|
To be honest I see "tidying" measures in
software patenting as a last desperate move by corporations and lawyers to
legitimise software patenting. I am in full agreement with Hartmut on
this.
The focus seems to be on getting rid of "bad
patents" by raising the "inventive step". These are doomed to failure because
the concepts behind computer programs are logical (e.g. based on earlier
known statements, or conditions) and therefore deducible
independently by others, even if non-obvious at first sight.
I think that far from being appeased we
should push harder at this point to show such "reform" is no substitute for
obeying international obligations. If the U.S. doesn't want to protect computer
programs as literary works in a way that is non-prejudicial to authors, she
should not have signed the TRIPS treaty or any other Treaty that
obligated her to do this. Trade agreements have to bind everyone, not just the
rest of the world.
In regards to other areas, I of course welcome
moves to make obvious patents a thing of the past.
|
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)