Re: [Patents] technology definition amendments

[Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>]

Hartmut writes:
>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 very useful indeed.

Yes, it is very useful for further defining "invention" as a "solution
to a problem".  It does absolutely nothing to further define "technical".
Such a statement is circular in its logic with regards to "technical".
On the other hand, definitions like:
        technical := applied science
        technical := used industrially
        technical := mathematically representable
are not circular, since "technical" does not appear on the right hand side.
Whether or not you agree with such definitions, their right hand sides can
be further analyzed without reference to "technical".

You may or may not like the thinking of the EPO Board of Appeals and the
German patent courts.  But you cannot deny their general intelligence
with regards to legal and scientific matters.  And yet even these people
have been unable to offer a definition of "technical", otherwise they
would have included in decisions such as the EPO Board Pension Patent
decision.

The American courts have had a simple unstated policy - if you can't 
define the terms such as "abstract", "technical", "business", we aren't
going to allow the Patent Office to use the terms to deny patentability.
Define the term if you want to use the term.  The European courts and
politicians are doing the exact opposite - using terms they can't define.

Throughout Europe there are well qualified scientists and philosophers of
science that help the EC and EU better define and apply the term "technical".
There are entire conferences in Europe where this concept, and related
concepts, are discussed.  It is reprehensible for European politicians
and patent offices to continue to play word games with the word "technical".

Greg Aharonian