Re: [Patents] The Economist on Software Patents in Europe

[ehj <ehj@cleosan.com>]

On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 19:05, Francois Desarmenien wrote:
> > Arlene McCarthy, the rapporteur of the European Parliament's committee for
> > legal affairs and the internal market, has now proposed an additional test
> > for patentability: an invention must teach a new way to use _controllable
> > forces of nature_ (really) and have an _industrial application_. This aims
> > to strengthen the exclusion of pure software and business methods.
> 
> Electrons running through CPU and memories ARE, by definition, a 
> controllable
> forces of nature (even if in fact they are more or less really controlled 
> :) !

No, they are not, and besides you completely miss the point. An
invention is a teaching about how you solve a problem. 

If your problem is how to drill 1000 holes in one minute, the hard part
is to find drills that dont melt, get clogged or give non-circular
holes, not to program the computer controlling the drilling.

Patents are "industrial property", a subset of "immaterial property"
regulations, designed for knowledge distribution in the industrial era.

It is the basis for european patent law. Nothing new, nothing strange:

"The invention concept, which developement is founded in the current law
of the nordic countries, contains a requirement that the invention must
have a <it>technical character</it>. An exaxt definition of what that
means can hardly be given, but within the concept lies defenitely a
requirement, that it must be a solution of a problem by means of natural
forces, i.e. by means of a causally determined use of matter and energy
of nature."

source:
http://www.softwarepatenter.dk/nordiskpat1963.html

//Erik