[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)

(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)

From: halber@idea.net.pl
To: Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>, old.timer@tiscali.co.uk
Cc: patents@aful.org
Subject: ODP:Re: [Patents] newsscan: Software patent limits 'go too far'
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:17:59 +0200 (CEST)

>  Art 52(3) was inserted in
> response to FUD from the UK delegation in 1973 which was clamoring that
> exclusion of software would lead to exclusion of all manufacturing
> processes that are computer-controlled.  There is nothing mysterious
> about this particle, and there is even a swedish version of Art 52(3)
> which does not use it.  No need to rediscuss all this here.

To make things clearer why not to change the title of the directive.
From Computer Implemented Inventions to
Computer (or Software) Aided (or Assisited) Inventions.

Jozef Halbersztadt

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

(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)