Re: Softwarepatente abgelehnt

[PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>]

> > Den hat es gegeben, aber von dem floss nichts in den "Gemeinsamen
> > Standpunkt" des Rates ein -- abgesehen von ein paar belanglosen
> > Verunstaltungen wie den Wuermelingschen "Trivialvorgaengen" in
> > Erwaegungsgrund 14.
> 
> Dann hätte es doch sicher keines Artikel 4a bedurft, oder?

Auch Artikel 4a gelangte vom EPA ueber den Rat in JURI und von dort zurueck 
in den Rat.  Es handelt sich dabei um jene Doktrin vom "weiteren 
technischen Effekt", die das EPA selbst in jenem trilateralen Dokument

  http://www.jpo.go.jp/torikumi_e/kokusai_e/tws/appendix6.pdf

als wirkungslosen Notbehelf zur Umgehung des Art 52 EPUe bezeichnet.
Mit dem Standpunkt des Parlamentes vom September 2003 hat er nichts
zu tun, er war bloss einer der wenigen Paragraphen aus der
EPA/Rat/JURI-Ecke, die im Schlachtgetuemmel ueberlebten.  In den
21 Aenderungsantraegen wurde eine recht radikale Korrektur vorgeschlagen,
und sogar die Kommission signalisierte zuletzt die Bereitschaft, diese 
zu akzeptieren.

Hier der Aenderungsantrag Nr. 8, der von praktisch allen Fraktionen 
eingereicht wurde und Schaetzungen zufolge knapp 500 (von erforderlichen
367) Stimmen auf seiner Seite hatte -- man erkennt hieran sehr wohl, warum
die Patentlobby zuletzt energisch die Zurueckweisung der Richtlinie
als ganzer betrieb.

---------------------------

Council:

 A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a
 technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a
 computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly,
 inventions involving computer programs, whether expressed as source
 code, as object code or in any other form, which implement business,
 mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects
 beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the
 computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run
 shall not be patentable.

Rocard-Buzek-Duff Amendment 8:

 A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a
 technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a
 computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly,
 inventions involving computer programs, whether expressed as source
 code, as object code or in any other form, which implement business,
 mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects
 beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the
 computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run
 shall not be patentable.

Justification

 The Council's version is tautological and implies that business
 methods are patentable inventions when they "produce a further
 technical effect", i.e. when they fulfill a condition which the
 European Patent Office, which invented this rhetoric in 1998, has
 admitted to be meaningless.

 Since computers are well known, the presence of a computer can of
 course not by itself constitute a technical contribution. The question
 is whether the presence of a computer in combination with an improved
 algorithm can constitute a technical contribution. By failing to pose
 this question, the Council seems to imply a positive answer. 

 The distinction between "business method" and "invention which
 implements a business method" is a common technique for circumventing
 Art 52 EPC.

 The question of how the "invention" is expressed has never been
 relevant, nor has the distinction between more or less human-readable
 descriptions of programs. This subsentence serves no regulatory
 purpose, apart from insinuating that Art 52(2)c EPC should be
 interpreted in a way that makes it meaningless.

 The sentence "inventions involving ... business methods ..., which
 implement ..., shall not be patentable." is syntactically ambiguous
 but probably means that "business method inventions" are patentable,
 if they "produce a further technical effect".

 The term "normal physical interactions between a program and a
 computer" means about as much as "normal physical interactions between
 a recipe and a cook". 

 In 2000, EPO itself has criticised this wording and explained that it
 was merely a wordplay temporarily used in the IBM decision of 1998 in
 order to circumvent the European Patent Convention, in anticipation of
 a change of law that would render it unnecessary:

 http://www.european-patent-office.org/tws/appendix6.pdf: 

   There is no need to consider the concept of "further technical effect"
   in examination, and it is preferred not to do so for the following
   reasons: firstly, it is confusing to both examiners and applicants;
   secondly, the only apparent reason for distinguishing "technical
   effect" from "further technical effect" in the decision was because of
   the presence of "programs for computers" in the list of exclusions
   under Article 52(2) EPC. If, as is to be anticipated, this element is
   dropped from the list by the Diplomatic Conference, there will no
   longer be any basis for such a distinction. It is to be inferred that
   the Board of Appeals would have preferred to be able to say that no
   computer-implemented invention is excluded from patentability by the
   provisions of Articles 52(2) and (3) EPC.

 This amendment fixes the errors while trying to stay as close to the
 original wording as possible.


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