[A2k] the regexp question (was Re: NYT: patents as swords)

Halbersztadt Jozef (jothal) jozef.halbersztadt at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 10:10:37 PST 2013

2013/1/16 Erik Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson at gmail.com>:

> Btw, I think you could say the preliminary report we commissioned kind
> of showed that there is virtually no statistical trace of EPC Articles
> 52.2 and 52.3 in the EPO output:
>     *[hub] Posting of M-CAM report on Questionable Outputs from the
>     European Patent Office*
>     http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2012-December/000029.html

Adam Gierek, MEP asked the European Commission

"The intellectual property rights associated with ICT standards can
apply to patents covering computer programmes granted by the patent
offices of some non‐European countries, for instance the USA. The
application of these standards on the basis of the FRAND (fair,
reasonable and non‐discriminatory) obligation may require the purchase
of licences for patents not recognised in EU Member States.

Is it not the case that these standards will act as a sort of first
step towards the EU's formal recognition of software patents?"

As we know, the first step was many years ago. EPO has granted
thousands software patents which were e.g. applied to MPEG standards.
FRAND licenses for MPEG are collected throughout Europe.

The Commission answered:

"In the US, contrary to the EU, software is patentable. If a standard
includes a technology covered by a software patent in the US, the
implementer of such a standard will need to license it to sell
products in the US. If the implementer wishes to market in Europe, no
such licence will be required."

This statement can be used in court? In Europe MPEG patent licenses
are not required?

'JotHal' jozef [dot] halbersztadt [at] gmail [dot] com
Internet Society Poland http://www.isoc.org.pl

More information about the A2k mailing list