X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <pelegrin@labri.fr>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from iona.labri.fr (iona.labri.fr [147.210.8.143])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899C458EB8
	for <patents@aful.org>; Tue,  1 Jun 2004 11:07:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (guismo.drimm.u-bordeaux1.fr [147.210.36.243])
	by localhost.labri.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 636F213C1D
	for <patents@aful.org>; Tue,  1 Jun 2004 10:37:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from iona.labri.fr ([147.210.8.143])
 by localhost (guismo [147.210.36.243]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP
 id 17595-08-8 for <patents@aful.org>; Tue,  1 Jun 2004 10:37:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from labri.fr (brol.labri.fr [147.210.9.226])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by iona.labri.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C18813C12
	for <patents@aful.org>; Tue,  1 Jun 2004 10:37:56 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <40BC5716.5030304@labri.fr>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:14:46 +0200
From: Francois PELLEGRINI <pelegrin@labri.fr>
Organization: INRIA & LaBRI, Universite Bordeaux I
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030630
X-Accept-Language: fr, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: patents@aful.org
Subject: Re: [Fsfe-france] Re: [Patents] Reponse du ministre de l'industrie
 par rapport aux brevets logiciels
References: <BCE1FF7D.15F98%pb@breese.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406011120070.28072@querty.oas.a2e.de>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406011120070.28072@querty.oas.a2e.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at u-bordeaux1.fr
X-Validation-by: pelegrin@labri.fr


Hartmut Pilch wrote:
 >Breese wrote:
>>Je suis bien d'accord qu'une innovation dans le domaine du traitement
>>d'image peut =EAtre de m=EAme nature qu'une innovation dans le secteur de=
 la
>>finance, les deux reposant sur des applications des math=E9matiques et les
>>deux devant correspondre =E0 des inventions brevetables.
>>Il est =E9galement souhaitable de fixer une limite =E0 la brevetabilit=E9=
, et
>>c'est celle qui d=E9coule d=E9j=E0 des crit=E8res habituels de nouveaut=
=E9, d'activit=E9
>>inventive, d'application industrielle et de suffisance de description, qui
>>sont bien suffisant pour assurer la d=E9livrance de brevets correspondant=
 =E0 de
>>r=E9elles inventions, et permettant le cas =E9ch=E9ant aux tiers de conte=
ster les
>>brevets qui ne r=E9pondraient pas =E0 ces exigences.
>=20
>=20
> I wish the french ministery also was able to find these clarifying words
> that Mr. Breese has found.  That would at least be a basis for honest
> discussion.

But as they claim they do not want business method
patents, they are trapped, because one cannot distinguish
business method patents from other software/mathematical
patents, as Mr. Breese just said.



				f.p.


