[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>
- To: patents@aful.org, news@ffii.org, PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>
- Subject: Re: [Patents] EPO 1984/1990: correct interpretation of Art 52 EPC
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:54:57 -0500 (EST)
>This time, in 1990, the Board of Appeals evades the question of what
>"programs for computer" are in the EPC context and instead rejects
>the appeal by arguing indirectly that the use of general-purpose
>computer hardware does not confer technicity on an abstract method:
Which renders this 1990 EPO Board decision as meaningless as the EPO's
2000 Pension Patent decision where the EPO Board confesses that it has
no definition of "technical". This lack of linguistic precision is
unacceptable, when if the EPO Board consulted with any European
linguists, mathematicians and philosophers of science, they would be
exposed to definitions of "technical" that provide more objective
ways of testing to see if something is "technical" (ways computer
programs easily satisfy) then this continual hand-waving by the EPO
Board.
Greg Aharonian
- Re: [Patents] EPO 1984/1990: correct interpretation of Art 52 EPC, Gregory Aharonian
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)