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

[Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron@free.fr>]

3. The provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article shall exclude
patentability of the subject matter or activities referred to in that
provision only to the extent to which a patent application or patent
relates to such subject matter or activities as such (3. Les
dispositions du 2 du présent article n'excluent la brevetabilité des élé
ments énumérés auxdites dispositions que dans la mesure où la demande de
brevet ou le brevet ne concerne que l'un de ces éléments considéré en
tant que tel).

> Art. 52.3 doesn't just say that when they are alone they are not
> patentable. It's also when they are part (relation with) of the
> invention:
> 
> (3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the
> subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the
> extent to which a European patent application or European patent
> **relates to such subject-matter** or ##activities as such##.
> 
> The part between ##'s is what you're saying.

???

The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability ... only "when
a patent relates to the items listed in article 2 as such". It's a
possible interpretation and it's the one defended by the EPO. 

To my mind, it's very important to understand that these 2
interpretations worth the same value in themselves. What is important is
to make people in charge understand their consequences more than to
insist on semantics. 
 
> > You should concentrate more on the consequences of these 2
> > interpretations from legal, economic and social points of view than
> > on the interpretation in itself. 
> 
> Well, the economic and social studies say that software patents, at
> best, do not improve the situation.

I agree 100%.
 
> So that part seems to be quite covered, and we already know who is
> pushing for software patents (those who most profit with it, that is
> lawyers, the *PO's -- remember that they're comprised mostly of
> lawyers--- and some major corporations with huge patent portfolios).

Not lawyers please, Intellectual Property Counsellors offices... Call
them what you want but please... :-)