Re: [Patents] Re: Drop Clause 3

[Erik Josefsson <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 Skåne Sjælland 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