Re: [Patents] Software patents: the case against

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

Dear Mr. Svaneborg,

Thanks for the reference on music having showing a technical contribution-
it shows how anything could be said to have the potential to produce a
"further technical effect"!

Our observations on this are similar. Indeed I like the music comparison as
it is very good at demonstrating the process, however I also see the point
that people can equate music with an aesthetic rather than an industrious
process. Your example is very good at showing how even an aesthetic creation
could be considered an invention in this regard.

In regard to your question on this about what constitutes a computer
program, I refer to the software copyright directive (1991) on this issue.
This provides protection for software as a literary work,

"the permanent or temporary reproduction of a computer program by any means
and in any form, in part or in whole. Insofar as loading, displaying,
running, transmission or storage"

I think this shows what many of us techies have said all along, that the
protection of software under copyright includes the "technical effect" that
the EPO keeps banging on about.

The argument that it only extends to the expression of a program in it's
written form is smoke and mirrors as Harmut has previously stated.

I think that consensus on this issue is emerging as people look at all the
law that has evolved outside of the EPO's narrow definitions.

Yours Sincerely,

Christian Beauprez