Comments on: UK Judge Explains Why He Sentenced A Software Patent To Death http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/06/02/ip_aadijadjej_af/ Spam, Security, Privacy, Spyware, Phishing & Viruses from the Front Lines. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:12:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Geoff http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/06/02/ip_aadijadjej_af/#comment-880 Thu, 01 Jun 2006 06:02:03 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/06/02/ip_aadijadjej_af/#comment-880 The European Commission certainly have not said that computer programs will not be patentable under any circumstances - that's just misleading information from the FFII.<br> <br> What the Commission actually said was that the European Community Patent would still include the exclusion on "computer programs as such" and that IF the European Court of Justice chose to interpret this exclusion differently from the EPO, then such an interpretation would be binding on the EPO when examining Community Patents. The Commission did not say that the ECJ WOULD interpret things differently, only that the COULD.<br> <br> G The European Commission certainly have not said that computer programs will not be patentable under any circumstances - that’s just misleading information from the FFII.

What the Commission actually said was that the European Community Patent would still include the exclusion on “computer programs as such” and that IF the European Court of Justice chose to interpret this exclusion differently from the EPO, then such an interpretation would be binding on the EPO when examining Community Patents. The Commission did not say that the ECJ WOULD interpret things differently, only that the COULD.

G

]]> by: Geoff http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/06/02/ip_aadijadjej_af/#comment-879 Thu, 01 Jun 2006 04:34:04 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/06/02/ip_aadijadjej_af/#comment-879 This was a really great judgement by the UK courts which helps clarify an extremely difficult area of patent law in the UK and throughout Europe.<br> <br> Basically, the UK Patents Act doesn't "seem" to forbid software patents, the wording is a bit more tricky than that: computer programs "as such" are not inventions for which a patent can be granted. Question is, what does the "as such" mean?<br> <br> Well, this decision explains that if the ONLY thing going for an invention is that it's done on a computer, then it isn't patentable. So automating something which people have been doing for years with a new computer program doesn't make that computer program patentable. But if the computer program is doing something new and inventive itself, the fact that it's a computer program doing it won't stop a patent being granted.<br> <br> This is effectively the same rules as applied by the European Patent Office, despite what people (eg the FFII) might try to say. <br> <br> Oh, and Neal Macrossan has also filed his patent application at the European Patent Office. The publication number is EP1346304 and if you go to www.epoline.org and then to "register plus" you can keep an eye on what the EPO are doing. I fully expect them to refuse this application as "providing nothing of technically inventive merit". Watch this space!<br> <br> Geoff This was a really great judgement by the UK courts which helps clarify an extremely difficult area of patent law in the UK and throughout Europe.

Basically, the UK Patents Act doesn’t “seem” to forbid software patents, the wording is a bit more tricky than that: computer programs “as such” are not inventions for which a patent can be granted. Question is, what does the “as such” mean?

Well, this decision explains that if the ONLY thing going for an invention is that it’s done on a computer, then it isn’t patentable. So automating something which people have been doing for years with a new computer program doesn’t make that computer program patentable. But if the computer program is doing something new and inventive itself, the fact that it’s a computer program doing it won’t stop a patent being granted.

This is effectively the same rules as applied by the European Patent Office, despite what people (eg the FFII) might try to say.

Oh, and Neal Macrossan has also filed his patent application at the European Patent Office. The publication number is EP1346304 and if you go to www.epoline.org and then to “register plus” you can keep an eye on what the EPO are doing. I fully expect them to refuse this application as “providing nothing of technically inventive merit”. Watch this space!

Geoff

]]>