[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)


(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) 
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Reply to sender(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)to list(074db819ec%END%074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email == 'taavid@hot.ee' || is_owner %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
IPI 2000: The Economic Impact of Patentability of Computer Programs.
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/indprop-ipi00/index.en.html:

[...]
Yet the CEC Indrop people did not like the study: they locked it away for 
half a year. During this time the European patent establishment was preparing 
to rewrite Art 52 EPC so as to remove all limits of patentability. In October 
2000, after the plans been dropped, CEC/Indprop suddenly published the IPI 
treatise and used it as a basis for a "consultation exercise". 
[...]

Why did they lock it away? Didn't they like the study? And why were plans of 
"removing all the limits" dropped?


(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)