From TheBestLinks.com
An event mentioned in this article is a July 31 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)
- Frequently the impression from popular discussions is that "one can't get software patents in Europe", the reality is quite different; there are many issued software patents in Europe.
Munich Convention forbids software patents. See also EPC 52(2).
- Not so. Munich Convention says that patentability of subject matter in a European Patent Application shall be excluded only to the extent that it relates to a computer program as such. Paraphrasing the law is always likely to vary the intended meaning.
- The words as such are crucial to understanding this area of the law. It all boils down to understanding that patents are generally granted for things that make a technical contribution to the art. This principle applies across all technical fields. Software is no exception. The snag is that software naturally causes computers to operate, which I guess could be called technical. Merely loading a new program into a computer cannot be considered patentable, but loading a program into a computer that makes the computer do something completely new must be considered patentable. The newly configured computer would be considered a 'new and inventive product', so why not the software that made it that way?
- If you come up with a system which is designed to deliver a technical solution to a problem, then it's only fair you should get a patent for the system. If the system can be implemented by a general purpose computer (e.g. a PC) configured by a software product (e.g. sold on a CD-ROM), then unless a patent can be obtained for the software product as a separate article of commerce then the patentee is in a difficult situation and has to jump through more hoops to get a court to listen to him. This is the main driver behind the EPO interpreting its own law the way it has.--Baggie 09:19, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Refering to abuse of patents (dead topic)
The new material on "abuse of patents" suffers from serious POV defects. -- NetEsq 22:50 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)
- Maybe there should be a separate page for "current controversies in patent law". Several commentators have noted that the US Patent office is overburdened, resulting in inappropriate issuance of patents. If we just need to write "commentators have noted...", then do that. This has mostly focused on patents related to genes and other biological discoveries. I brought up the patent extension issue specifically because of the announcement today that Bristol had settled an anti-trust suit for this activity. Perhaps it is history now, and should go in an appropriate heading/article:
- http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-0/1042009923106690.xml
- Unfortunately, that article is poorly written and does not explain what really was going on. Basically, under the Hatch-Waxman act, a brand name drug maker can register a pharmaceutical patent with the FDA that will preclude a generic drug maker from developing a product covered by the patent until the patent expires. What Bristol-Myers was accused of was fradulently claiming to the FDA that the scope of newly issuing patents did cover the brand name drug (thereby automatically triggering delays of the generic drug maker) when they did not. Therefore, this is not an abuse of an overburdened Patent Office but of the Food and Drug Administration in a regulatory regime specific to generic drugs. This content should go under a Hatch-Waxman Act or Generic drug article, not in patents and, if referring to this, the abuse of patents section is incorrect as written. Stephen C. Carlson 05:19 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)
- Stephen, it sounds like you're very knowledgeable on this subject. Why don't you work on making the article better? - Zoe
- I tried to balance the example of patent extension with an example of patent violation (both are anecdotal, I admit). I believe that the justification for an institution is important in order to understand that institution. Consequently, failure of the institution to meet its expectations is also important. The "abuse" section is clearly of a different tone than the technical/lawyerish discription in the above sections. If we get away from the technical aspects, we open up the risk of getting into a debate. However, I don't think that it is complete without discussing how this institution actually behaves.
- This article is long enough as it is, so such examinations should probably go in a new article. Sound good? Can you recommend any names for such an article?
- adam
- Minor factual error in the last paragraph - James I died in 1625, which is
inconsistent with the 1693 date quoted. Other web sources cite 1624 for the Statute of Monopolies - Colin Bell (crb11@ntlworld.com)
Sheesh! I can't believe nobody got the joke yet: my explanation of patent nonsense is an example of it and should be moved to the bad jokes page. --User:Ed Poor
- No, it wasn't patent nonsense but instead merely non-NPOV. --Damian Yerrick
- Arguably it was patent nonsense to write "Patent nonsense is nonsensical ideas about patents, particularly the view that a patent provides intellectual property rights.", except that I have heard the term used (jokingly) to mean that -- or from an NPOV, "Patent nonsense is a term that some people in favor of intellectual property law reform use satirically to deride the view that a patent is primarily intended to provide monopoly rights to creators of intellectual property.". So it wasn't patent nonsense at all! (Even though it may still have been a bad joke.) -- Toby Bartels
Related links
Top visited
0 of
0 links
[no links posted yet]
>> place link >>
Discussion
Last posted
0 of
0 messages
[no messages posted yet]
>> post message >>
Watch
You can
add this article to your own "watchlist" and receive e-mail notification about all changes in this page.
