Re: [Patents] technology definition amendments

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

> Harmut posts some supposed definitions of technical
>
> >                             amendment
> >"technical contribution" means       "technical contribution", also
> >a contribution to the state of       called "technical invention" or
> >the art in a technical field         "invention", means
> >which is not obvious to a            a contribution to the state of
> >person skilled in the art.           the art in a technical field.
>
> These are circular statements, and therefore not definitions.  You
> can't have "technical" on both sides of the definition.  Saying a
> "technical contribution" is something in a "technical field" resolves
> nothing, other than demonstrating the intellectual laziness of whoever
> wrote the sentence.

You can have "technical" on both sides of the definition, if you add
another definition which resolves this.

Common axiomatic systems are usually built that way.  You don't define
everything in one go but by a hierarchy of definitions.

E.g.

        Technical invention = technical solution to technical problem

is indeed very useful.

> >                             amendment
> >                                     "Technical" in the sense of
> >                                     patent law means "concrete and
> >                                     physical".
>     The combination of software with a microprocessor (the conditions
> for which early sofware patent court decisions in the US ruled) is
> both concrete and physical in that it forms a specific machine.

True, and we are not relying on this definition alone to exclude
software patents.

>     Besides, as I recall from a recent document, even the German court
> has rejected this language as being archaic, and specifically criticized
> people who cite such language.

I am not aware of any such document.

There are of course people who don't like defining "technology" in terms
of "forces of nature".  And there are people who like it.  But even the
Federal Court of Justice's most extreme decisions, such as "logic
verification", still cite the definition without criticising it.  They
rely on other means for making programming logic patentable, e.g. on
saying that "technical considerations" are sufficient or that the
claim object must be assessed "as a whole".

McCarthy, in her speech of July 16, rejects the phrase for two reasons

        (1) it is archaic
        (2) it puts european patent applicants at a disadvantage, denying
            them access to protection which their US counterparts get

To me, at least (2) looks like a rather strong argument in favor of the
phrase.


-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII e.V. und Eurolinux-Allianz            +49-89-18979927
150.000 Stimmen 2000 Firmen gegen Logikpatente      http://noepatents.org/
Innovation statt Patentinflation                    http://swpat.ffii.org/