|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 12:59 PM EST |
My understanding of EU patent law is that "software as such" is not
patentable. So if you ask a politician if software is patentable he can
truthfully say "no" pointing to this clause of the law. On the other
hand the patent office has interpreted the law in such manner that a computer
programmed with software is not "software as such". The practical
effect is that software can be patented even though according to the legal
theory it isn't.
You won't get a truthful answer from politicians unless you know this word game.
The key part is that the current rules are unchanged. My understanding is that
the word games will continue and software will remain unpatentable in theory and
patented in practice.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 01:30 PM EST |
The mess in patent systems in Europe runs deeper than just
geography.
Like in the US, Europe is under "attack" by pressure groups
to allow software patents. So far, the legislature of the
different countries have agreed to refuse such patents,
HOWEVER, the European patent office has already granted
multiple software patents and those patents are considered
valid (although they cannot be enforced.
The latest regulation place more power into the hands of the
EPO, although it is supposed to keep the rule. This seems a
bit contradictory, as the EPO did NOT respect the rules so
far...
Multiple organisations have been raising that flag, like
APRIL (Free software association) in France.
--
Frenchy[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 01:52 PM EST |
IANAL, IANAMEP, &c.
If individual countries allow a patent for software that patent is valid.
It cannot be extended to a EuroPatent, but any litigation brought to
the EPO or ECJ must still use the law of the patent's native country.
IOW it's still a mess, and the Unitary Patent only applies to new
inventions that satisfy the new rules. New inventions that do not
comply could still be patented in tinpot prinicipalities if the
inventor wishes to cause strife.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
