[A2k] "Gérald Sédrati-Dinet (Gibus): Re: US Federal Circuit to Consider Software Patentability
erik.hjalmar.josefsson at gmail.com
Wed Oct 10 01:56:21 PDT 2012
On 10/10/12 01:32, Gérald Sédrati-Dinet wrote:
> And of course amici filed for Bilsky can be a source of inspiration
What I am missing ever since 2003 is a US take on the EP's first reading
on the swpat directive:
Is there anything there that the Peer-to-Patent people likes? Or
dislikes? Or have been inspired by?
Regardless of the merits of the Peer-to-Patent strategy, when your focus
is set on asking volunteers to find prior art, you still have to know
what subject matter you are asking people to look for, don't you?
If this question was debated a bit more instead of dismissed with a
plain "the Subject Matter ship has sailed", then maybe volunteers could
make an informed assessment whether it's worth the effort to look for
regexps, or whether other solutions to the software patent problem are
Here are some goodies I think:
Recital (17) Furthermore, an algorithm is inherently non-technical and therefore cannot constitute a technical invention. Nonetheless, a method involving the use of an algorithm might be patentable provided that the method is used to solve a technical problem. However, any patent granted for such a method should not monopolise the algorithm itself or its use in contexts not foreseen in the patent.
Article 2 b) "technical contribution", also called "invention" , means a contribution to the state of the art in a field of technology . The technical character of the contribution is one of the four requirements for patentability. Additionally, to deserve a patent, the technical contribution has to be new, non-obvious, and susceptible of industrial application. The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a field of technology. The processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a field of technology, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes;
Article 3. Member States shall ensure that data processing is not considered to be a field of technology within the meaning of patent law, and that innovations in the field of data processing are not considered to be inventions within the meaning of patent law.
Article 7.3. Member States shall ensure that the production, handling, processing, distribution and publication of information, in whatever form, can never constitute direct or indirect infringement of a patent, even when a technical apparatus is used for that purpose.
More information about the A2k