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

[News] Response from EPOâs Enlarged Board of Appeal Regarding Software Patents Analysed Further

  • Subject: [News] Response from EPOâs Enlarged Board of Appeal Regarding Software Patents Analysed Further
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 00:02:13 +0100
  • Followup-to: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • User-agent: KNode/4.4.2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Appeals body ducks question of software patentability

http://www.techworld.com.au/article/346352/appeals_body_ducks_question_software_patentability?fp=2&fpid=1&rid=1

EPO rules own software patents review inadmissible

,----[ Quote ]
| An unexpected, good result: after more than a 
| year and a half of review (referral G3/08), 
| the EPOâs Enlarged Board of Appeal has 
| declared that the four questions posed were 
| all inadmissible. The patent office is thus 
| does not have the power to decide for itself 
| whether or not software should be patentable. 
`----

http://news.swpat.org/2010/05/epo-patents-review-inadmissible/

Software Patents in Europe-- G 3/08

,----[ Quote ]
| If you believe that no news is good news, 
| then 3/08 is wonderful news because the 61-
| page decision found the referral inadmissible 
| and, therefore, declined to reach the merits.  
| It's an interesting (if non-committal) read, 
| and some of the questions raised are 
| fascinating.  Consider the following:  "Must 
| a claimed feature cause a technical effect on 
| a physical entity in the real world in order 
| to contribute to the technical character of 
| the claim?"  Great question--but the EPO 
| Enlarged Court of Appeal declined to consider 
| this one and all of the others.
`----

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2010/05/software-patents-in-europe-g-308.html

Patenting by Small-Entities

,----[ Quote ]
| The number of small-shop innovators continues 
| to dwindle. In a sample of recently issued 
| patents,* only 20% claim âsmall entityâ 
| status. Of those, 30% (6% of the total) are 
| held by the original inventors.** According 
| to the PTO Rules, large universities and non-
| profits still qualify as for the small entity 
| price-break so long as the patents-in-
| question have not be assigned or licensed to 
| a non-qualifying entity. At least 12% of the 
| small entity patents are assigned to 
| universities or non-profits. These small 
| entities include multi-billion-dollar 
| operations including Battelle Energy 
| Alliance, California Institute of Technology, 
| Princeton University, and the Korean 
| government funded ETRI. The remaining small 
| entity patents are largely held by companies 
| and partnerships such as Audible Magic, 
| PixArt Imaging, and Alverix.
`----

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/05/patenting-by-small-entities.html


Recent:

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.
`----

http://www.nytimes.com/external/idg/2008/10/24/24idg-EU-software-pat.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkvweXUACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6sdgCfVrHtGdgIXztPy0Vs0yTGZNXM
JisAnRn/ZxfFRvuWJ+HmGPuyL14SmU2Q
=CP40
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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