|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 01:03 AM EDT |
Arstechnica story
You can read SOP number 237 in PDF format, over at
this this NZ government site. It does still mention the "computer
program
as such" but it seems clearly intended to state that computer
programs are not
inventions or methods of manufacture, and therefore not
patentable. You can
still patent a machine or manufacturing process
which uses software as a part
of what it does, but the patent-eligible part
is not the software part. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 02:53 AM EDT |
... instead of relying on the media reports.
One of the articles
contains a link to the revised text:
10A (2): Subsection (1) prevents
anything from being an invention or a manner of manufacture for the purposes of
this Act only to the extent that a claim in a patent or an application relates
to a computer program as such.
Sorry, but "as such" is
clearly not removed.
Granted, 1 clearly states:
A computer
program is not an invention and not a manner of manufacture for the purposes of
this Act.
That should be absolutely clear. But why leave in the
"as such"? Why not just say "...to the extent that a claim in a patent or an
application relates to a computer program."
Additionally, it's useful
they provided examples. They go to great extent to clarify... yet they still
leave in "as such". No matter how small, that's still wiggle room to argue
something like the most recent meme:
I'm patenting a method, not
software
Then later people are "surprised" when the patent is enforced
against software implementations.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|