[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>
- To: James Heald <j.heald@ucl.ac.uk>
- Cc: patents@aful.org
- Subject: Re: [Patents] Patent on e-voter registration
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 19:35:50 +0200 (CEST)
> (i) what was the technical problem ?
The problem of achieving some result on a computer system.
> (ii) in an age where the management of public-key identification is an
> off-the-peg well-understood technology, what was the non-obvious
> inventive step in the solution ?
The patent description will tell you.
Neither EPC nor EPO talk about a "non-obvious inventive step".
Just an "inventive step", and "non-obvious" is not a real hurdle, since
there is no way to measure it.
The one step which the "invention" has gone beyond the prior art must
contain a "technical contribution", i.e. a trivial improvement in
computing efficiency which inevitably comes with any problem solution. A
patent attorney who is unable to construct such a contribution would not
be worth his money.
--
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/
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)