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

[pelegrin@labri.fr]

Selon Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>:
> Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:04:00 -0400
> > Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The text means something. Only comprehension impaired people need
> > > > > an interpretation.
> > > >
> > > > Even a simple text can have many different interprations.
> > >
> > >
> > > They introduced the phrase "as such" because they wanted to say that
> > > software was different and could not be covered by patents.
> > 
> > They introduced the words "as such" in part 3 of the article which
> > refers not only to software but also to business methods, etc. The words
> > "as such" used in part 3 simply means that the items described in part 2
> > can't be patented when they are alone but that it is still possible to
> > patent an invention that would make some use of them.
> 
> 
> It says software is different and not covered by patents.  That's what "as
> such" means.

Both of you are right, and you should agree instead
of arguing.    8^)

The key point is what you think is an "invention".
If an "invention" is a new apparatus or process that
uses controllable forces of nature, then an invention
belongs to the physical realm, ans can be patentable
whether there is software in it or not (else, some
inventions would not be patentable) [this seems to
be Soufron's position], BUT the software
"as such" used to run the apparatus or process cannot
be covered by the patent, i.e. software is not patentable
[this is Johnson's position]. Both positions are valid.
The key point is that the EPO changed the meaning of the
"invention" to "any solution to some problem", which makes
pure software become "solutions to some problem abusively
called 'technical'", and thus patentable matter.

See http://www.abul.org/brevets/articles/parlement_20030924.php3
(in French, sorry) for a longer explanation on why software
cannot be patentable, even if used within a physical "invention".

                                   f.p.


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/