Re: [Patents] The response by an MEP

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

> I was told by a pro-patent MEP that my comparison was "patently absurd"
> (!) because other literary works could not provide the "inventive step",
> "industrial application" or "novelty" requirements. To this I would
> simply point out that we refer to the "film industry" and the "music
> industry" everyday, and to say that a literary work could not contain an
> "inventive step" (e.g. a stage in a process that is new) was as
> ridiculous as saying it could not be "new and unusual" as the definition
> "novelty" implies.

What this MEP may have meant is that computer programs fit the model of a 
technical invention better than artistic works.  

Considering the traditional definition of "technical invention"

 plan-conformant use of controllable forces of nature to achieve a 
 causally overseeable success

you need only to remove the forces of nature part and you arrive at a 
concept where computer programs are patentable but artistic works are not.

To make artistic works patentable, you would further have to loosen the 
requirement that the success be causally overseeable.  It isn't because 
subjectivity of the audience plays a role.  This is also the main 
reason why cooking recipes would be considered unpatentable (although 
in their case forces of nature are part of the solution).

Unfortunately people who do not or poorly understand the patent system
will tend to reduce it to what it is officially in the US now:  monopoly
given for any "new, non-obviousness and useful" idea, where "useful" again
excludes esthetic creations.

The talk about "further technical effects" seems to serve mainly as a 
bridge for arriving at this simplistic vision while appearing to be using 
the traditional terminology.

Only a few people at the EPO understand, sort of, what is meant with this
language game.  Even the lobbyists from UNICE, EICTA etc, who are pushing
the EPO game on the EU, do not understand the game, as can be noticed when
they start using the EPO terminology and getting everything wrong
(according to the standards of the EPO).  The same applies to the 
directive drafters in the Council.  I wonder who the handful of people, if 
any, are, that do understand this crap.  Perhaps only a few people at 
ffii/eurolinux in the end ?

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
300,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/