Re: [Patents] Which companies are against art 2a and 4.3a?

[Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>]

El Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:21:50PM +0200, Flemming Bjerke deia:
> 
> "In determining whether a given computer-implemented invention makes a 
> technical contribution, the following test shall be used: whether it 
> constitutes a new teaching on cause-effect relations in the use of 
> controllable forces of natures .... "
>

this is from McCarthy, Medina et al, right ? 
 
> I suspect most of the electronics industry are against this formulation, 
> because they process information. E.g. producers of television and mobile 
> telephones. So, they join the forces with Microsoft and IBM. 
>

If they are against it is because they see that the information processes
add more value than their inventions and want to monopolise them, I guess.
 
> If I should try to see it from their point of view, I must admit that it is 
> unclear if any use of software within electronic companies are patentable 
> at 
> all. Perhaps they even fear that their EPO-patents will become non-valid.
>

No, it isn't unclear (at least from that quote). It depends on whether 
there is a new teaching on cause-effect relations in the use of controllable
forces of nature. There will often be, for an electronics company who does
research in electronics. Of course the information processes are much 
cheaper to define, and they might want to base their monopolies on these
cheaper achievements, but they give no teaching on forces of nature and 
would not be patentable according to this quote.
 
> Perhaps this fear are used by the hardliners in the EU-commissoin to not 
> formulate a "compromise" that is more radical than the original purpose. I 
> order to have their proposal passed, they utilise that there is no 
> compromises available (from the point of view of the electronics industry). 
> 
> Perhaps, it would be easier to avoid the radical pro softwarepatents 
> decision, 
> if there was a real compromise proposal, which did not deprived the 
> electronics industry, but deprived the multinational software companies of 
> their software patents. 
> 

There is a real compromise. Inventions using software can be patented
if they give a new teaching on... . That's a compromise between no
patents at all and patents for everything, or between no patents for
anything that may use software and patents for anything that uses
software.

These people are opposing the compromise. This attitude, together with 
the failure of the patent system to keep apparences of normality when 
using inconsistent practices, are pushing more people to positions against
the whole patent system, which may be a pity.

> These considerations is NOT meant as a proposal about that the resistance 
> to 
> softwarepatenting should sell out and adopt a halfway pro-software-patents 
> positon. For now, I just try to analyse and understand the situation 
> better. 
> 

The situation is embarrassing since there are granted patents for 
non-statutory 
subject matter. Some people were planing way too ahead for a change of rules 
that may not happen, and their decisions might serve them bad. Some European 
Patents might be confirmed as invalid by this compromise, of course, but 
this is the whole point of any compromise, confirming some patents as valid 
and rendering
others invalid. Otherwise, no political debate would be possible, it would 
just be fait accompli legistation (the legislator would change the law each 
time the applicants+EPO go beyond it.

The fact that those patents which would be invalidated represent some 
investment
(in filing, not so much in research) and some hope for future income is not 
a reason to avoid the discussion on whether it is interesting or not for 
society
having them validated. Some companies bet on the wrong horse, but that is 
no reason for killing the other horses in the race. 

This would be the case even if it was a change of rules that would
invalidate patents that were previously valid (legislation is not
about preserving profitabilty for obsolete practices, but about
defining ever more efficient rules for progress). But we are not 
even in that case, those patents have never been valid anyway, and 
the criteria are not changed, just made mroe explicit.
 


-- 
- jo també vull una Europa lliure de patents de programari  -
--------------------------------------------------------------
 EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://patents.caliu.info

Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis@tinet.org