Re: [Patents] Présentation sur les brevet s logiciels

["Gérald Sédrati-Dinet (gibus)" <sedrati@bigfoot.com>]

Erik Josefsson wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:28:45 +0100
> "Gérald Sédrati-Dinet (gibus)" <sedrati@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>
> > La présentation est disponible en anglais sur 
> > http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/
>
>
> You write in page 2/26:
>
> - Patent protects features, beyond a particulary form
>
> I must say that I don't inderstand this at all.
>
> My (classical?) view of a what patents protect is based on the old
> infringement dispute PurePac versus TetraPac, where the former had
> patented a paper milk bottle and the latter made a copy except for the
> bottom joint glued perpendicular instead of parallell to the top joint.
>
> PurePac lost the case because of that particular feature. This reminds
> me of copyright cases in the music business where the tunes/songs are
> almost identical. The jury decides if the infringing piece of music have
> any identifiers that makes it unique or not. Those decisions are very
> intresting to read.

What I've understand about this case confirms what i've said : TetraPac 
has not imitated the patented feature "bottom joint glued parallel to 
the top joint".

Anyway, I talk about software patent and i've experienced that it is 
always risky to compare it with "material" patent. With software 
patents, I can assure you that most of filled patents claimed for "a 
method and/or appartus" whatever the form this method and/or appartus is 
implemented. That's one of the problem : software patents are too broad...

> But if patent praxis is evolving "beyond a particulary form", the whole
> process of infringement becomes completely detached from subject matter.

I'm not sure to well understand the english expression "subject matter", 
sorry.

> As written earlier here, you must get a patent on "the real thing". Thus
> patents should be more like an industrial copyright. At least it should
> be understandable in that way.

Yes but with softwares or algorithms or mathematical prooffs, what is 
the "real thing" ? There is so many way to reach the same "real thing"...

> I can understand that your conclusion is drawn from EPO praxis, but
> that does not mean that the scope of a patent should be unclear or
> beyond a form.

Of course, that shouldn't... The probleme is that it is on EPO and USPTO 
praxis.

> //Erik

--
   ~     Gérald Sédrati-Dinet (Gibus)
  'v'
 // \\   mailto:sedrati@bigfoot.com
/(   )\  http://gibuskro.lautre.net/
 ^`~'^