Re: [Fsfe-uk] UKPatentOffice Workshops

[MJ Ray]

James asked:
> Were there any reactions or points made that stay in the mind, about
> either Definition 1 or 2  ?
> 
> Any comments from lawyers, for example ?

Only one stands out: One gentleman disliked definitions 2 and
3 because they defined themselves in terms of themselves too
much. I believe he liked the way 2 illustrated the end points,
but criticised it for not showing the boundary. I'm pretty sure
he was a patent agent. I'm surprised a similar comment didn't
apply to 1's non-definition of "technical" or "contribution".

Within the group around the table with me, 1 and 2 were thought
to be the best definitions and 2 brought more consensus about
yes/no choices, but I don't remember much common view about
correctness.  Being told to assume everything was novel and
non-obvious let a lot of things past that were pretty borderline,
as far as I can tell, even with these definitions. Some of 1 just
restates the novelty requirement.

My mind during the comments was pretty clouded. There was an
reference early to how if we are left relying on a definition of
a pair of words, then we're already lost and it doesn't matter
whether it's "as such" or "technical contribution". I have a
lot of sympathy for that point, so it distracted me. After 90
minutes in a shaded strip-lit room with no coffee, my mind was
waning. I'd've walked out in the slack time if I'd known it
was long enough to get all the way outside and back.

[On the FFII list thing, I'm not bothered by search engine
indexing.  Needing to get a login is just enough incentive to
stop spending time reading around this issue right now.]

-- 
MJR/slef
http://www.affs.org.uk/~mjr/swpatws200503/