Re: [Patents] "Further technical effect"

[James Heald <j.heald@ucl.ac.uk>]

xdrudis wrote:
> 

> >
> > eg. A new recital 13a (after recital 13 that algorithms are not
> > technical):
> >
> > "In this spirit, the following should all be considered non-technical
> > and non-patentable: the underlying ideas of software (or algorithms);
> > information processing methods; representations of information and
> > data;methods of interaction between human beings and computers".
> >
> > (This would also nicely draw attention to the petition of the computer
> > science professors, from which the list was taken).
> >
> 
> This wouldn't harm, but I would think is subsumed in Gebhardt's amendments.
> 
> > And a new recital 13b:
> >
> > "The mere fact that a method may allow data processing to be
> > carried out
> > more quickly, more efficiently or using less memory is not
> > sufficient to
> > cause such a method to belong to a field of technology when
> > otherwise it
> > would not do so".
> >
> 
> Pse. Then the EPO would create a new defintion to ensure technicity.
> I find the requirement of new uses of controllable forces of nature
> to be mroe hard to circumvent
>

Actually I think the clauses are fairly orthogonal to the Echerer and
Gebhardt amendments.

I don't think these would take anything away from a "controllable forces
of nature test" (if we can get it);  but I would like something to
explicitly follow the implication from that and spell out (the most
importantly) that user interfaces should not be patentable.

I also think it would be worth explicitly closing the door to make sure
that there is no possibility that the argument could ever be produced
that a new software technique which allowed a computer to (almost
always) solve more quickly in the context of a particular problem might
ever be interpreted as a 'new teaching about cause-effect realtionships
when using controllable forces of nature'.

So I think both clauses would add something new and worth having to the
Echerer et al Amendment 32 and Gebhardt's Amendment 33.  (Though I
accept that the first clause could perhaps be rewritten more sharply).


But I think it is not a bad thing that the clauses would also (IMHO)
work well even without Am 32 and Am 33.  I think there are MEPs who
could be convinced to back them as useful amplifications and
clarifications of Art 52 EPC, even if they do not back the controllable
forces of nature test.

On both counts therefore I think they may have something useful to
offer. 

 
> >
> > Do people think a majority could be found for such amendments ?
> >
> 
> This is not a probabilty we have to discover, but a conclusion we have
> to make certain. It depends on how well we explain the issues, how many
> people understands and demands clear limits on the patent system, and
> how these demands reach the MEPs. (Note that you can change "It" for
> "IT" in the last sentence and it still holds :). It would be useful,
> however not to have too much dispersion of proposals.
> 
> Have you read the counterproposal?.
> http://swpat.ffii.org/papri/eubsa-swpat0202/prop/index.en.html