[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: UK drängt auf Änderung von Art 52 (fwd)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:51:43 +0100 (CET)
From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>
To: neues@ffii.org
Cc: swpat@ffii.org
Subject: Re: UK drängt auf Änderung von Art 52

On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, PILCH Hartmut wrote:

> Unter
>
>   http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/issues/index.htm#Software Patents
>
> erklärt Robin Webb, Beamter des Britischen Patentamtes und Sprecher der
> Britischen Regierung in Fragen der Patentierbarkeit, auf Streichung der
> "Programme für Datenverarbeitungsanlagen" aus Art 52 EPÜ.

Entschuldigung, das war in Eile geschrieben und natürlich falsch.
Was Webb wirklich vorschlägt, steht unten.  Es läuft zwar auf das gleiche
hinaus -- Programme gelten als technisch per se und eine Prüfung, ob etwas
eine Erfindung ist, findet nicht statt -- aber die Systematik ist anders:

> Das britische Patentamt hat seine Konsultation in wesentlich anständigerer
> Weise durchgeführt als die Europäische Kommission[1], und auch sein
> Vorschlag ist wesentlich weniger verlogen.  Er drückt in der Sprache des
> EPÜ auf unverschnörkelte Weise aus, was das EPA will und wirft dabei den
> viel missbrauchten Art 52(3) ("als solche"-Klausel) über Bord, s. unten.
>
> FFII/Eurolinux wäre natürlich mit der ersatzlosen Streichung der
> vielmissbrauchten und eigentlich redundanten "Als-Solche"-Klausel
> einverstanden.  Dies hat auch z.B. Günter Schölch, Prüfer am Deutschen
> Patent- und Markenamt, in seiner Konsultationseingabe
>
> 	http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/papri/eukonsult00/angumema/
>
> vorgeschlagen.  Webb hat recht, wenn er diese Klausel als einen Grund der
> Verwirrung sieht und sie deshalb korrigieren möchte.  Allerdings können
> wir Webb bei seinem Änderungsvorschlag zu Art 52(2)
>
>   Die folgenden Gegenstände sind keine Erfindungen, es sei denn sie
>   leisten im Rahmen der erfinderischen Tätigkeit einen technischer Beitrag
>   zum Stand der Technik
>
> nur insoweit applaudieren, als er hiermit auf prägnante Weise die heutige
> EPA-Praxis beschreibt.  Doch diese Praxis ist nicht zweckdienlich.  Sie
> führt zu zehntausenden von Patenten auf computer-implementierte
> Organisations- und Rechenregeln, deren allgemeine Unerwünschtheit gerade
> durch die UKPTO-Konsultation deutlich geworden ist.  Webb ist insofern
> nicht legitimiert, so etwas vorzuschlagen.
>
> Ferner ist der Vorschlag auch rechtssystematisch verfehlt.  Die Frage, ob
> eine Erfindung technisch/patentfähig ist, wird nicht mehr eigenständig
> beantwortet.  Stattdessen wird im Rahmen einer formalisierten und daher
> leicht manipulierbaren Prüfung der Erfindungshöhe (erfinderische Tätigkeit
> = Nicht-Naheliegen = Erfindungshöhe nach Art 56 EPÜ) geschaut, ob irgendwo
> technischer Jargon vorkommt, wozu es wiederum genügt, wenn die
> vorgeschlagene Lösung mit einer "Computer-Implementierung" zusammenhängt,
> da sie dann ja zu einem "Gebiet der Technik" gehört.
>
> Kurzum:  Webb schlägt mit guten britischen Sitten das vor, was die
> Europäische Kommission sich in schauerlicher Weise von BSA entwerfen ließ.
> Er spricht im Namen der britischen Regierung.  Anders als in DE und FR
> gibt es in Großbritannien keine organisierte Opposition gegen dieses
> Vorgehen.
>
> -----------------
>
> 1 vgl http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/papri/eukonsult00)
> 2 http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/vreji/
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> Software Patents
>
> The UK's position on the patentability of software is set out in
> "Should Patents be Granted for Computer Software or Ways of Doing
> Business? The Government's Conclusions" which was published in March
> 2001.
>
> This reports the outcome of the consultation process which the
> Government began in the autumn of 2000. The central conclusion is to
> reaffirm the principle that patents are for technological
> innovations. Software should not be patentable when there is no
> technological innovation, and technological innovations should not
> cease to be patentable merely because the innovation lies in
> software. However, there is a need for the law to express this more
> clearly, and for this clarification to take place as soon as
> practicable. Ways of doing business should remain unpatentable.
>
> The law on what is patentable is governed by the European Patent
> Convention (EPC). This treaty is not a European Union instrument (and
> indeed some parties are not EU countries). However, in a separate
> development, the European Commission consulted towards the end of
> 2000 with a view to bringing forward a proposal for a directive on
> the patentability of software. If there were to be a directive it
> would be necessary to amend the EPC to bring it into line with the
> directive. In either case any change to the law will take place at
> European level, and the Government is working to win its European
> partners over to the view expressed above.
>
> To date, however, the European Commission has not been able to come
> forward with a proposal for a directive. The Government believes
> that, because clarification of the law is urgently needed, there is a
> limit to how long we should be prepared to wait for a proposal for a
> directive. During the latter part of 2001 it sought to persuade its
> EPC partners of this. It has argued that if a revision conference (ie
> a meeting to agree changes to the EPC) takes place in 2002 then the
> conference should go ahead and amend the EPC provisions on software
> if no proposal for a directive had appeared before then. The
> Government expressed this view at the October meeting of the European
> Patent Office Administrative Council (the organization’s governing
> body).
>
> In December the Government went further, and tabled an illustrative
> draft for discussion purposes of how article 52 of the EPC might be
> revised to express the policy conclusions it had reached and
> published in March. To view this illustrative draft, and associated
> notes, click here.
>
> In October and December it seemed likely that a revision conference
> would be called for June 2002, primarily to amend the EPC to
> accommodate the emergence of a European Community Patent. However,
> the negotiations on the community patent have not in fact advanced to
> that point, and it is no longer clear that a revision conference –
> and thus an opportunity to seek amendment to the EPC’s software
> provisions – will take place in June.
>
> The Government continues to press for amendment of the EPC’s
> treatment of software, and would favour a revision conference in June
> even if the community patent is not ready to be considered at that
> point – unless, of course, a proposal for a directive on software
> patents has appeared by then.
>
> For further information, please contact:
>
>      Mr Robin Webb
>      Intellectual Property Policy Directorate
>      The Patent Office
>      Concept House
>      Cardiff Road
>      Newport
>      South Wales
>      NP10 8QQ
>
>      Tel: +44 (0)1633 814767
>      Fax: +44 (0)1633 814922
>      E-Mail: robin.webb@patent.gov.uk
>
>
> Der britische Vorschlag  lautet:
>
> http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/issues/software.htm
>
> Software: Illustrative Amendment of EPC Article 52 for Discussion
> Purposes
>
> The UK Government published its position in March 2001. It is that
> the principle that software should only be patentable where there is
> a technical effect is right, but that action is needed to clarify the
> law. Business methods should remain unpatentable.
>
> The Government believes that in expressing this position revision of
> the EPC should meet several conditions:
>
> the objective of revision should be to clarify, rather than change,
> what is patentable; the change to the EPC should be the minimum
> necessary for the purpose. Keeping as close as possible to the
> existing wording will also minimise the risk of unforeseen legal side
> effects that can result from any change to wording; the end result
> must be clear, so the software industry can understand what can and
> cannot be patented. This also points to keeping changes simple
> complex wording would inevitably lead to a long period of uncertainty
> as a new body of case law on its interpretation gets established; the
> Convention should as far as possible continue to treat every
> exclusion in the same way, without introducing special rules for
> programs or business methods; patentability should not depend on the
> right form of claim.
>
> Illustrative amendment of article 52 for discussion purposes
>
> 52(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all
> fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an
> inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application.
>
> 52(2) The following shall not be regarded as inventions within the
> meaning of paragraph 1 unless in their inventive step they make an
> inventive technological contribution to the state of the art:
>
> (a) mathematical methods;
>
> (b) aesthetic creations;
>
> (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing
> games or doing business, and programs for computers;
>
> (d) presentations of information.
>
> They shall not be regarded as making a technological contribution
> merely [only?] because they use or are used by technological devices
> [or processes] such as a tool, computer or communications system.
>
> 52(3) Discoveries and scientific theories as such shall not be
> regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1.
>
> [The old 52(3) is deleted.]
>
> Notes
>
> 1. The approach we have adopted treats all exclusions the same way so
> far as possible and avoids introducing special rules for programs or
> business methods. (The reference to a "tool" at the end of 52(2)
> emphasises this: a painting does not become patentable merely because
> the painter uses a paint brush, and likewise a business method should
> not become patentable merely because it uses a computer.) The only
> exceptions are discoveries and scientific theories, where the words
> ‘as such’ have not led to uncertainty, and which would not fit well
> into the wording of 52(2). Unlike all the other exclusions they
> relate to what is essentially a pre-existing state of affairs, so
> talking about their "inventive step" and "technological contribution"
> doesn’t make sense.
>
> 2. The wording keeps the "technical" requirement in Article 52 whilst
> acknowledging that the assessment cannot be divorced entirely from
> the other assessments required by Article 52(1). 3.We have considered
> simpler versions for the wording of the first part of 52(2), but they
> do not convey the required meaning:
>
> "unless they make an inventive technological contribution" could
> cause uncertainty because 52(1) would be using one term (inventive
> step) whilst 52(2) would be using a different one (inventive
> technological contribution).
>
> "unless in their inventive step they make a technological
> contribution" could be interpreted as meaning that, say, a business
> method whose inventive step includes both technological and non-
> technological features could be patented even if the technological
> contribution was obvious, so long as the invention as a whole was not
> obvious.
>
> 4. We have adopted the word "technological" rather than "technical"
> simply because when we consulted commercial interests, we discovered
> that the financial industry were confused by the existing wording as
> they talk about the work of, say, an accountant as being "technical".
>
> 5. It is questionable whether " or processes " is really necessary,
> but we felt it was probably best to include it.
>
> Last updated 13 February 2002
>
> ------------------------------- CUT -------------------------------
>
> ==^================================================================
> This email was sent to: phm@a2e.de
>
> EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiHs.a2jybo
> Or send an email to: intprop-l-unsubscribe@topica.com
>
> T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
> http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
> ==^================================================================
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Swpat mailing list
> Swpat@ffii.org
> http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/swpat
>



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: debate-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: debate-help@lists.fitug.de