![[DE Deutsch]](/img/flags/de.png){kind=small}
![[translatable text]](/img/icons.other/txt.png){kind=icon}
![[howto help]](/img/icons.other/questionmark.png){kind=icon}
![[Addenda]](/img/icons.other/addenda.png){kind=icon}
| |||
| Software Patents | Pamphlets | ||
Pamhplets, posters etc concernign questions of patentability and impact of patents on software
|
| |||
| Software Patents | Pamphlets | ||
| Was? | Wer? |
|---|---|
| Europarl 2003/06: JURI Software Patent Proposal (en de fr es it nl pt el fi da sv) | Hartmut Pilch, Bernhard Kaindl, Karl Eichwalder, Odile Benassy, João Miguel Neves, Simon Brouwer, Simo Sorce, Theodoros Soldatos, Esteban Manchados Velázquez, Ville Oksanen |
| Europarl 2003/06: JURI Software Patent Proposal (en de fr) | Hartmut Pilch, Xavier Drudis Ferran |
| Swpat @ Systems 2001 (de en fr it) | phm |
| /img/ffii | FFII images |
| Patent Newspeak | outsider meaning (for consumption by politicians and citizens) | insider meaning (as understood by patent professionals) |
|---|---|---|
| Business methods should not be patentable. | Methods for "one-click shopping", workflow optimisation, task queuing etc should not be patentable. | One-Click shopping etc are patentable if the claims refer to a technical device, such as a computer and pointing device (mouse). |
| The status quo should be preserved. | The present law, under which rules or organisation and calculation are not considered to be inventions, should be applied. | The present law should be replaced by a directive, so that the European Patent Office can continue to grant patents for algorithms, business methods and computer programs without having to fear a challenge. |
| We must not adopt the US practise. | Unlike the US, we must refuse to grant patents on rules of organisation and calculation. | We must blame all the embarassing problems with software patents on certain irrelevant peculiarities of the US system (such as reexamination, first-to-invent, wording of State Street decision) which we would in any case be unable or unlikely to adopt. |
| An invention must have a technical contribution in its inventive step. | Only technical contributions to prior art (new teachings of how to harness the forces of nature) can be patentable inventions. | There should be no separate test of whether a technical contribution (= an invention) is present. Testing non-obviousness (= inventive step) is enough. Thus, whenever asked whether something is patentable subject matter, we can say "it depends". |
| technical | related to harnessing the forces of nature | related to any kind of skill whose monopolisation could be commercially rewarding and for which the patent office might want to hire examiners |
| The current legal situation is confusing and needs to be clarified. | The incoherence in the current practise of the patent courts is unsatisfactory and must go away. | The law in its present form is painfully clear. It is standing in our way. We must replace it by an unclear formula, so that we can end this embarassing discussion once for all. |
| National patent laws need to be harmonised. | National patent laws need to be made compatible with each other by means of some common reference framework or meta-law. | Legislative power needs to be removed from democratic sovereigns and handed over to the international patent community. The already painfully clear and uniform national patent laws need to be muddled, so that national lawcourts can't rely on the laws but must look to the consensus of the international patent community for guidance. |
Software Patents For the EyeConferences on Software PatentingFFII: Software Patents in Europe