Re: [Patents] newsscan: Software patent limits 'go too far'

[Bernhard Kaindl <bernhard.kaindl@gmx.de>]

Hi, Greetings to Paris!

> This is what happened with the EPO (except it was a bad evolution). The
> first interpretation of the law (patentibility forbidden and narrow
> exception) became a second one (patentibility forbidden but wide
> exception) and were close to give birth to a third one (patentibility
> allowed)... when people realized that they could not accept this and
> decided not to let it go any further.
>
> But, whatever the new law project states... there will always be ways to
> turn around. That's why, this new project is not a victory in itself. A
> victory would be that people actually realize that software can't be
> subject to patents which is not yet the case! Do you see what I mean?

Yes, I see. After the oil company example you gave in this mail I can
understand that judges change the law when needed. But I'm still irritated
by the information that the EPO changed the way it interprets the EPC
themselfes without needing intervention from anyone outside the EPO.

In combination with the fact that the EPO is completely autonomous in
legal as in finacial terms(1999 it had 1.3 Billion DM income with 250 Million
DM in revenue...[1]), I can describe this situation as out of control.

I've found one case where the EPO fixed an error it did(likely only
due to broad public protest) but this does not qualify as control to me.

This is just a rough idea, nothing studied:

The only way I think the EPO would really rethink it's methods would
be if the EPO would not have to pay a fixed base sum plus twice the
amount of all income it had from the patent to the invalidator of a
patent. Otherwise there would be a) no sufficient reward for the risks
involved in nullficiation and b) no incentive to correct it's internal
guidelines.

Of course the number+factor might need adjustment after proper studies.

Bernhard

[1](in German):
http://archiv.greenpeace.de/GP_DOK_3P/HINTERGR/C05HI71.HTM