X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <ehj@cleosan.com>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from cleosan.com (unknown [194.198.15.242])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E4A249590
	for <patents@aful.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:45:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from c-271271d5.012-2012-6d6c6d10.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se ([213.113.18.39] helo=cleosan.com)
	by cleosan.com with asmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 1AD6aZ-0002xL-00; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:23:07 +0200
Message-ID: <3F996CEB.6040205@cleosan.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:18:19 +0200
From: Erik Josefsson <ehj@cleosan.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030903 Thunderbird/0.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: patents@aful.org
Cc: bestyrelsen@sslug.dk
Subject: Re: [Patents] Re: Drop Clause 3
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310241643300.17656-100000@querty.oas.a2e.de>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310241643300.17656-100000@querty.oas.a2e.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Validation-by: ehj@cleosan.com

Hartmut Pilch wrote:
>>I think we should tell the EPC to eliminate paragraph 3, for the reasons
>>detailed below.
>>
>>Or if the pro-software patent forces start moving for changing the EPC, we
>>should say, "Sure, drop paragraph 3 until you address the real question."
>>
>>I think it would be best to just do it ourselves.
> 
> 
> This proposal has already been in
> 
> 	http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/epc52/
> 
> for a while and it has also been pronounced in public by a french
> politician
> 
> 	http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/mamere020228/

This is also the position of Skne Sjlland Linux User Group
(http://www.sslug.dk/) given in the hearing procedures of the Swedish 
Ministry of Justice in the spring of 2002.

You find a rough translation here:

    http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/sslug0205/index.en.html

We are about to get three examples of EPO interpretations in conflict 
with swedish patent courts. The queue patent (Petterson), the stock 
exchange patent (OM-gruppen vs. SePTO and PRB) and lately a 
documentation handeling system (SignOn vs. The Swedish Agency for Public 
Management).

They all boil down to the invention concept. I would be happy to be 
pointed to an EPO analysis (not deconstruction) of this this concept.

//Erik


