Re: [Patents] technology definition amendments

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

> >       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".

A statement

  n * x = n * y + n * z

is still meaningful.

You may need a few more equations if you want to resolve everything.
That doesn't mean that this one equation is meaningless.

> 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.

They have been able to offer the definition, but they chose not to include
it in EPO Pension Benefit System.  Because it didn't suit their aim.

> 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".

Indeed we agree on that.

They are playing with the word "technical" because they want back-doors
everywhere.  Same for the game of claiming that the "technical
contribution" is part of the "inventive step".  They do not want to
test for technical contribution (invention) anymore, but they are also
afraid of discarding this test officially.  They want to be able to do
whatever seems politically expedient at a given moment, and whatever rules
they create are only a smokescreen in front of their lawlessness.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
150,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/