European patent protesters: 'Innovation--yes!'

TalkBack 6 of 7:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

doe - you are exactly right

Your summation is exactly correct. There is no intent to prevent an "inventor" patenting an innovation, provided that innovation is not a purely software application. Our friend's example (earlier) of a method of enhancing a fuel distribution system in a car would be patentable - it is an innovation that affects natural forces (there is an end result that is manufacturable). The problem with the commission version of the patent proposal was that as long as there was a mechanical interface somewhere within the (patent) application then the software became patentable too - think Amazon "One-click" shopping, MS double click on a mouse button, database sorting algorithms etc. - the terms used were "Technical effect" and "Technical contribution", but at no point in the documentation were those terms defined. As it stands there are around 30,000 pure software patents extant in the UK and EC due to the nebulous use of the "technical contribution" term. In all existing legislation (UK & EC), pure software is unpatentable but it is covered by copyright (provided it is the first example of that software). What the FFII, and other opposition to the proffered legislation, want is a clear and unambiguous way of excluding pure software from patentability as there is (currently) no way to write a program that does not utilise some similar code, because the basics are obvious and common to various sub-sets of software coding (think of database sorting, TCP/IP calls etc.) and programmers are taught to code in certain ways. Allowing anyone to patent pure software would effectively block any small players from developing anything - they would infringe on a mega-corp or patent-collection group's patents, it would also allow a company to patent a series of code that purposely blocks any development in an area, whether the patent holder uses the code themselves or not!
Imagine a patent on the "IFnot" statement - ludicrous? MS have applied for it .......

Posted by: jezter~   Posted on: 02/26/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Key Strategies for Federal Agencies - Safe and Cost Effective Migration for Legacy Hardware GovConnection The federal government has mandated that federal agencies reduce energy ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now