[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Software Patents Re: MP3 decoders' non-freeness

On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 11:17, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> > Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
> > > 	Software Patent is legal in some countries (like US and Japan) and 
> > > is illegal in Europe (in the article 52 of the Munich Convention). If you 
> > > care about Software Patents, you should take this point into consideration. 
> > 
> > You should also take into consideration that the ultimate interpretation
> > of article 52(2) and in particular its limitation given in 52(3) is
> > something for the national European courts. And it is not at all
> > clear whether all national European courts will follow this interpretation
> > of the EPC. 
> > 
> > In other words, even though you think that 52(2) and (3) can only
> > be explained one way, do not be surprised if national courts decide
> > otherwise. IIRC the UK courts routinely accept software-related
> > patents, and even the Germans often have no problems with this.
> > 
> 	Ok. Please explain me how you can make Software Patents valid
> with the provision 52(3) ? As you can see 52(c) clearly exclude programs 
> for computers and the 52(a) excludes also the mathematical methods. I 
> won't talk about the (b) but it's a also a possibility for Software 
> Creation.  
> 	The provision 52(3) is only for combination. Like you can get a 
> patent on an additional systems (like hardware/software combination,...)  
> that are using method from #2. I don't really how you can allow Software 
> Patents from that ? Could you explain (without the magical and 
> wonderful "technical effect" of EPO ;-) ? 
> The article 52 from the Munich Convention : 
> Article 52 * - Patentable inventions
> (1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions which are 
> susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an 
> inventive step.
> (2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within 
> the meaning of paragraph 1:
> (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
> (b) aesthetic creations;
> (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games 
> or doing business, and programs for computers;
> (d) presentations of information.


Compresion algorithms are not discoveries, scientific theories,
mathematical methods (for narrow definitions of mathematical), aesthetic
creations, schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts
(algorithms aren't meant to be performed in the brain), playing games or
doing business, and programs for computers (Really!  Algorithms aren't
programs!); or presentations of information.


Of course, I don't support this evil interpretation. 

And nothing I say is the official or unofficial position of the FSF.

-Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer

Reply to: