tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post610997938449023677..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: The mess that is the European software patentVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-91419895731373603222014-10-21T17:39:54.296+01:002014-10-21T17:39:54.296+01:00it would not be prudent to allow for the applicati...it would not be prudent to allow for the application of patents for such inventions through the PCT. Thankfully the EPC drafters quickly adopted same exclusion.<a href="http://www.uni-collect.com/uniwebsite/Products/VQNAgency.aspx" rel="nofollow">Uni-source 2000</a><br />Alex monerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02635328221496286054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-69888327184737255232014-09-11T13:37:20.378+01:002014-09-11T13:37:20.378+01:00Sounds like an issue I wouldn't want to touch ...Sounds like an issue I wouldn't want to touch with a 10 foot pole, and I work in the <a href="http://www.ftitechnology.com" rel="nofollow">ediscovery software</a> industry!<br />-JanetAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-52408101296485159482012-10-29T16:01:22.360+00:002012-10-29T16:01:22.360+00:00"In the meantime, no politician is going to t..."In the meantime, no politician is going to touch the issue with a bargepole for the foreseeable future"<br /><br />They do, it is called the Unitary Patent.<br /><br />The directive itself was rejected at the request of the big multinationals that asked to reject the directive, and push for a central patent court instead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76801236937469612082012-10-29T15:52:09.356+00:002012-10-29T15:52:09.356+00:00@Anonymous, 3:22pm.
Sorry, I misunderstood. I'...@Anonymous, 3:22pm.<br /><br />Sorry, I misunderstood. I'm so used to people shooting at me that I forget that other people commenting on Katposts are also targets from time to time!Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-69873002229952484492012-10-29T15:33:58.575+00:002012-10-29T15:33:58.575+00:00From what I know the position in the US is as comp...From what I know the position in the US is as complicated and difficult (even without Mayo and Bilski), and I think it's fair to say that whether or not software is patentable is not an easy question to answer there at the moment. Patently-O wrote about it recently (http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/10/software-patents-50-years-of-circuitous-artifices.html)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-28828539558020124002012-10-29T15:22:28.434+00:002012-10-29T15:22:28.434+00:00I wasn't excusing myself -- I was pointing out...<i>I wasn't excusing myself -- I was pointing out what I had actually said.</i><br /><br />Jeremy, I didn't mean you...I meant Gibus, and how he felt personally targeted by your comment. Somehow he felt that the shoe fitted him.<br /><br />I remember the abuse well, and occasionally was on the receiving end of some of it...I always felt that FFII lost a great many potential allies by antagonising several innocent bystanders, starting with the EPO's staff. Mr. Engelfriet's piece rightly points at the fact that EPO examiners, and even managers, always were a great deal more reluctant to grant patents in that field than the Boards of Appeal. It should be added that, contrary to popular conspiracy theories, the case law of the BoA was hardly dictated with EPO management, which during that whole period was a lot more concerned with reducing the backlog of patent applications than with opening the door to tens of thousands of additional patent applications to that backlog.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4497020702447352082012-10-29T14:59:12.329+00:002012-10-29T14:59:12.329+00:00@Anonymous @2:03pm
I wasn't excusing myself -...@Anonymous @2:03pm<br /><br />I wasn't excusing myself -- I was pointing out what I had actually said. <br /><br />Were you there when the debate was at its height? Or perhaps you found some genteel corner of it where learned discussion was taking place as to the finer points of the research papers from which support for either side was being gleaned?<br /><br />I seem to recall a good deal of vitriol at the time, as evidenced by a variety of angry and ill-conceived expressions of abuse which might have found their way on to this blog had its comments facility not been moderated.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10777403735242694922012-10-29T14:03:48.780+00:002012-10-29T14:03:48.780+00:00"armed mainly with a battery of unsupported a...<i>"armed mainly with a battery of unsupported assertions, religiously-held beliefs and appeals to self-evident truth": hum hum Jeremy, this is quite easy to disqualify arguments which were actually well-founded and were supported by numerous academics studies already at this time</i><br /><br />Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta.<br /><br />Or, as Gibus will doubtlessly understand with less trouble: "qui s'excuse s'accuse".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89038023261013239652012-10-28T15:58:33.496+00:002012-10-28T15:58:33.496+00:00@Gibus -- thanks for your comment. I should clari...@Gibus -- thanks for your comment. I should clarify that, when I wrote of people being "armed mainly with a battery of unsupported assertions, religiously-held beliefs and appeals to self-evident truth", that criticism was directed at both sides of the debate and not just at yours! There were indeed some serious and even useful studies, but my impression was that this debate was not an evidence-based exercise.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84782813485024509942012-10-28T15:50:52.372+00:002012-10-28T15:50:52.372+00:00Thanks for this good post!
A disclaimer: from 200...Thanks for this good post!<br /><br />A disclaimer: from 2004-2005, in the hot times of the battle described in this article, I was vice-president of the FFII.<br /><br />Some remarks:<br /><br />"armed mainly with a battery of unsupported assertions, religiously-held beliefs and appeals to self-evident truth": hum hum Jeremy, this is quite easy to disqualify arguments which were actually well-founded and were supported by numerous academics studies already at this time, and further confirmed by recent studies (last ones I have in mind come from Bessen & Meurer or Boldrin & Levin) or by the "thermonuclear" patent war in the field of smartphones. Nevertheless, I admit that reasoned arguments were surrounded by a communication/lobbying battle, which has its own kinds of argumentation.<br /><br />"For reasons that will probably never become entirely clear, this exclusion was put in the treaties as “programs for computers as such”: actually the reasons for the "as such" wording have been described in several papers from Justine Pila.<br /><br />"This helped stimulate innovation on the GSM standard for mobile telephony and MPEG standards for digital audio and video.": I'm sorry but it cannot be said that without this first step in patentability of software, innovation would not have been fostered less, as much or better than with it. This is only speculation.<br /><br />"intellectual property rights that limit this freedom should be outlawed […] open source model relies on copyright law": there is some kind of contradiction here, merely due to the fact that "intellectual property" is deceiving. Better say: "patents rights that limit this freedom should be outlawed".<br /><br />Finally for a detailed analysis of how software patents could be spurred by current proposals for a unitary patent and a unified patent court, I've published <a href="https://www.unitary-patent.eu/content/how-thermonuclear-patent-war-would-explode-europe-unitary-patent" rel="nofollow">How the thermonuclear patent war would explode in Europe with the unitary patent</a>.Gibushttps://www.unitary-patent.eunoreply@blogger.com