08.26.08

Gemini version available ♊︎

FSF India’s Response to the Patent Manual Draft

Posted in America, Asia, Europe, FSF, Patents at 2:50 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Software patents protest in India


Representation by Knowledge Commons to the



Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks



on the



Draft Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure – Patent Office, India (2008)





  1. This representation addresses the section 4.11 of the Draft Manual, which provides the guidelines for defining what is excluded from patenting vide section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 2005.


  2. The Clause 3(k) has defined what is not patentable in quite unambiguous terms. It is a well settled principle in law that a rule or a guidelines cannot change the substantive meaning of legislation. Unfortunately, this is what the Draft Manual proposes to do in its interpretation of this clause.


  3. Indian Patents Act differs from other Patent Laws in so far as it clearly lays down what is not patentable. The Clause 3(k) is one such clause. The lawmakers were clear in their intention, “A mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms are not patentable”. Therefore, through guidelines, what is not patentable under law cannot be made patentable through practices and procedures, as the Draft Manual proposes to do.


  4. It might be noted that the Draft Manual is trying to bring in the amendment to the Patents Act which was subsequently not accepted in the Parliament. The relevant 3(k) amendment was, “a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware; a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms;” By retaining the original wording and not accepting the change that software could become patentable by virtue of a technical application, the Parliament made its legislative intent clear. Therefore, by an interpretation of the act, the Patent Office cannot change the legislative intent that with or without technical application, software would not be patentable.


  5. In trying to reach this interpretation, the Patents Office seems to have copied the relevant sections from the “Manual of Patent Practice guidance for interpreting the Patent Act 1977”, UK. This has been done without any reference that would justify such wholesale lifting of interpretation. We reproduce below what the Draft Manual says in for example 4.11 and what the UK manual says.




Indian Draft Manual 4.11.7


4.11.10 A mathematical method is one which is carried out on numbers and provides a result in numerical form (the mathematical method or algorithm therefore being merely an abstract concept prescribing how to operate on the numbers) and not patentable. However, its application may well be patentable, for example, in Vicom/Computer-related invention [1987] 1 OJEPO 14 (T208/84) the invention concerned a mathematical method for manipulating data representing an image, leading to an enhanced digital image. Claims to a method of digitally filtering data performed on a conventional general purpose computer were rejected, since those claims were held to define an abstract concept not distinguished from a mathematical method. However, claims to a method of image processing which used the mathematical method to operate on numbers representing an image can be allowed. The reasoning was that the image processing performed was a technical (i.e. non- excluded) process which related to technical quality of the image and that a claim directed to a technical process in which the method used does not seek protection for the mathematical method as such. Therefore the allowable claims as such went beyond a mathematical method.





The UK Patent Manual Clause 1.17


Similarly, mathematical methods are not patentable but their application may well be patentable. For example, in Vicom/Computer-related invention [1987] 1 OJEPO 14 (T208/84) the invention concerned a mathematical method for manipulating data representing an image, leading to an enhanced digital image. The EPO Technical Board of Appeal defined a mathematical method as one which is carried out on numbers and provides a result in numerical form (the mathematical method or algorithm therefore being merely an abstract concept prescribing how to operate on the numbers). Thus the Technical Board of Appeal rejected claims to a method of digitally filtering data performed on a conventional general purpose computer, since those claims were held to define an abstract concept not distinguished from a mathematical method. However, they allowed claims to a method of image processing which used the mathematical method to operate on numbers representing an image. The reasoning was that the image processing performed was a technical (ie non-excluded) process which related to the technical quality of the image and that even if the idea underlying an invention may be considered to reside in a mathematical method, a claim directed to a technical process in which the method is used does not seek protection for the mathematical method as such. Therefore the allowable claims went beyond a mathematical method as such because they specified the physical entity the data represented and the technical process in which it was used.





  1. Not only are the sentences lifted verbatim, with only some minor re-arrangements, even the reference to the case in the UK Manual, Vicom/Computer-related invention [1987] 1 OJEPO 14 (T208/84), is not listed in the cases given in the Annexure List of cases for the Draft Manual.


  2. According to the Draft Manual, the allowable claim goes beyond a mathematical method as it specifies a physical entity (signals) and the technical process (image processing). Simply put, what the patent office is claiming is that while a mathematical method cannot be patented, however its application to a specific technical field – image processing in the Vicom case – is patentable.


  3. The problem with this approach is that while the patent office may regard image or signal processing as a technical application, what is being patented is still a mathematical method. The mere fact that it is a mathematical algorithm applied to a specific application with specific physical entities does not change that the content of what is being patented, which is still the mathematical algorithm. Only the scope of the patent is being narrowed by limiting it to image processing.


  4. If the above is accepted, all that would be required for securing software patents for the actual mathematical method is to file separate applications for each of the application of the mathematical method, in this case the digital filtering algorithm. This is merely changing the form of the patent application and not its substance. We find such an interpretation completely contrary to the patent law that has been framed in this country.


  5. The Image Processing case is particularly important, as if it is accepted, all compression techniques would also be patentable on similar grounds. Already, the practices of USPTO and EPO have lead to a situation that a number of standard formats such as JPEG and GIF have come under patent threats. Since any company that uses digital pictures – cameras, images on the web, etc., can be sued for infringing such patents, the potential economic consequence of such patents is enormous. This is why software patents under any garb, are particularly pernicious.


  6. One of the earliest software patents was that of the LMZ compression, which was used in the GIF format. It is now widely accepted in the software industry that such patents are in fact patents of mathematical algorithms. It was because the GIF format came under a patent threat that other formats became popular. However, similar threats now exist for other formats for image processing. In most such cases, the software industry has had to file review applications in USPTO to invalidate such patents. We see no reason why we should follow this tortuous path, when we have a clear law on this on our statuette books disallowing software patents.


  7. The language of Section 3 k) of the The Patents Act, 1970 makes it clear that unlike certain countries, where the Patents Offices have been issuing patents for mathematical or business methods and for software, the Indian Parliament has considered software per se not to be patentable.



  1. The clause that software per se is not patentable would mean that only software as a part of a larger invention of which it is a part could be considered for a patent as a whole provided it meets the criteria of patents given in the Act. This makes clear software “standing alone” is not patentable under Indian law. It is pertinent that as software cannot execute on its own without any hardware, this means that software running on general-purpose data processing machines (computers) do not qualify for patents. The mere addition of conventional data processing equipment to a software application does not turn that application into an invention. Only if the software application is a part of a larger system and the system as a whole is eligible for a patent, can the invention be patented as a whole. This is the intent of the Act and therefore we are sure that the Patent office would take this into cognizance when deciding on patent claims.



  1. If we take this clause of software per se not being patentable with the other part of the clause the intent of the Law becomes even clearer. It is clear from 3 k) above, that any mathematical method or a business method or a mathematical algorithm cannot be patented, irrespective of whether it is embodied in software or not. The non-patentablity of business or mathematical method or algorithm is even broader than the non-patentability of software per se and covers all software applications/computer programs.



  1. All software or computer programs are nothing but a sequence of instructions that convert a set of inputs to a set of outputs. This is the definition of an algorithm.



  1. As per 3 k), a mathematical method is not patentable and as computational methods are a sub-set of a mathematical methods, a computational method is not patentable either.



  1. Computer programs essentially convert an algorithm, business or a mathematical method into a sequence of machine executable steps. All computer programs are therefore algorithms/mathematical or business methods implemented for execution on a computer. As algorithms, mathematical or business methods are not patentable under Indian law, no software or computer program, which can run on general-purpose machines, can be considered patentable. The only exception, which can be read into the Patents Act “computer program per se”, is that computer programs in conjunction with special purpose hardware or equipment, can be considered for patenting as a whole, provided it meets all other criteria of patentability given in the Act.



  1. Courts in all parts of the world have held that subject matter which would have the practical effect of preempting laws of nature, abstract ideas or mathematical algorithms is ineligible for patent protection. This age-old and time-tested precedent effectively establishes the ineligibility for patent protection to laws of nature, abstract ideas and mathematical algorithms. If these could be patented, then in effect one would be patenting the tools of scientific enquiry itself, something no patent law allows, as it would lead to halting scientific progress.



  1. Courts have also held that regarding patentable subject that the inquiry into whether subject matter is eligible for patenting is one of substance, not form. This requires that one look, not simply at the language of the patent claim to see if it recites a structure of multiple steps or components, but also at the practical effect of the claim to see if it in fact covers — or otherwise would restrict the public’s access to — a principle, law of nature, abstract idea, mathematical formula, mental process, algorithm or other abstract intellectual concept. Otherwise, it would make the determination of patentable subject matter depend simply on the draftsman’s art and would ill serve the principles underlying the prohibition against patents for ‘ideas’ or phenomena of nature. By skilled patent drafting, one should not be able to start patenting essentially abstract ideas, mental processes and newly discovered laws of nature or mathematical algorithms.



  1. We are aware that though the Law generally holds that such matters are not patentable, a number of patent offices, particularly the US PTO and the EPO have been granting patents recently for software also. This has already created a situation which Tim Berners-Lee, one of the founders of the World Wide Web, director of the World Wide Web Consortium that sets global standards for the Internet, calls as the biggest threat to software development.


All companies developing emerging technology are threatened by the prospect of patent licensing royalties. You could never find out what patent could possibly apply to what technology. You could never guess what things people might have the gall to say they have patented already. It really is a universal fear. (Tim Berners-Lee at Emerging Technologies Conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 29, 2004.)





  1. Major software companies such as Cisco, Oracle, Adobe and even Microsoft earlier have come out against software patents. They have held that copyright provides an appropriate level of protection and patenting software is harmful to the software and other industries.


  2. It has also been the basis on which the Small and Medium-sized Business Community in the EU objected to the formalisation of EPO practice and acceptance of software patents. The same argument would apply to Indian software industry as well.


  3. The above clearly shows that no application of mind has taken place in either understanding of the Indian Patents Act or its intentions. While the EPO or the UK practices could be used by the Patent Office to justify what it seeks to do, it cannot do so without first identifying the Patents Act and practices in these countries and the Patents Act and practices in India.


  4. In India, it has been considered patents should be granted only when public good demands granting of such state protected monopolies. This was the practice also in the UK and the US. It is still the basis of the practice in most countries. It is only in the last few decades that the US, followed by the UK, Japan and now the European Patent Office has tried to change the interpretation of their Patents Acts to expand the scope of patentability. This attempt to enlarge the scope is from their national interest as they hold the largest number of patents. Therefore, their belief that strengthening the patent regime internationally will help their companies to build world-wide monopolies.


  5. It is not in India’s national interest or in the interests of its people to expand the scope of state protected monopolies through expanding the patent scope. India’s national interest is best served by restricting the scope of such monopolies. Therefore, the patent regime in India should work on the presumption that patents are to be given only when there is a decisive case for patents. This has been the basis of the Indian Patents Act and is in tune with fundamentals of such legislation world over. It is only the deviation in patent interpretation that has produced a scenario where business methods, software and also mathematical methods are also being patented.


  6. The US Supreme Court has now been correcting some of the excesses that has occurred in the US patents interpretation by the Federal Bench. We see no reason why India should change it understanding of patentability following in the footsteps of the US and the EPO and subsequently need to correct such excesses.


  7. We will not recapitulate the case against software patents. We consider that case is now accepted in Indian law and the Indian Patents Act explicitly prohibits software patenting. We are only concerned here with the attempt to defeat the non-patentability of software patents by an interpretation that runs counter to the Indian law.


  8. We therefore would suggest that the relevant sections of the Draft Manual – namely the section 4.11 should be redrafted keeping the legislative intent in mind. Otherwise, it will constitute a breach of privilege of the Parliament.




Prabir Purkayastha, Knowledge Commons



Sd.-



SP Shukla, National Working Group on Patent Law



Sd.-



G. Nagarjuna, Free Software Foundation of India



Sd.-



Amit Sengupta, All India Peoples Science Network






Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. Links 4/12/2021: Gedit Plans and More

    Links for the day



  2. Links 4/12/2021: Turnip Becomes Vulkan 1.1 Conformant

    Links for the day



  3. IRC Proceedings: Friday, December 03, 2021

    IRC logs for Friday, December 03, 2021



  4. Links 4/12/2021: EndeavourOS Atlantis, Krita 5.0.0 Beta 5, Istio 1.11.5, and Wine 6.23; International Day Against DRM (IDAD) on December 10th

    Links for the day



  5. Another Gemini Milestone: 1,500 Active Capsules

    This page from Balázs Botond plots a graph, based on these statistics that now (as of minutes ago) say: “We successfully connected recently to 1500 of them.” Less than a fortnight ago more than 1,800 capsules overall were registered by Lupa, almost quadrupling in a single year



  6. [Meme] António Campinos and Socialist Posturing

    Staff of the EPO isn’t as gullible as António Campinos needs it to be



  7. António Campinos as EPO President is Considered Worse Than Benoît Battistelli (in Some Regards) After 3.5 Years in Europe's Second-Largest Institution

    The EPO's demise at the hands of people who don't understand patents and don't care what the EPO exists for is a real crisis which European media is unwilling to even speak about; today we share some internal publications and comment on them



  8. Media Coverage for Sale

    Today we're highlighting a couple of new examples (there are many other examples which can be found any day of the year) demonstrating that the World Wide Web is like a corporate spamfarm in "news" clothing



  9. Links 3/12/2021: GNU Poke 1.4 and KDDockWidgets 1.5.0

    Links for the day



  10. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, December 02, 2021

    IRC logs for Thursday, December 02, 2021



  11. Links 3/12/2021: Nitrux 1.7.1 and Xen 4.16 Released

    Links for the day



  12. Links 2/12/2021: OpenSUSE Leap 15.4 Alpha, Qt Creator 6

    Links for the day



  13. The EPO's “Gender Awareness Report”

    There’s a new document with remarks by the EPO’s staff representatives and it concerns opportunities for women at the EPO — a longstanding issue



  14. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, December 01, 2021

    IRC logs for Wednesday, December 01, 2021



  15. EPO Staff Committee Compares the Tactics of António Campinos to Benoît Battistelli's

    The Central Staff Committee (CSC) of the EPO talks about EPO President António Campinos, arguing that “he seems to subscribe to the Manichean view, introduced by Mr Battistelli…”



  16. Prof. Thomas Jaeger in GRUR: Unified Patent Court (UPC) “Incompatible With EU Law“

    The truth remains unquestionable and the law remains unchanged; Team UPC is living in another universe, unable to accept that what it is scheming will inevitably face high-level legal challenges (shall that become necessary) and it will lose because the facts are all still the same



  17. Links 1/12/2021: LibrePlanet CFS Extended to December 15th and DB Comparer for PostgreSQL Reaches 5.0

    Links for the day



  18. EPO Cannot and Will Not Self-Regulate

    The term financialisation helps describe some of the activities of the EPO in recent years; see Wikipedia on financialisation below



  19. [Meme] Germany's Licence to Break the Law

    Remember that the young Campinos asked dad for his immunity after he had gotten drunk and crashed the car; maybe the EPO should stop giving diplomatic immunity to people, seeing what criminals (e.g. Benoît Battistelli) this attracts; the German government is destroying its image (and the EU’s) by fostering such corruption, wrongly believing that it’s worth it because of Eurozone domination for patents/litigation



  20. EPO Dislikes Science and Scientists

    The EPO's management has become like a corrupt political party with blind faith in money and monopolies (or monopoly money); it has lost sight of its original goals and at this moment it serves to exacerbate an awful pandemic, as the video above explains



  21. Links 1/12/2021: LibreOffice 7.3 Beta, Krita 5.0, Julia 1.7

    Links for the day



  22. Links 1/12/2021: NixOS 21.11 Released

    Links for the day



  23. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, November 30, 2021

    IRC logs for Tuesday, November 30, 2021



  24. Links 1/12/2021: Tux Paint 0.9.27 and WordPress 5.9 Beta

    Links for the day



  25. [Meme] EPO Administrative Council Believing EPO-Bribed 'Media' (IAM Still Shilling and Lying for Cash)

    IAM continues to do what brings money from EPO management and Team UPC, never mind if it is being disputed by the patent examiners themselves



  26. The EPO's Mythical “Gap” Has Been Found and It's Bonuses for People Who Use Pure Fiction to Steal From Patent Examiners

    The phony president who has the audacity to claim there's a budget gap is issuing millions of euros for his enablers to enjoy; weeks ahead of the next meeting of national delegates the Central Staff Committee (CSC) tells them: "Events show that the delegations’ concerns about functional allowances have materialised. The lack of transparency and inflation of the budget envelope gives rise to the suspicion that high management is pursuing a policy of self-service at the expense of EPO staff, which is difficult to reconcile with the Office’s claimed cost-saving policy, and to the detriment of the whole Organisation."



  27. Video: Making the Internet a Better Place for People, Not Megacorporations

    Following that earlier list of suggested improvements for a freedom-respecting Internet, here's a video and outline



  28. Links 30/11/2021: KDE Plasma 5.23.4, 4MLinux 38.0, Long GitHub Downtime, and Microsoft's CEO Selling Away Shares

    Links for the day



  29. A Concise Manifesto For Freedom-Respecting Internet

    An informal list of considerations to make when reshaping the Internet to better serve people, not a few corporations that are mostly military contractors subsidised by the American taxpayers



  30. Freenode.net Becomes a 'Reddit Clone' and Freenode IRC is Back to Old Configurations After Flushing Down Decades' Worth of User/Channel Data and Locking/Shutting Out Longtime Users

    Freenode is having another go; after “chits” and “jobs” (among many other ideas) have clearly failed, and following the change of daemon (resulting in massive loss of data and even security issues associated with impersonation) as well as pointless rebrand as “Joseon”, the domain Freenode.net becomes something completely different and the IRC network reopens to all


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts