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

[Jonas Maebe <jonas.maebe@ugent.be>]

On 10 jun 2004, at 22:40, Flemming Bjerke wrote:

> > of patents in e.g. the mobile phone industry that correspond to this
> > (e.g. on the smart typing of SMS'es).
>
> Yes, this is a relatively clear-cut distinction. I wonder if we could 
> find a
> better example.

Do you mean "less clearly pure software" by "better example"? Maybe 
this:
http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/samples/ep497041/index.en.html

Claims are at:
http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/samples/ep497041/claims.html

It's a patent on "information-controlled drug infusion". They patented 
the fact that you can use a computer to control the infusion of a drug 
to a patient. So it's not "just computations", but the effect in the 
end is that some drug is injected in a patient (with pumps, reservoirs 
etc). Yet, it's a pure software patent: the only "new" thing is that 
they use a program running on a computer to control the injection of 
the drugs.

> > What you are arguing for, basically boils down to trying to establish
> > what separates the "normal physical interaction between a computer and
> > a computer program" from the "further technical effect", and only
> > allowing a patent on "inventions" which have this further technical
> > effect. It's the current EPO doctrine, which has resulted in all the
> > software patents we are stuck with now.
>
> No, no, that is cut salami in meters!

Salami cut in meters? :)

> What I thought about, was, whether there
> were real compromises or not, and whether there could be reasons for 
> drafting
> compromises or not.

I don't know of any real compromises apart from the text of the 
Parliament (as Xavi explained). See also this for a number of different 
possible positions:
http://swpat.ffii.org/news/04/cons0129/index.en.html#compr

[EP text result]
> It is quite clear. But, usually legai texts are not that clear, 
> because they
> are compromises.

This means that the Parliament text is great legislation :) (well, 
appart from some confusing recitals and "phraseologies" in article 4)

> Anyhow, the question is whether there are any real
> compromises or all compromises are of the futher-technical-effect-kind 
> that
> refers to what is "normal" in a computer or similar slippery concepts.

The Commission and the Council both use this normal/further technical 
effect. Apart from the Parliament text, I don't know of any proposed 
text that doesn't use that wording.

> PS: It was really good that you "taped" the Council meeting. We had a 
> public
> hearing in the Danish parliamentary commitee for the reason.

Indeed, thanks a lot to Benjamin and the others who did that. Those 
files also resulted in nice material to make movies from:

* about the contradiction between the new article 4(a)(1) ("a computer 
program as such cannot constitute a patentable invention") and article 
5(2) ("a claim on a computer program on its own shall be allowed if 
..."):
http://kwiki.ffii.org/?ConsMagic0406En

* about the Danmark-Ireland dialogue (with first some comments from the 
Dutch delegation):
http://www.elis.ugent.be/~jmaebe/nobackup/council2.mov

We also have a movie making contest about it:
http://kwiki.ffii.org/ConsVideo0405En

First prize is EUR 1000!


Jonas