Re: [Fsfe-uk] Fwd: UK Leading Patents?

[Alex Hudson]

On Fri, 2002-03-08 at 18:50, Ramin Nakisa wrote:
> Here they are.  Some seem to have been split into multiple patent numbers.  
> If you want to go into any in detail just email me.

As far as I'm aware, none of these are UK Patents (except by proxy). To
recap, the claims are:

+ UKPTO are driving the EPO toward complete patentability for software;
+ the UK is in favour of 'patent inflation';
+ the 'technical effect' requirement is software patentability through
the backdoor.

To be honest, having read most of what has been linked up here, I'm not
really buying into much of this. I would gladly be better informed if
this wasn't the case, but directing criticism at the UKPTO seems mostly
unjustified.

Firstly, I don't think technical effect is necessarily double-talk. We
have a situation where you are able to apply for patents to physical
devices; i.e., those which have a physical effect. Many of these,
though, could be implementable via other means: if there was no
technical effect, it would be possible to bypass a number of patents
simply by implementing them in software (at least partially). Whether
you would agree with the granting of the patent in the first place is
not the point; the system would not work without this clause - to not
have it in would be nonsensical.

Technical effect is problematic. It is essentially undefinable, but I
don't believe it to be the huge hole that the various websites make it
out to be. If the were, then people would have used it already.
Technical effect has been part of British law for years (1977).
Technical effect must apply to an industry already patentable (i.e., not
software). For example, it is not possible to patent a painting.
However, if you were to paint a circuit which did something you might be
able to do it - the fact it is painted doesn't exempt it automatically.

UKPTO has been calling for technical effect to be clarified. However, I
just don't see how UKPTO has been shaping EPO opinion - T0935/97
happened in '97 (obviously), which is five years ago. The case had been
brewing for longer; I haven't found the initial application but that
would have been mid-nineties at the latest. UKPTO interpretation of the
'technical effect' was influenced by this decision; not the other way
around (unless anyone has contradictory evidence?).

If you believe the 'technical effect' clause can be removed, I think
you're essentially asking for the end of the patent system, or at least
a radically different one. I personally don't think it will happen,
especially since this isn't a software-only thing. There are quite
clearly major problems with the patent system, but I don't see how UKPTO
is involved in this, other than through the fact that a lot of patent
litigation happens in the UK (in general), and that the current guidance
on whether or not software is patentable is considered wholly inadequate
(which I think we all agree it is).

I still see the problem as a European one. I haven't seen any evidence
which supports the claims which were posted to this list, which makes
the UKPTO/BSA/UK Govt. appear to be in the same league as the Bilderburg
group. I would welcome further information though - if anyone can show
me that the UK Govt. is pushing software patents in Europe, then I will
be a vocal lobbyist against this action. But, I don't see it. It still
seems (to me) to be a European issue which we must attack as Europeans
at the European level, all of us.

Cheers,

Alex.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part