Re: [Patents] The Importance of Potential (continued)

["Christian Beauprez" <beauprez@beauprez.fsnet.co.uk>]

Dear Mr. Maebe,

Thanks for your observations on this.

I actually think that we are all coming at this problem from the same point
of view although our semantics are slightly different.

The washing machine I thought was a good example because it goes to the
heart of the issue as described by patent proponents (the very reason why we
are told we must accept "computer implemented inventions").. The problem
with a new process that is realised solely by software is that by definition
it is that software when run on an "apparatus" that is in itself being
patented. This is as true of a washing machine (provided that it contains a
processing chip of some kind) as it is of a "general purpose computer".

The knock on effect of this is that we would be agreeing with the EPO's
description that an existing apparatus when running software could transform
into an invention.

The problem with the assertion that a technical process can be seperated
from a computer program. This is the key to why the EPO have broadened their
interpretation over the years. If we look at the dictionary however we can
see that a "computer program" is synonymous with the definition of
"process". Therefore although a computer program constitutes a process it is
still a "computer program" and as such is a literary work and not an
invention.

This is why in my opinion while we should "allow new machines that run
software" but we should not allow "old machines that run 'new' software" to
be considered as inventions. What we have to remember is that under patent
law the "invention" would be described as

"A washing machine that achieves maximum cleanliness by means of an
integrated algorythm."

There is no mention of the actual code itself (this expression is protected
by copyright)..

This would describe pretty much every washing machine that uses software,
thereby giving a monopoly to a supposed inventor in the same way that
patents relating a general computer apparatus have.

In terms of your definition of a "human implemented invention" I am in total
agreement with you. I actually think that we are making the same point in
this regard.... only with different examples.

Best Wishes,

Chris