Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 5th Jul 2011 22:12 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 479836
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Patents are patents
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 17:27
in reply to "RE[7]: Patents are patents"
When you sense bullshit, you say bullshit.
Except it was Thom's claim that software patents were not granted until 1998 that was BS. And I pointed out multiple examples that prove his statement was wrong.
FYI: EPC has explicitly excluded software from being patented as of 1973.
That's not entirely true. Computer programs as a whole are not patentable. But software patents, although harder to get under the EPC, are in fact, sometimes allowed.
Also, it should be noted that the EPC has no legal enforcement authority. And the EPC interpretation and enforcement is basically left up to individual countries that are involved in it.
Something your side is battling to overturn to this very day. How's life on the side of Lodsys these days?
Cute. And again, an example of how those who are opposed to software patents see everything in black and white. Just because I don't think software patents should be completely done away with does not mean I think there aren't stupid software patents out there that should be invalid, or that there aren't abuses of the patent system. But that's not unique to software. Many things have been patented, both hardware and software, that fail to pass the "non-trivial and non-obvious" test.
Edited 2011-07-06 17:29 UTC
RE[9]: Patents are patents
by JAlexoid on Wed 6th Jul 2011 20:11
in reply to "RE[8]: Patents are patents"
It's still not software patents. EPO does sometimes grant overly wide patents, where
But it only shows what happens when you have a powerful organisation to get funds via the number of operations they make.
And in reality, courts of participating countries have applied the wording of the EPC software patentability rule based on local laws and freedoms judges get(common vs civil legal systems). I know quite a few cases where judges were strict and UK/IE judges were lax. But then again, EPC was designed to be a convention to share patents, not enforcement rules.




Member since:
2009-05-19
When you sense bullshit, you say bullshit.
FYI: EPC has explicitly excluded software from being patented as of 1973.
EDIT: Something your side is battling to overturn to this very day. How's life on the side of Lodsys these days?
Edited 2011-07-06 16:41 UTC