Re: "Further technical effect"

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

> My understanding is therefore that, in the EPO thinking, the "specific
> contribution" need not be technical per se (eg if it is a computer
> program), but must somehow improve the ability of the device as a whole
> to carry out its technical function (ie not just add a pretty
> screensaver).

Which is of course also the case with the pretty screensaver.  It improves
the quality of the device as a whole and thereby also its capability to
carry out its technical function.

However, the underlying thinking seems to be

        technical = functional = patents
        non-technical = aesthetic = copyright

We had that discussion with Greg before, and it seems to wander around in
the thinking of many people who have not given more careful thought to
these things.  In this respect Dai Rees seems to represent a british
pro-swpat current within the EPO which comes from a tradition in which a
systematic limit on patentability was never attempted, see

        http://swpat.ffii.org/players/uk/

and which has from the beginning until now dominated the legislative
process at the EU.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-12789608
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
145,000 votes 400 firms against software patents     http://noepatents.org/