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

[ehj <ehj@cleosan.com>]

On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 19:05, Francois Desarmenien wrote:

> This doesn't make more sense. Except to proove that A.M. hasn't (or has too
> well) understood the challenge on software patents...

not many have ;-)

Perhaps a better translation from the previous quote:

"The definition of the concept of invention, which is
constitutionalized in the Nordic countries, contains the requirement
that the invention must have a technical character.
An exact definition of what this means can hardly be given,
but within the concept lies definitely a requirement,
that an invention must be a solution of a problem by means of natural
forces, i.e. by means of a causally determined use of
natural matter and energy."

The same invention concept is used in amendements by CULT:

                              Amendment 11
                          Article 2, point (b)
(b)   “technical contribution" means a contribution to the state of the
art in a technical field which is not obvious to a person skilled in the
art. The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the
digital representation of information belongs to a technical field. The
processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a
technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such
purposes.


                              Amendment 14
                         Article 4, paragraph 2
 
2.   Member States shall ensure that it is a condition of involving an
inventive step that a computer-implemented invention must make a
technical contribution, that is to say, it must impart a new lesson in
the relationships of cause and effect involved in the controlled use of
natural forces.

source:
http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/OM-Europarl?PROG=REPORT&L=EN&REF_A=A5-2003-0238&F_REF_A=A5-0238/03


In a recent court decision by the Swedish Court of Patent Appeals the
very same consept is still well and alive:

"When trying the case, the first consideration is the question of how
the system and the method according to the application is relating to
the the judical invention concept in 1 § first paragraph Swedish Patent
Law (PL) with the specification expressed in paragraph two item 3,
according to which an invention is never considered such as solely
consists of "a plan, a rule or method for intellectual activity, gaming
or busisness or a computer program".

Providing that the system respectively the method in the patent
application will be judged answering to the invention concept according
to 1 § PL, the question of the demands in 2 § first paragraph PL
regarding novelty and innovation height might need trial."

http://susning.nu/01-157/01-157_der%e4ttsligautg%e5ngspunkterna

//Erik