Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 5th Jul 2011 22:12 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 479855
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[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:
2007-03-07
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.
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.
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