

> I know by personal experience that whatever rule you may set in,
> inevitably some problems occurs.

Is that personal experience based on filing patent applications on
logical problem solutons dressed up in technical jargon?

> I don't say that we don't discuss them, simply I say that this kind
> of problem is inherent with the system.

The EPC has a regulatory mechanism in art. 112 to handle "inherent"
problems of interpretation, but it has never been used to clarify if
"technical realisations of calculation rules" or "technical realistions
of computer programs" are patentable or not.

Economical studies suggest that the faster the innovation rate the more
stringent standard of patentability should be.

A possible interpretation of EPC to exclude technical realisations of
computer programs as such is an example of a more stringent standard.

Why is this alternative anathema to you?

//Erik

(btw: your borderline problems will only be resolved by removing all    
prerequisites for patentabilaty)