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

[Xavier Drudis Ferran]

Alex Hudson wrote:
> 
> recap, the claims are:
> 
> + UKPTO are driving the EPO toward complete patentability for software;

I think this may be the most diffiuclt to prove, even if it is true. You
can try to assess the honesty in  the analysis of the results of the
consultation, but you can't really expect to find a press release from a
government office saying they're ignoring the law because they don't
like it and they want to get more money by doing something else than
what the law says, so let's just be creative in interpretation. 
People don't give themselves away like this, and lawyers even less. 
So all information may be in the form of discussions, reports heard from
meetings, impressions from long time observing their maneuvers, etc.
Nothing you can get a quotation from or strong evidence to throw on a
table. 

So you may believe Hartmut or not, or you may believe him and yet not
feel well armed enough to charge against the UKPTO. But I think maybe we
don't need to gather so much evidence
on this. However fair or evil the UKPTO is I think it  is only an
administrative body. 
They are not supposed to have any say in what law should be. Only the
MPs the people voted should decide that. I'm quite lost in a system with
case law instead of code law, but 
I hope that much holds. We shouldn't let the police write the law that
protects suspects.

So there should still be reason to believe the government can be
persuaded to take their own decisions and don't accept the UKPTO idea,
simply because the UKPTO do not represent the people, and the government
does. If the UKPTO is like the EPO or the USPTO, it gets more money if
it grants more patents, and rejecting them does not benefit them
financially. 
That is a potential bias to suspect of them. If the government wants to
adopt the UKPTO  
ideas because they think the UKPTO knows better, the government should
at leastbe able 
to explain those ideas. And I think they can't explain what benefit can
be obtained from 
this directive to any critical questioner.

> + the UK is in favour of 'patent inflation';
I'll try to find some minutes from that March the 1st 2002 meeting, but
I doubt I can.
If I could find their support for the directive that would be enough?.
Or do you 
think the directive proposal is not leading to patent inflation?

> + the 'technical effect' requirement is software patentability through
> the backdoor.
> 
That seems obvious to me. Any limitation criteria that is undefined will 
lead to no limits. And once you accept that software is a field of
technology, 
it is difficult to claim that any program does not cause a technical
effect 
when  loaded on a computer. 

> 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.
>
Well I don't know about the UKPTO,but if you've read all those documents 
and still don't see the technical effect / techinal contribution theory 
is not enough without a clear definition of "technical", then your brain 
works different than mine, and we may need to talk a bit more.
 
What I know about the UKPTO is that even if they were fair, they should 
not decide for the government. And you can argue against what they
propose even 
if you don't want to argue what they do, have done and plan for.

> [on technical effect]
I think Hartmut answered already. At least I'll waitfor your answer to
say anything more.

> 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).
>

Ok. Then maybe we can build on what we agree on?. The government needs
to 
make clear that software is not patentable, whatever the UKPTO says.