Do you want to
pay an extra $130 ($100 cost of drive plus 30% profit margin) on your new PS3 for a DRM-laden drive that can 'punish' you? No thanks.
Unit cost != unit price. SONY cannot charge infinitely much for the console; they need to make their money on games. Now if people don't want to pirate these games -or movies- (even though its doubtful whether that's anything a hardware manufacturer -rather than the authorities- have a right to 'punish' anyone or anyone's property for) at all, but just run something different (unwelcome/unauthorized != necessarily illegal) so much rather than the manufacturer's games (fluffy penguins come to mind), there is no justification for 'punishment' just because the vendor never gets to the "4. Profit!!!" part of the equation.
...Or, you could by an Xbox and support Microsoft. Which is worse?
Why would anyone have supported Microsoft by buying an Xbox? Support for their wallets could come from buying Xbox games, but quite probably that's hardly what anyone on/. primarily bought an Xbox for...;-)
Wasn't the saying something along the lines of "In capitalist Redmond, the vendor is 'punished' by you" ?
They are reported (with promising pictures) in TFA and its predecessor, but the one vendor link still working shows an only 4-foot short version - insufficient for most places where Ethernet cables are required. Now that/.ers are unlikely to join M$ TechNet for the privilege, where else could one buy the "just-about-long-enough" 10-foot/3+ meters (or more) "Microsoft" model shown on the TTZ pages?
a guy who works for Microsoft and chases virus writers, software counterfeiters, spammers and other suspected law breakers. Can companies really make a difference by helping law enforcement like this?
Yes. Making them "part of The Good Side (that never has anything to hide) [TM] by definition" conveniently takes any contribution by their own security shortcomings out of the equation. Moreover, this finally makes it possible to expose e.g. some freshly-jailed 17-year-old fledgling worm writer as the one single pariah solely responsible for all evil on the Internet, at joint press conferences with federal agencies, along with BSA-style damage assessment.
Basically - if we know we want a prospect in China, Korea, etc. to use our site, we'll open something for them - otherwise they should just go the heck away.
If enough people -j DROP China, etc., maybe somethign will get done about. (I know - wishful thinking).
Then you are exceptionally lucky, but many companies could never be found by their customers without a web site and working eMail contacts in the first place.
Don't expect the justice departments or the police anywhere on Earth to figure out that their whole nations got blocked for spam or hacking either. However, do tell them about your reasons, and what you think it means for them. One eMail or fax/phone call costs you very little extra time and money, compared to what you have already spent on parsing the logs and setting up the blocks anyway. There is hardly any nation that doesn't offer some possibility to contact its DoJ/MoJ/police force, its embassy or a CERT - in English: Most governments know they badly need the connectivity, and do care about public perception in the world - so it won't be long before they apply or amend their criminal code - and if they send law enforcement round, it is often quite likely to make much more of an impact on the perpetrators than anyone would expect in the West.
As Scott Granneman of SecurityFocus writes on The Register:
It's hard enough to convince law enforcement to followup on a cyber crime; it's harder still when the hacker lives in another country.
Anyway, it's an effort well spent. If nothing else, once even a substantial fraction of administrators does alert the authorities at least on major incidents, both domestic and foreign investigators and lawmakers will realize the true extent of these problems, and the need for improved international cooperation and laws without loopholes.
Big, bad downsides of RFID as opposed to barcodes?
on
The End of the Bar Code
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
RFID could spell the end of the ubiquitous bar code. The big draw? Speeding up supply-chain management.
It only sounds harmless because bar codes are hardly known to have ever caused humans to come to harm - but for RFID, see thesesites with a much more down-to-earth discussion of the grave differences, and dangers: RFID could spell the end of much more than just the ubiqitous visible and removable arrays of black and white dots or bars - in fact, when carrying numbered tags (or worse) that most customers can neither see nor conceal, let alone prevent from being read without their consent or knowledge, the outlook may be a rather gloomy one...
Why does it matter what M$ thinks about a proposed new anti-spam bill - or any bill, for that matter?
Shouldn't the only thing that matters be what the people of New Zealand think?
"Once upon a time" (until last year or so) DVI was supposed to simply, slowly supersede VGA and include its signals on the connector - the way to do it right: don't break compatibility for no legitimate reason.
Patents and paranoia are bad arguments to make consumers turn their living rooms into "DRM Detention Centers" - and even pay for their own prisons.
You can vote with your wallet. don't buy this crap. (...)
That is the power we hold. It is the ONLY voice we have as consumer and it is the most powerful one.
Here's one more: Don't be content just to have a voice, do use it to speak up! Whenever there's a news media article about the latest wormage bringing down "the Internet", "the world", and "live as we know it", with a page full of "survival" checklists insisting that everyone needed to purchase half a dozen extra tools (i.e. what is now published almost daily), write a brief letter to the editor describing how only one particular OS seems to be hit that hard almost all the time, how it doesn't affect you all that much, and how (as always) they missed the obvious point of recommending to their readers to try another OS for free (heck, it will do for most!). Snail-mail it. Include something like a Knoppix DVD with your letter every single time.
Chances are they'll be using the first few of them as coasters, but by the time they have a penguin under each and every coffee cup, the next disk simply has to end up in a drive - and if it's not on a Mac, it won't be long until the next reboot that finally launches it... and makes them listen.
As previously discussed on some obscure little site known as "Slashdot"...
Admittedly not the most authoritative source on Earth;-), and I do not pretend to have the memory nor the command of Russian to assess which side to the argument should prevail - so queryWikipedia et al. for the detailed timeline.
Yeah, the Buran was fully completed and in some ways technologically superior to the US space shuttle
But leave it to the Russians...they spent all the money to develop it, didn't do much of anything with it and now one is rotting somewhere in Kazakstan, and another was found in the middle of a desert somewhere by a bunch of German journalists.
...where it has been purchased and is expected to come on display at the twin sites of a not-so-small "museum" in the Heidelberg-Karlsruhe area this year, next to other "little" exhibits such as an Antonov AN-22, a Boeing 747 and a Concorde, also along with its Russian knockoff, the Tupolev TU-144.
Now all they need for the perfect theme park with a zero-G space flight experience would be a working high-efficiency implementation of another alleged marvel of Russian engineering, known as the Podkletnov effect - so if you too happen to have successfully tinkered with gravity-defying superconductors in your garage, do give them a call.;-))
Last time I checked, grass would not grow at 7.5 millibar, on a "soil" of iron oxide - or in other words, on what seems similar to an old junkyard in near-vacuum conditions for most organisms from Planet Earth...
Maybe the key to making that story seem plausible lies in using quite a different kind of "grass"?;-)
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Sure enough everyone around here can name a few...
And now that the authorities also want to start
using RFID tags in (...) certain visitors' papers (...) embedded in paperwork (...)
RFID chips in license plates that can transmit (...) data to appropriate receivers.
(combined with all the RFID technology deployed commercially!) the additional problem is that you won't even be able to notice either whether they also transmit data just as easily to inappropriate receivers.
But don't worry, of course there will be embedded technical "security features" one day to allow only "authorized" surveillance - and we all know that every government use of information technology always is mathemagically proven to be 100% unhackable forever...;-/
It does not matter who the censor is: for prominent buildings in the public view (whether for decades or even centuries) it's always a bad idea from the start.
Ridiculous as it is, there'll always be someone more, just as paranoid for the perceived "protection by hiding something", crying "you have to hide my house, too" - so in the long run, anyone who's ever censored anything ends up having to censor pretty much everything.
In other words, the textbook example of a slippery slope...
From the office of Linus Torvalds
Date: 10.31.2008
To: BillG
From: Linus
(...)
When you hired me three years ago, you had to realize that I was going to speak my mind, no matter what the consequences. You told me that if I ever hit a wall with Steve or his people, I should let you know.
(...)
Myself, I thought I was making some pretty outrageous demands. I was stunned when you agreed to accept the General Public License mandating that everything you added at the level of the new operating system would remain open. But you've been true to your side of the bargain, and you've won my respect. You never made me alter my goal, which was world domination for Linux. I'll never forget your line: "Come on, Linus, infect the mothership." I still believe that was the best recruiting pitch ever uttered. We both took a lot of criticism from our partisans, but look what we've accomplished. The world is using software that doesn't suck!
dignity and responsibility come on your 18th birthday.. Till then you're simply cattle.
18 years of learning that the only way to live is obedience to oppression, surveillance and zero privacy is an excellent way for our kids to become perfectly functional members of an ant colony, and poorly dysfunctional citizens in any democracy.
The happy few who survive until adulthood without becoming suicidal won't know how to make any outrageous demands - you know, such as human rights and similarly "liberal" stuff. As an added benefit of this child conditioning and selection, you'll never have to worry about election recounts again, as everyone brought up this way will have no difficulty accepting dynastic succession...
The article portrays these scanners as if they were new devices just probably about to be introduced soon.
Rather than being afraid of "scary things yet to come", if that has an overtone of "don't panic"..., have a look at this excerpt from a scholarly article (and that's by a Professor of Law) on what was known the technology could do more than half a decade ago already: Froomkin, The Death of Privacy, p. 1499-1501 (p. 39-41 of the PDF).
Resolution 1 millimeter even back then, with drastic explanations of what that means.
I don't think you really need to define "as such", because it is a placeholder, not a carrier of meaning. Pretending that "as such" qualifies somehow software and then trying to define which software is "as such" and which is not is falling in the pro-swpat trap. See http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/epc52/exeg/index.en.html In other words, "as such" in art 52 EPC does not mean anything by itself, so it may be hard to attribute it a meaning with no harm.
I'm not so sure the actual main "pro-swpat" trap really is where you suspect it. The above FFII analysis correctly contrasts two approaches:
Software is not to be separated into two subsets (software as such and other software), but software is universally excluded from patentability.
(...) the Technical Board of Appeal [in Computer Program Product/IBM] says that computer programs are to be divided in the two subsets "software as such" and "other software".
However, the pro-swpat "red herring" rather seems to be the shifting of this debate from "as such" to technicity:
the Board asserts that the limitation "as such" has to be understood in the sense that computer programs as such are only computer programs without a technical character.
The scheme for examining computer-implemented inventions is as follows:
(1) The claimed subject-matter, which by definition includes elements such as a computer or code which is intended to run on a computer, is presumed, prima facie, not to be excluded from patentability by Articles 52(2) and (3) EPC.
(2) The subject-matter of the claim is therefore to be examined for novelty and inventive step. This is done according to the Guidelines for Examination as currently specified. In particular, in the examination for inventive step the objective technical problem solved by the invention as claimed considered as a whole when compared with the closest prior art is to be determined. If no such objective technical problem can be determined, the claim is to be rejected on the ground that its subject-matter lacks an inventive step.
Notes:
1. This scheme makes no mention of the "further technical effect" discussed in T1173/97. There is no need to consider this concept in examination, and it is preferred not to do so for the following reasons: firstly, it is confusing to both examiners and applicants; secondly, the only apparent reason for distinguishing "technical effect" from "further technical effect" in the decision was because of the presence of "programs for computers" in the list of exclusions under Article 52(2) EPC. If, as is to be anticipated, this element is dropped from the list by the Diplomatic Conference, there will no longer be any basis for such a distinction. It is to be inferred that the BoA would have preferred to be able to say that no computer-implemented invention is excluded from patentability by the provisions of Articles 52(2) and (3) EPC.
As to the lack of need to consider "further technical effect", this assertion is based on the proposition that according to the scheme put forward no patent would be granted which should have been refused for lack of further technical effect. This is because the existence of an objective technical problem overcome is itself sufficient proof of the requisite further technical effect. Further, it is to be remarked that this scheme of examination should not lead to refusals where previously a patent would have been granted, since the requirement for an objective technical problem is long-established. The only change is an e
Not to log the IP address (...) will cost them zillions!!!
If the ISP is not logging the IP address, then he is responsibly of the illegal use of that IP.
When any crime is committed using a computer trough a network, the operator of the network must prove that he is not accountable of that crime.
The only way of proving this is pointing out the actual identity of the crime author, showing the pertinent documentation and logs.
Your proposition is ridiculous. If there is no record incriminating anyone, nobody can be held responsible. In all but the most dysfunctional legal systems there has to be a burden of proof when alleging liability, and a presumption of innocence regarding criminal prosecution. There is probably not even one single (legitimate) court on earth which, failing to find anyone responsible, sentences the nearest innocent bystander instead.
BTW, bear in mind that data protection is nothing less than part of a constitutional civil/human right in most civilized societies, making it illegal (even for the state to tolerate) that unnecessary records are being kept on anyone by public officials or private entities. Thus creating (let alone preserving) traffic logs by flat-fee ISPs (other than for very short-term performance/quality assurance or intrusion detection) that can only be used for spying on users or clandestine gathering of data for unsolicited commercial exploitation have no legitimate purpose whatsoever.
Defining terms properly is unavoidable and necessary to have any criteria at all to grant patents. It is not sufficient, you also need an administration faithfully applying criteria, and judges correcting any mistakes. But even the best of those can't work on undefined terms. And deciding which subject matter is to be patentable and which is not is an economic decision that shapes our society, so it should be taken by the legislators, not by the civil servants along the way (besides, the EPO has already shown incompetence when they tried, so the EP must do it).
Of course I wasn't trying to suggest that Rocard's definition (or the Dispositionsprogramm ruling) had no merit; rather, what I have been pointing out is that the EP (especially given current trends in lobbying and their choice of expert counsel) will quite possibly have a very hard time agreeing fast and by a large margin on a watertight and workable definition of all things "technical" (if there is such a thing - Dispositionsprogramm was slowly sidestepped as well!), as everyone around keeps telling them it is not feasible (out of experience, no matter how abusive the circumstances that shaped it).
Therefore, it makes sense to have another "line of defense" clarifying the meaning of "as such" to make sure none of the subject matters mentioned in the exceptions can be considered an invention under Article 52 EPC (which makes most software, even if "concealed" as something else, come under one exception or another anyway - business methods, mathematics, mental rules etc.).
In fact, I am not opposed to Rocard's attempt (and previous ones in the same tradition) to try and define "technical" anyway (nor did I advocate a removal of the requirement for a teaching to be technical / have technical effect): My warning just refers to the risk of relying on the fact that a such definition must be feasible, as there is the other approach (subject matter exception properly construed) of plugging the loopholes for software patents, which is no less consistent with both the Dispositionsprogramm test and the wording of the EPC (as it was meant to be) by the way.
In other words, by Monday all MEPs should be acquainted with the idea that the solution must not necessarily lie in a definition of "technical" that is both brilliant and susceptible of getting a qualified majority - i.e. for the questioning of their experts, they should also prepare (at least as a "backup plan") their set of bullet points on clarifying "as such" (no matter whether complementarily or "instead").
The main thrust should be on throwing out the "(Un)Common Position" - they should be prepared to acknowledge that it may now be beyond repair (at least in a way that quickly finds sufficiently firm majority support), or badly need further patches in unexpected places (e.g. fixing the "as such" bug "as there are exploits in the wild for it";->, not just trying to find the omitted definitions of "technical" etc.).
Legal terminology with no definition has no meaning and cannot be applied.
a) The problem: there is "prior art", rocard's definition is widely accepted in patent law and we have no seen a better alternative yet.
b) AIPPI is a lobbying organisation of patent professionals, a "biased" source. Less polite: these are patent professionals who want to change the system for their own benefit, extent the scope of patentability.
The problem is that legal terminology where the only definitions anyone can come up with are very vague ones (that possibly remain less clear than ever even after decades of practice and litigation) creates uncertainty - the recipe for disaster especially in a system that aims to protect the "small inventor" (as well as on the eve of a vote that requires an overwhelming parliamentary majority).
The more workable way is to draw the line at a different point, i.e. where the framers of the EPC actually put it in the early 1970s, and simply say that "software is not an invention in the sense of these provisions - period." - and then simply clarify the controversial "as such" to mean that no new and inventive contraption (i.e. novel and non-obvious by features other than software) is excluded simply because it uses software internally. From the wording and history of Article 52 EPC, it does appears quite likely that this is precisely what "as such" was supposed to mean anyway.
Of course the patent lawyer lobby (AIPPI) would love to leave as many terms undefined as possible so as to be able to argue in every case for a definition of the word that suits their client, meaning and ever expanding patentable subject matter. (...)
Reading that pdf just gives the impression of
an unconclusive account of a committee meeting
which found there is big confusion on what "technical" means.
Actually, it shows "the world's greatest" experts and practitioners still grappling to come to terms with their own preferred approach (even after all these years) - suggesting that it is an overly uncertain and hence unworkable one.
The more convincing conclusion to be drawn by the EP/JURI from the above difficulties of defining "technical" (and related terms) is to avoid getting entangled in such attempts at all - and simply draw the dividing line elsewhere, i.e. in a place where exact distinctions are possible:
There is no difficulty in defining e.g. "algorithms" and "software", so it is much more feasible to eliminate their patentability once and for all as well (imagine Article 52 EPC without an "as such" loophole).
Rather than (vainly) trying to determine which software("-implemented") concepts may be patentable, this foils all attempts to trick patent offices and courts into believing that pure computer code, mathematics or business methods could ever (and "ever more exceptionally", until even "considerations" thereof become patentable, as we have had to witness under the EPC already) manipulate the "forces of nature" at all in a patentable way.
The EP's real risk in playing the difficult (if not inextricable) "defining technicality" game instead is that it may either inadvertently leave yet another loophole somewhere, or experience the effect of this divisive issue by failing to get the required "super-majority" to agree (in time!) on one single "perfect" definition - failing to do which it is procedurally deemed to agree to the dreadful Council draft (Common Position on Second Reading under Article 251 of the EC Treaty).
EXCO Lisbon 2002
REPORT
Special Committee Q132 - Computer software, information networks, artificial intelligence and integrated circuits
(...)
2. As regards question 3 and the definition of the term technical, it seems that practically no country has a clear definition. However, those countries which suggested a definition, seem to follow a definition suggested by the Spanish group (citing Professor Bercowitz [one of the experts to appear before the EP Committee on Monday, BTW!]). He states that what is meant by "technology" encompasses the following: "Today, "technology" is used... as an ensemble of man's means of action on the forces of Nature" and also "Society has begun to consider the expression "technical" as a synonym of "industrial technology" [not a workable substitute either, though, as "industria/el/l" has vague and widely diverging meanings in various European languages]".
3. As regards question 5 of the Questionnaire: "Is the definition of "technical" useful according to your group in defining the patentability of an invention?" 10 groups (AR, EC, GE, DE, IE, KR, ZA, ES, SE and US) answered "NO". 4 groups (BR, FR, CH and GB) have a qualified response. 6 groups did not answer. Only 14 responses out of 34 are an unequivocal "YES" (AU, BG, CA, CH, CS, FI, GR, IN, JP, LT, LV, PL, PO, RU and UA). This last number is particularly low. Usually, in our association, when we ask whether a question should be submitted for further study, the response is generally "YES" by a high majority. This seems to show that a majority of the groups considers that trying to define the words "technical" or "technology" is a dead-end, despite the difficulties caused by the use of these terms.
Slashdot Mirror
SONY cannot charge infinitely much for the console; they need to make their money on games. Now if people don't want to pirate these games -or movies- (even though its doubtful whether that's anything a hardware manufacturer -rather than the authorities- have a right to 'punish' anyone or anyone's property for) at all, but just run something different (unwelcome/unauthorized != necessarily illegal) so much rather than the manufacturer's games (fluffy penguins come to mind), there is no justification for 'punishment' just because the vendor never gets to the "4. Profit!!!" part of the equation.Why would anyone have supported Microsoft by buying an Xbox?
Support for their wallets could come from buying Xbox games, but quite probably that's hardly what anyone on
Wasn't the saying something along the lines of "In capitalist Redmond, the vendor is 'punished' by you" ?
They are reported (with promising pictures) in TFA and its predecessor, but the one vendor link still working shows an only 4-foot short version - insufficient for most places where Ethernet cables are required. Now that /.ers are unlikely to join M$ TechNet for the privilege, where else could one buy the "just-about-long-enough" 10-foot/3+ meters (or more) "Microsoft" model shown on the TTZ pages?
Don't expect the justice departments or the police anywhere on Earth to figure out that their whole nations got blocked for spam or hacking either. However, do tell them about your reasons, and what you think it means for them. One eMail or fax/phone call costs you very little extra time and money, compared to what you have already spent on parsing the logs and setting up the blocks anyway. There is hardly any nation that doesn't offer some possibility to contact its DoJ/MoJ/police force, its embassy or a CERT - in English: Most governments know they badly need the connectivity, and do care about public perception in the world - so it won't be long before they apply or amend their criminal code - and if they send law enforcement round, it is often quite likely to make much more of an impact on the perpetrators than anyone would expect in the West.
Anyway, it's an effort well spent. If nothing else, once even a substantial fraction of administrators does alert the authorities at least on major incidents, both domestic and foreign investigators and lawmakers will realize the true extent of these problems, and the need for improved international cooperation and laws without loopholes.It's actually just disturbing, or sad - (except for utter sarcasm) there is no fun in these affairs whatsoever.
Patents and paranoia are bad arguments to make consumers turn their living rooms into "DRM Detention Centers" - and even pay for their own prisons.
Here's one more: Don't be content just to have a voice, do use it to speak up! Whenever there's a news media article about the latest wormage bringing down "the Internet", "the world", and "live as we know it", with a page full of "survival" checklists insisting that everyone needed to purchase half a dozen extra tools (i.e. what is now published almost daily), write a brief letter to the editor describing how only one particular OS seems to be hit that hard almost all the time, how it doesn't affect you all that much, and how (as always) they missed the obvious point of recommending to their readers to try another OS for free (heck, it will do for most!). Snail-mail it. Include something like a Knoppix DVD with your letter every single time. Chances are they'll be using the first few of them as coasters, but by the time they have a penguin under each and every coffee cup, the next disk simply has to end up in a drive - and if it's not on a Mac, it won't be long until the next reboot that finally launches it... and makes them listen....the Titanic - so from an insurer's point of view, it makes perfect sense to ascertain they bet on something that's really unsinkable this time.
Maybe the key to making that story seem plausible lies in using quite a different kind of "grass"? ;-)
And now that the authorities also want to start (combined with all the RFID technology deployed commercially!) the additional problem is that you won't even be able to notice either whether they also transmit data just as easily to inappropriate receivers.
But don't worry, of course there will be embedded technical "security features" one day to allow only "authorized" surveillance - and we all know that every government use of information technology always is mathemagically proven to be 100% unhackable forever...
Ridiculous as it is, there'll always be someone more, just as paranoid for the perceived "protection by hiding something", crying "you have to hide my house, too" - so in the long run, anyone who's ever censored anything ends up having to censor pretty much everything.
In other words, the textbook example of a slippery slope...
Don't ever even start censoring - it always becomes unstoppable.
The happy few who survive until adulthood without becoming suicidal won't know how to make any outrageous demands - you know, such as human rights and similarly "liberal" stuff. As an added benefit of this child conditioning and selection, you'll never have to worry about election recounts again, as everyone brought up this way will have no difficulty accepting dynastic succession...
Rather than being afraid of "scary things yet to come", if that has an overtone of "don't panic"..., have a look at this excerpt from a scholarly article (and that's by a Professor of Law) on what was known the technology could do more than half a decade ago already: Froomkin, The Death of Privacy, p. 1499-1501 (p. 39-41 of the PDF).
Resolution 1 millimeter even back then, with drastic explanations of what that means.
Now... panic!
I'm not so sure the actual main "pro-swpat" trap really is where you suspect it. The above FFII analysis correctly contrasts two approaches:
However, the pro-swpat "red herring" rather seems to be the shifting of this debate from "as such" to technicity:
Now it is quite interesting to consider what the EPO president makes of this in the trilateral discussions (in the instance, on allowing even BMPs) in http://www.european-patent-office.org/tws/appendix 6.pdf:
BTW, bear in mind that data protection is nothing less than part of a constitutional civil/human right in most civilized societies, making it illegal (even for the state to tolerate) that unnecessary records are being kept on anyone by public officials or private entities. Thus creating (let alone preserving) traffic logs by flat-fee ISPs (other than for very short-term performance/quality assurance or intrusion detection) that can only be used for spying on users or clandestine gathering of data for unsolicited commercial exploitation have no legitimate purpose whatsoever.
Therefore, it makes sense to have another "line of defense" clarifying the meaning of "as such" to make sure none of the subject matters mentioned in the exceptions can be considered an invention under Article 52 EPC (which makes most software, even if "concealed" as something else, come under one exception or another anyway - business methods, mathematics, mental rules etc.).
In fact, I am not opposed to Rocard's attempt (and previous ones in the same tradition) to try and define "technical" anyway (nor did I advocate a removal of the requirement for a teaching to be technical / have technical effect):
My warning just refers to the risk of relying on the fact that a such definition must be feasible, as there is the other approach (subject matter exception properly construed) of plugging the loopholes for software patents, which is no less consistent with both the Dispositionsprogramm test and the wording of the EPC (as it was meant to be) by the way.
In other words, by Monday all MEPs should be acquainted with the idea that the solution must not necessarily lie in a definition of "technical" that is both brilliant and susceptible of getting a qualified majority - i.e. for the questioning of their experts, they should also prepare (at least as a "backup plan") their set of bullet points on clarifying "as such" (no matter whether complementarily or "instead").
The main thrust should be on throwing out the "(Un)Common Position" - they should be prepared to acknowledge that it may now be beyond repair (at least in a way that quickly finds sufficiently firm majority support), or badly need further patches in unexpected places (e.g. fixing the "as such" bug "as there are exploits in the wild for it" ;->, not just trying to find the omitted definitions of "technical" etc.).
The more workable way is to draw the line at a different point, i.e. where the framers of the EPC actually put it in the early 1970s, and simply say that "software is not an invention in the sense of these provisions - period." - and then simply clarify the controversial "as such" to mean that no new and inventive contraption (i.e. novel and non-obvious by features other than software) is excluded simply because it uses software internally. From the wording and history of Article 52 EPC, it does appears quite likely that this is precisely what "as such" was supposed to mean anyway.
The more convincing conclusion to be drawn by the EP/JURI from the above difficulties of defining "technical" (and related terms) is to avoid getting entangled in such attempts at all - and simply draw the dividing line elsewhere, i.e. in a place where exact distinctions are possible:
There is no difficulty in defining e.g. "algorithms" and "software", so it is much more feasible to eliminate their patentability once and for all as well (imagine Article 52 EPC without an "as such" loophole).
Rather than (vainly) trying to determine which software("-implemented") concepts may be patentable, this foils all attempts to trick patent offices and courts into believing that pure computer code, mathematics or business methods could ever (and "ever more exceptionally", until even "considerations" thereof become patentable, as we have had to witness under the EPC already) manipulate the "forces of nature" at all in a patentable way.
The EP's real risk in playing the difficult (if not inextricable) "defining technicality" game instead is that it may either inadvertently leave yet another loophole somewhere, or experience the effect of this divisive issue by failing to get the required "super-majority" to agree (in time!) on one single "perfect" definition - failing to do which it is procedurally deemed to agree to the dreadful Council draft (Common Position on Second Reading under Article 251 of the EC Treaty).