[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>
- To: Simon Brouwer <simon.oo.o@xs4all.nl>
- Cc: patents@aful.org
- Subject: Re: [Patents] Re: Argumenting against software patents proposal
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:34:36 +0200 (CEST)
> 1. JURI discarded this part of the proposal and introduced program claims
> (COMP-1)
> 2. It doesn't help a software developper very much if he can "only" be
> sued for contributory infringment.
To make this clearer: according to the CEC proposal, you still risk being
sued even if you only publish a program and warn people "please do not
execute unless you have obtained a license from XXX".
Of course it is better not to have program claims, because the question of
contributory infringement leaves more room for courts to decide, possibly
in favor of the programmer. But CEC meticulously avoids all
statements that could possibly serve as a basis for deciding in favor of
the programmer. The only motiviation for Art 5 is, according to CEC, that
banning program claims can help support a proposed misinterpretation of
Art 52(3) EPC, according to which anything can be patented, if only
certain outlawed claim wordings are avoided.
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)