Re: [Patents] EPC 52 Art vs. TRIPS

[Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr>]

besides the point

no one is arguing that it does require soft pats, not even patent offices.

But the whole point of the directive proposal is to redefine software
so that it will automatically be covered by trips, and thus be patentable.

word game ... that is all

and lawyers are good at that ... though not much at anything useful.

Bernard



On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 06:01:54PM +0200, kai.kiilamo@tietokiila.fi wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> To the readers of this mailing list, the 'clash' between TRIPS and EPC 52 
> Art. on what can be patented, particularly with respect to software, is 
> probably well known.
> 
> I would like to familiarize myself with the arguments from commentators 
> with different viewpoints: in other words, I would like to read arguments 
> BOTH from people who argue that TRIPS requires software patentability - 
> various degrees here, obviously - AND from people who argue that no such 
> obligation exists.
> 
> My interest is not to solve the problem of software patents. Rather, at 
> this point I'd just like to compile a collection of the arguments 'for' and 
> 'against' with the focus on the interplay of TRIPS and EPC.
> 
> It's very easy to find excellent articles on the 'against' side but 
> considerably more difficult to find articles on the 'for' side. Could 
> someone help me out here?
> 
> Many thanks for any help,
> Kai

-- 
Remember:                     September 11

  29th anniversary of the death of Chile's President Salvador Allende
     Killed by the international terrorists of Operation Condor
          http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/1999/07/miller.html

Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX