EU Amends Software Patent Directive (Suggestions) 160
jopet writes "The EU has amended its draft proposal for a directive on how to handle patents on "computer-implemented inventions'. Several harsh points have been dropped and clarifications on what is patentable at all have been added. Good to see that protests and petitions can make a difference." YHBT. These are the suggestions from June.
Old draft from June (Score:4, Informative)
article 4a: exclusions from patentability (Score:4, Informative)
Exclusions from patentability:
A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable
good and bad (Score:2, Informative)
Justification
The object of any law relating to patenting is not to ensure that patent-holders enjoy an advantage: the advantage granted to the patent-holder is only a means of encouraging the inventive process for the benefit of the society as whole. The advantages granted to the patent-holder must not work against this ultimate objective of the patent principle.
Too bad that they fail to realise that for the vast majority og patents today the benefit of the society as whole is close to zero while the benefit for the patent holder is an opportunety to create obstacles for competitors (som much for "free" competition).
Main Amendments (Score:4, Informative)
So, business methods and algorithms are not patentable, and normally unpatentable inventions cannot be patented just because they are implemented in a novel way.
Also, an exemption has been added whereby you can't be charged with patent infringement if you are simply attempting to achieve interoperability with another program.
Quite a few of the major issues with the legislation have been fixed. I am surprised... politicians have actually listened to the complaints, and not just made token changes.
Re:Too bad (Score:1, Informative)
No One Click.
Re:article 4a: exclusions from patentability (Score:2, Informative)
Furthermore, an algorithm is inherently non-technical and therefore cannot constitute a technical invention. Nonetheless, a method involving the use of an algorithm might be patentable provided that the method is used to solve a technical problem. However, any patent granted for such a method would not monopolise the algorithm itself or its use in contexts not foreseen in the patent.
Re:Well it's a start (Score:3, Informative)
Let's just hope that there are more people that will "get it" soon.
I tried to include the letter but the lameness filter thought that there were too many whitespaces. *sigh*
It's probably somewhere on FFII's homepage [ffii.org] anyway.
There never was a Software Patent Free EU (Score:3, Informative)
Now, thanks to this directive, we do know. And I think it's a huge step forward, and in the right direction to boot.
(Given that it passes, at least.)
Re:Some points (Score:2, Informative)
This can still be circumvented with good (read: mighty expensive) lawyers - something that big corporations definitely can afford.
"Then the small guy should just use a good lawyer as well" - well, he's fine if he wins.
But since the court can be like lottery sometimes, what IF he lose?
No way me (for example) will be able to pay several hundred grant for lawyer's fee.
The law should be leaning heavily towards the small guy, and this is a chance for us to realise it on the topic that we all care about - IT.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: FFII take on it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is this enough to stop a repeat of LZW? (Score:3, Informative)
Article 4a
Exclusions from patentability:
A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable.
Re:Amazon patent excluded? (Score:3, Informative)
This is NOT the version they will vote on. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not good enough & What can we do about it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Too bad (Score:2, Informative)
Article 4a excludes lots of shit that the USPTO sucked up without questioning.
Article 6a now pretty much permits reverse engineering.
This is a _massive_ improvement on what it was before.
Re:Old draft from June (Score:4, Informative)
If you check the European Parliament site, you'll find there's a briefing dated 1 September 2003 that implies those amendments are still on track, acknowledging significant differences in opinion among MEPs and concern for the impact on SMEs. The information is still relevant, unless something dramatic has changed this month.
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)