Re: computer law seminar presentation about software patent at university

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

> > Third part is about the slow acceptance of software patents. I'm using
> > Art 52 of the EPC. The fourth paragraph forbids software patents and
> > business methods "as such", so if the software is part of an invention
> > that produces technical effects, the whole can be patented. I have the
> > feeling that the 'as such' is a major cause of troubles ...

Indeed redundant clauses cause trouble.  To understand its redundance,
look at the Munich Conference procedings, how the UK delegation pressed
with FUD to dismantle Art 52 and was fed the 'as such' compromise by the
german delegation.  It was enough for the UK to incompletely enact Art 52
into their Patent Act (without an invention concept) and to keep on
granting software and business method patents throughout the 70s and 80s.

        http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/muckonf73/
        http://swpat.ffii.org/players/uk/

The 'as such' clause is however really only one of many possible
pretexts which you can find if you want to dodge a law.

Swedish and Thai patent law have the equivalent Art 52(2) without the 'as
such' clause, but patent lawyers there have found very similar
argumentation patterns.  The patent community habitually creates, breaks
and changes laws as it pleases.  If there is a consensus in that community
or among its leaders, then they aren't concerned about laws.  That may be
true of society in general, but there are few cases where one community is
so closed to the outside and authoritarian in outlook as in that of the
patent community.

To understand explain how Art 52 should really work, quoting

        http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/epo-t850022/

is quite helpful.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
145,000 votes 400 firms against software patents     http://noepatents.org/