| Where WE is the UK!
Coming from a Science/Philosophy background I have always
been intrigued why we automatically accept that scientific
theories and
discoveries (quite rightly) are not patentable.
The ontological links between
science and technology do not
seem to be as problematic as between mathematical
programming and its use in technology.
In the UK we now have this test:
from the Manual of Patent
Practice (read or download directly via
this link - or
see the document, in context, at the Intellectual Property Office)
"PART
I: NEW DOMESTIC LAW, PATENTABILITY, Section 1:
Patentable inventions:
The
Patents Act 1977 sets out for the first time to
codify
what is meant by a
patentable invention. Previous
legislation up to and including the 1949 Act had
merely
repeated the stipulation, originally set out in the Statute
of
Monopolies of 1623, that a patent may be granted only for
a manner of new
manufacture.
..."
It then gives a 4 step test and defines that an invention
has to meet these. However, the important part comes in the
4th step which
refers to EXCLUSIONs in subsections 2 and 3
or section 4A:
Section
1(2)
It is hereby declared that the following (among other
things) are not
inventions for the
purposes of this Act, that is to say, anything which
consists of -
(a) a discovery, scientific theory or mathematical
method;
(b) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or
any
other aesthetic creation whatsoever;
(c) a scheme, rule or method for
performing a mental
act,
playing a game or doing business, or a program for a
computer;
(d) the presentation of information;
NOTE: There are then
relevant sections (below) that give
a
brief exposition of the reasons and
examples of disallowed
(and allowed as a (necessary or otherwise?) PART of a
novel
device/invention) uses in Computers. Then come various tests
in headings
under:
'Substance over form'; 'Discoveries, scientific theories
or
mathematical methods'; Schemes, rules or methods for
performing a mental act,
playing a game or doing business;
programs for a computer
However, it is
revealing also to read the sections on:
'Aesthetic creations'; 'Exploitation
contrary to public
policy or morality'; and 'Plant and animal varieties, and
"essentially biological processes", ' - although I believe
the latter may
prove problematic in the US if memory serves?
I have my own set of beliefs
about benefits to humanity
and
tests about the classes of things that
should NOT be
patentable solely in their own right.
Fortunately,
our recent UK reinterpretation of the concept
of patentable works pretty well
with these. How does it
compare to yours in the US? I accept it does not
directly
address the problem of the article but think it does present
a
different angle of attack by presenting analogical ways of
comparing "programs"
and the reasons for non-patentability? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
