Patenting computer-using inventions under the EU Software Patent Directive

[Holger Blasum <holgerlists@blasum.net>]

Hello patents,

Siemens, Philips and others in the 20% non-SME segment of the 
European software industry repeatedly have voiced there concerns 
about the directive (in its Parliament version) excluding too much
of their current portfolio. Examples I have heard repeatedly were
claims on computer tomography, anti-blocking systems, GSM, and so on (and 
naively seen in an ideal world making complex hardware-heavy systems 
is the market that big industry should be good at).

Now, most of these systems are heavily hardware-dependent and
I have been asked whether we have a list of showcase patents (preferably
of inventions involving a computer somewhere, thus being CII/SEI) 
that are *not* affected by the exclusions of data processing, the 
requirement of forces of nature etc in the Parliament's version.

A non-academic outcome of this exercise would be: see, the claims
xx,xx,xx of invention yy,yy,yy are not necessarily excluded by 
the Parliament directive, what do you clamor about? (ignoring of
course the question of novelty and inventive step which could be 
taken for granted to simplify the discussion).

If sb already has such a list for "separating mechanics from 
data processing" for defensive purposes, that would be a good starting point,
if not, who would like to (join) compiling it (below is a starting 
point by J Bosson)? (The case might be made that's it's too late
for theoretical exercises at the moment of course.)

> Subject: physics of software.
> 
> GSM has many relations to actual inventions, most notably the fact that a
> grid of antennas use broadcasting suited to meet the needs of X users in a
> limited freq. space and distortions etc. The problem is then if digital
> multimedia information customized to the same delay and bandwith should be
> patentable. And this is the the big issue for the more defensive telcos like
> Ericsson. Basically its about the protection of business models in mobile
> communication.
> 
> Two examples:
> 
> Scanias cylinder test is kind of worrysome becase it is about testing an
> engine with known features using a computer. The testing is in it self not
> novel (magnus), but writing a set of 'if' statements to stop and check the
> efficiancy of each cylender seems to be according to the EPO.
> 
> ClearType is interesting becase its about how to use the features of an
> RGB-LCD-display so that the sharpness is enhanced. But the trouble is that
> its applied to many fields of imageing not related to the actual invention
> of using it for sharpness in genreal, i.e. fonts or vector graphics.
> 
> This might be tricky for patent folks to realize since the invention is in
> whole implemented as software product and used on existing hardware, but
> using new hardware features. There are other patents like this, just like
> using the old PC 1bit speaker to simulate 8-bits by using modulation
> (although the inventive step might be discussed in that case...)
> 
> Can you see the clear difference? Look for where technology can be
> distinguish from information and methods of organization. Software can be a
> patent infringement, but only when *used* in the process of a physical
> invention that realizes what is the technical solution.
> ----- End forwarded message -----

Regards,

-- 
Holger Blasum +49-174-7313590       No software patents in Europe!
GnuPG 1024D/ACDFC3B769DC1ED66B47    http://eu.ffii.org/