Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] The European Patent Office Continues to Open Back Door to Software Patents

  • Subject: [News] The European Patent Office Continues to Open Back Door to Software Patents
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 18:44:59 +0100
  • Followup-to: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • User-agent: KNode/4.4.2
Hash: SHA1

European Patent Office rules on software

,----[ Quote ]
| The European Patent Office (EPO) has ended 
| speculation about the extent to which 
| software can be patented under the European 
| Patent Convention with a decision handed 
| down yesterday from its Enlarged Board of 
| Appeal.


Europe clarifies its position on intellectual property

,----[ Quote ]
| Yesterday, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of 
| the European Patent Office (EPO) handed 
| down its long-awaited 'opinion' on the 
| extent to which software can be patented 
| under the European Patent Convention.


Reactions to the EPO computer program patent decision roll in


European Patent Office silent on software patent question

,----[ Quote ]
| No change: That's the result of an 18-month 
| long appeals process that the president of 
| the European Patent Office hoped would 
| clarify the rules on whether software may 
| be patented.
| In October 2008, EPO President Alison 
| Brimelow referred four questions on the 
| patentability of software to the EPO's 
| Enlarged Board of Appeal, its highest 
| appeals court, on the grounds that a number 
| of patent cases had reached "different 
| decisions." 


Patenting Computer-Implemented-Inventions (CIIs) in the EPO


EPO EBoA Opinion in re G 03/08 (Patentability Of Computer-Implemented Inventions)


âSoftwareâ Patents in Europe

,----[ Quote ]
| To be honest, the decision was pretty much 
| expected: the European Patent Office (EPO) 
| has been taking a fairly consistent 
| approach to computer-implemented inventions 
| and has a growing body of learning 
| materials on the subject. 


G 3/08 (Software Patents) decision is out - Tufty the Cat vindicated 

,----[ Quote ]
| As many in the 'FOSS'/anti-patent world 
| would undoubtedly say, perhaps it is now 
| time for the legislator to take over. 
| However, I would have very serious doubts 
| about whether it will be possible to come 
| to any sort of agreement among the member 
| states of either the EU or the EPC that 
| would stand any chance of resolving the 
| issue once and for all.
| [...]
| 6. T 424/03, Microsoft does deviate from a 
| view expressed in T 1173/97, IBM, 
| concerning whether a claim to a program on 
| a computer-readable medium necessarily 
| avoids exclusion from patentability under 
| Article 52(2) EPC. However this is a 
| legitimate development of the case law and 
| there is no divergence which would make the 
| referral of this point to the Enlarged 
| Board of Appeal by the President 
| admissible.


History uploaded to YouTube.... in English:

European Parliament rejects the Software Patent Directive (6 July 2005) (EN) 



European Parliament rejects the Software Patent Directive (6 July 2005) 



EU software patent issue goes to appeals body

,----[ Quote ]
| Alison Brimelow, president of the European Patent Office, has referred the
| deeply contentious question about how to assess the patentability of
| software-related inventions to her office's top appeals body, the enlarged
| board of appeal (EBoA), the EPO said late Friday.
| [....]
| In November 2006 Neal Macrossan, an Australian entrepreneur software
| developer, lost an appeal against the U.K. Patent Office's rejection of his
| patent application. He wanted patent protection for a method for producing
| documents "for use in the formation of a corporate entity using a data
| processing system."
| On the same day the U.K. Court of Appeal threw out a challenge against a
| patent owned by IT company Aerotel for a computer program that created a new
| network infrastructure for a group of computers.
| The three judges presiding over the cases considered the first a business
| method, and therefore unpatentable, while the second was seen as a patentable
| hardware change. Another U.K. judge called for a referral to the EPO's top
| appeals body to clarify the law concerning software patentability.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index