Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: [Patents] Re: [Free-sklyarov-uk] Reply from Arlene McCarthy MEP

[Ramanan Selvaratnam]

Hello,

I am subscribed via the FSFE-UK list. Greetings.

Thanks Bernhard, for the forward.

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Note that what I write is aimed as remarks to points and not really
> > suitable for an answer:
> >
> > On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 23:27, phil hunt wrote:
> >    
> >
> > > ------------- begin --------------
> > > Response to your correspondence regarding the draft EU directive on
> > > patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
> > > Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:10:06 +0100 (BST)
> > > From: Arlene McCarthy <address@hidden>
> > > To: address@hidden
> > >      
>
> Wow, You got a reply from Arlene McCarthy,
> [...]
>  

Glad to see our MEP answering public questions.
It would be nice to receive email from MEPs from their official internet 
domains though...

> [...]
>
>
>  
>
> > > Out of
> > > over 110,000 applications received at the EPO in 2001, 16,000 will have dealt
> > > with inventions in computer-implemented technologies. Ind
> > > ed, even without an EU directive, these patents will continue to be filed,
> > > not only to the EPO but also to national patent offices.
> > >      
> > But without the directive proposal, none of them has real legal power.
> >    
I think Arlene is truly confused here.

'computer-implemented technologies' has nothing to do with 
'computer-implemented inventions' which has nothing to do with software patents.


> Except in UK, as far as I have read(AFAIK also against the letter of the
> UK law). 
Well I am yet to see software patent notices highlighting the fact that 
they are UK based.
Maybe they are all hiding for the right moment like the proposed EU 
directive on software patents to materialise.

>  
>
> [...]
>
>  
>
> > > My intention is clear in the amendments tabled and in a new Article 4 in the
> > > text, to preclude; the patentability of software as such; the patentability
> > > of business methods; algorithms; and mathematical methods. Article 4 clearly
> > > states that in order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must
> > > be susceptible to industrial applications, be new, and involve an inventive
> > > step. Moreover I have added a requirement for a technical contribution in
> > > order to ensure that the mere use of a computer does
> > > not lead to a patent being granted.
> > >      
> > All software can be applyed to industrial applications.
> > Nothing in software is so new that it is radically different.
Very true.

We could be more specific at times and  proove that industrial use of 
software depends more on algorithms and mathematical methods.

eg:
The biotechnology industry is increasingly using software to simulate 
and verify/predict physical lab based test results (eg: protein folding).
The physical lab work and any inventiveness involved is very different 
to the nature  and use of software used for such molecular dymanic 
simulations.
This is easily understood by the fact that the software parameters can 
be altered as desired to obtain simulated results.
By laws of nature such alterations do not correlate to real world  
possibilities(as physically observed in the lab) .
So only by applying further automated  computational mathematical models 
the real possibilites are ascertained.
Some creative human input at times may be helpful in setting the 
possible software parameters manually but this is the type of freedom 
required (instead of being curtailed) to ensure  progress in simulation 
technologies.

Copyright law has adequately protected and nutrured the development of 
software in this field (like in every other field) and will continue to 
do so.

Now as an example, if one were to 'invent' a method whereby such 
simulations are 'somehow' connected to physically implement physical 
changes at  atomic level, in the real world (these simulations address 
'possible'  changes at atomic levels)  then probably the term 
'computer-implemented invention' might be applicable.
Otherwise the molecular dynamics simulations will remain as another 
clever extension of software applications.
The traditonal rules governing software alone should be adequate in 
protecting such simulation software for the biotechnology industry.


> > Almost everything rational involves an inventive step. The invention may
> > be utterly irrelevant or obvious, though.
> > What is a technical contribution according to this directive? If you add
> > a restriction that restriction must not be vague or undefined. It should
> > manipulate forces of nature.
> >    
>
> Excellent, AFAICT.
>
>  
>
> > > Furthermore, the amended directive contains new provisions on decompilation
> > > that will assist software developers. While it is not possible to comment on
> > > whether any patent application would be excluded from the directive, the
> > > directive, as amended, would not permit the patentability of Amazon's
> > > 'one-click' method.
> > >      
>
> BTW, the last sentence is a antagonism in itself, if I understand it
> correctly.
>
>  
>
> [...]
>
>
>  
>
> > If they know for sure, then please do explain, because we who know
> > something of the area are convinced that it would pass (just like so
> > many others, for isntance, the test suite at ffii.org).
> >
> > As far as I see it:
> >   "Amazon One-Click Shopping must be a patentable invention
> >   in Europe, because it can be implemented in a mobile phone just as
> >   well as on a general-purpose computer"
> >    

Anyone seen the status of this patent with the EPO?
<http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/effects/1click/index.en.html>