Comments on: The Latest Patent Comedy from Europe

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:38:56 +0000

Thanks for the explanation. The EBoA has already sent me a confirmation of receipt.

By: AR

AR — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:15:20 +0000

I cannot comment an all that it written here. Just let me clarify one aspect:

Regarding Brimelow’s ambiguous/bizarre questions that I’ve already sent a response to, some opine that the first question is not even a valid English question. If someone is very proficient with English, maybe consultation would help. Here is the question, which seems like some sort of circular logic:

“QUESTION 1: CAN A COMPUTER PROGRAM ONLY BE EXCLUDED AS A COMPUTER PROGRAM AS SUCH IF IT IS EXPLICITLY CLAIMED AS A COMPUTER PROGRAM?”

a) The answer is of course “no”. It means: is it also excluded when it is not literally claimed as a “computer program” but as a “computer-implemented data processing apparatus”. Q1 is just for warmup.
b) If you want to be considered you have to submit your comments via post to the Munich address and subject “G3/08″ as the EPO invented its own private law rules concerning reception. They just ask to submit electronic files for their own convenience concerning additional publication on their website.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:22:08 +0000

You can’t be granted a software patent if your algorithm leads to “less reliable computer”. That’s good news. So only malware writers won’t get patents to sue us with.

By: pcolon

pcolon — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:18:09 +0000

So if I wanted to be as ludicrous:

“for example, a tendency to crash due to conflicting library program
calls – can also be regarded as solving “a technical problem within the
computer” if it leads to a more reliable computer’.”

Helping a user install GNU/Linux to resolve “crashing problems” would qualify for patent since it would “lead to a more reliable computer”.