Re: [Patents] Re: more misinformation from McCarthy

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

> > > If the inter-state approach wasn't good enough and supreme caselaw
> > > authority was needed, the EU could simply regulate that Art 52-57 EPC
> > > are EU law and put the ECJ in charge, couldn't it?
> >
> > I am afraid this is precisely what's not possible under EU law without 
> > enacting a
> > Directive. And what you describe is precisley what the Directive aims to 
> > do, isnt'it?
>
> Absolutely not, it is what is claimed to do in words, but not in
> reality.
> If you would care to carefully read the proposal, you'll find that
> software as such will be patentable, while the current European Patent
> Convention clearly say they are not.

At least if you use the terms in a meaningful way, such as done by the EPO
always until 1986

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

and occasionally until today

        http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/epo-t990049/

But I think it is alright to discuss with Mr. Menchetti about the purely
formal aspects of 'EU Law' vs 'EU-wide law' from which we started and, for
the moment, leave out the question of whether the directive as proposed
really harmonises or clarifies anything.

I'd still be interested to know what would be wrong with a EU directive
that consists only of the one-liner

        Member States shall ensure that patents are granted according to
        Art 52-57 of the European Patent Convention.

Is there anything objectionable with citing intergovernmental european law
in a EU directive and thereby making it EU law?

-- 
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/