Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Amends Software Patent Directive (Suggestions)

Posted by Hemos on from the still-in-draft-form dept.

jopet writes "The EU has amended its draft proposal for a directive on how to handle patents on "computer-implemented inventions'. Several harsh points have been dropped and clarifications on what is patentable at all have been added. Good to see that protests and petitions can make a difference." YHBT. These are the suggestions from June.

8 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Old draft from June by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It says clearly that the draft is from 18th June 2003 in the top left corner. So how can this be news? Does *anybody* REALLY know/care if all those petitions against eu-it-patents are really still relevant? Does the right hand know what the left hand does? Do petition site owners know what place their petitions belong to? A MEP or (already!) the toilet? I don't know...

    1. Re:Old draft from June by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you check the European Parliament site, you'll find there's a briefing dated 1 September 2003 that implies those amendments are still on track, acknowledging significant differences in opinion among MEPs and concern for the impact on SMEs. The information is still relevant, unless something dramatic has changed this month.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  2. article 4a: exclusions from patentability by sandman4k · · Score: 4, Informative

    One of the most important amendments they added is article 4a:

    Exclusions from patentability:

    A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable

    --
    ...it does not say anything, but it gives an impression...
  3. Main Amendments by Marlor · · Score: 4, Informative
    As far as I can see, here are the amendments that will have the most impact:

    (13a) However, the mere implementation of an otherwise unpatentable method on an apparatus such as a computer is not in itself sufficient to warrant a finding that a technical contribution is present. Accordingly, a computer-implemented business method or other method in which the only contribution to the state of the art is non-technical cannot constitute a patentable invention.

    (13b) If the contribution to the state of the art relates solely to unpatentable matter, there can be no patentable invention irrespective of how the matter is presented in the claims. For example, the requirement for technical contribution cannot be circumvented merely by specifying technical means in the patent claims.

    Article 4a - Exclusions from patentability:
    A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable.

    Article 6a
    Member States shall ensure that wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or network so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement.

    So, business methods and algorithms are not patentable, and normally unpatentable inventions cannot be patented just because they are implemented in a novel way.

    Also, an exemption has been added whereby you can't be charged with patent infringement if you are simply attempting to achieve interoperability with another program.

    Quite a few of the major issues with the legislation have been fixed. I am surprised... politicians have actually listened to the complaints, and not just made token changes.
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: FFII take on it by TeXMaster · · Score: 5, Informative

    An analysis of these amendments is available here

    --
    "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
  6. Re:Is this enough to stop a repeat of LZW? by Michael+Hackl · · Score: 3, Informative

    no LZW will ever be excluded from patentability because you cannot patent anything that is only code, algorithm or formula

    Article 4a

    Exclusions from patentability:

    A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable.

  7. This is NOT the version they will vote on. by klokan · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is the draft version of June 18, which is the one that was supposed to be voted on on 1st September. That vote has been postponed and new changes have been made. Let's wait the real thing, before commenting any further.