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

[Bernhard Kaindl]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Ramanan Selvaratnam wrote:
Mc> Out of over 110,000 applications received at the EPO in 2001,
Mc> 16,000 will have dealt with inventions in computer-implemented
Mc> technologies. Inded, even without an EU directive, these patents
Mc> will continue to be filed,
Mv> not only to the EPO but also to national patent offices.

> 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.

She wrote 'dealt with inventions in computer-implemented technologies.'
which is (in her book, AFAICT) just a longer descriptive form of
'something new and useful which uses a computer'
which I think boilds down to computer-implemented inventions.

I think she wants to make people think that 'computer-implemented inventions'
refers only to technical apparatuses which use use software, but in fact I
think the term can just be software as such also (if not big care is taken
at it's definition)

  So in her definition I think,

        'inventions in computer-implemented technologies'
        'computer-implemented inventions'
        'the ideas used to run computers used in a technical field...'
                (= software, but she understands software not as ideas
                   but as the bytes compromising a compiled program...)
                        (As far as I understood

  can be all the same, the first two are just also ranging into
  the physical world.

You can hear her talking(transcriptions are also on this page):

        http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/JuriRecordingsEn

I've recording which is not as much overdriven, but I think she would not
have needed an amplifier for her talk, I really had to turn my local
amplifier quite drastically to avoid it for most of the speach.

If somebody could help me in getting my recordings online (for the better
audio quality and I also have the german audio channel of this meeting),
I would be very happy.

I refer to her first talk in this meeting, which is already transcribed at:

        http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/JuriMccarthyone

                Quote: "We are not here patenting software per se."

Now I really have question what is her definition of "software per se".

I think her definition must be different than mine.

> >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.

I must apologize, I have not looked deep enough. Checking some key
decisions, I see that the UK rejects software patents in case law.

Some pages, starting with this link made me think so:
http://swpat.ffii.org/players/hayward/index.en.html

But I forgot even if it would be true that some important people from
the UK work towards patenting software, the law is different and seems
to be applied this way also, I have to apologize.

> Maybe they are all hiding for the right moment like the proposed EU
> directive on software patents to materialise.

Sure, there will be a gold rush for patents for a while as elaborated
here:

http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/inflation/index.en.html#lnd

But then the negative effects will start to show, at least if
software per se becomes enforceable(like the US practise shows,
eg. eBay litigation, Amazon One-click)

> >>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.

At least patents would be too much, I think. The protection for
software in this area should be against copying so I think they would
have to control all instances were such software is used from a centralzied
server using secure keys, but security measusres against technology
spying and stealing would be needed in such area already so they only
need to extend it to the world of software internally. They don't need
to impose this thru patents to the rest of the world.

> >>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>

This might be a question for address@hidden(there are the real experts...)
but I guess they will not say much more than:

The Directionate General Internal Market(DG IM) of the European Commission
say at:
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indprop/comp/02-32.htm

| Would the Amazon "one-click" shopping cart ordering model be patentable
| under the Commission proposal?

| The European Patent Office has yet to come to a decision on the related
| European application, so it would not be appropriate to comment on
| whether there is any patentable subject-matter in the application as a
| whole. However, a patent with the breadth of claims which has been
| granted in the United States would be highly unlikely to be considered to
| make a "technical contribution" in the EU under the terms of the proposed
| Directive.

So we will see...

Maybe it's just waiting for the directive to pass, otherwise there would
be a hugh cry all around euope if it would be granted right before the
plenary and it would be
(altogh it does not affect the EPO directly, I think it will indirectly)

BTW, there just shortly, an IBM eBusiness patent application has been
made public:

http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=WO03055170&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD

It is designated for all around europe as well. As it is public, I guess
it must be granted or not?

-> It's also really annoying the patent publication is still done in
   "graphic" form, so you have to use OCR to get the data, this looks
   quite like if they do not want to have easy, efficient patent
   examination for SMEs...

I think this last IBM Patent issue is really for address@hidden

Bernhard