04.06.09

My Response to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 1:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

FURTHER TO this previous post, I have just submitted my answers to the Enlarged Board of Appeal [PDF] regarding software patents. Here it is as text and as LATEX.

Enlarged Board of Appeal
European Patent Office
Erhardtstrasse 27
80331 Munich, Germany

To whom it may concern in the Enlarged Board of Appeal,

I hereby submit my answers to the questions about case G3/08. As a computer scientist in Europe, the subject matters to me personally; in particular, the effect of this matter reaches Free/Open Source software. It is increasingly used and developed in Europe, whose legislation in the area affects progress.

The questions are phrased in such a way that they almost entrap the answerer, so replies address entire blocks of questions. I shall address the questions raised by the EPO, in turn.

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

I fear that permitting such loopholes to exist leads to the actual permission of software patents. To quote Marshall Phelps from Microsoft, “[The EPO] can’t distinguish between hardware and software so the patents get issued anyway.” By allowing ambiguity, the EPO essentially leaves the door open to software patents, in which case the policy becomes moot.

QUESTION 2: (A) CAN A CLAIM IN THE AREA OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS AVOID EXCLUSION UNDER ART. 52(2)(C) AND (3) MERELY BY EXPLICITLY MENTIONING THE USE OF A COMPUTER OR A COMPUTER-READABLE DATA STORAGE MEDIUM? (B) IF QUESTION 2 (A) IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE, IS A FURTHER TECHNICAL EFFECT NECESSARY TO AVOID EXCLUSION, SAID EFFECT GOING BEYOND THOSE EFFECTS INHERENT IN THE USE OF A COMPUTER OR DATA STORAGE MEDIUM TO RESPECTIVELY EXECUTE OR STORE A COMPUTER PROGRAM?

This suggests that a separation between hardware and software is possible despite the fact that one requires another in order to operate. There is no program which is separable from hardware because without execution it exists only in the minds of people, much like poetry. Any software patent is able to characterise itself with the combination of hardware that it interacts with, so it is irrelevant whether or not hardware is mentioned in a patent application. If the inventor was to construct a novel physical entity, its physical attributes — not mere zeroes and ones that pass through it — may merit a patent.

QUESTION 3: (A) MUST A CLAIMED FEATURE CAUSE A TECHNICAL EFFECT ON A PHYSICAL ENTITY IN THE REAL WORLD IN ORDER TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE TECHNICAL CHARACTER OF THE CLAIM? (B) IF QUESTION 3 (A) IS ANSWERED IN THE POSITIVE, IS IT SUFFICIENT THAT THE PHYSICAL ENTITY BE AN UNSPECIFIED COMPUTER? (C) IF QUESTION 3 (A) IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE, CAN FEATURES CONTRIBUTE TO THE TECHNICAL CHARACTER OF THE CLAIM IF THE ONLY EFFECTS TO WHICH THEY CONTRIBUTE ARE INDEPENDENT OF ANY PARTICULAR HARDWARE THAT MAY BE USED?

Hardware responds to signals that it is capable of interpreting and reacts in a predefined physical fashion. For example, a hard drive uses a physical process to produce output upon receiving a known signal. As such, any process described in algorithms may effect a physical device in one form or another, but its role in the process is as abstract as one’s thoughts. To suggest that software changes the form of something physical is to suggest that one’s mere thoughts can lead to muscular motion and thus be considered an invention. Once the ownership of one’s ideas — as expressed in broad terms — becomes possible, copyrights can be rendered moot and instead block any expression of ideas — be it an algorithm, a musical note, or the assembly of pertinent facts/parts — which is what every invention really is about. There needs to be a physical device which is new and unique. Without innovation in physical terms, patentability becomes not only absurd but dangerous too. In Re Bilski is an example of broadening the scope of patents too far.

QUESTION 4: (A) DOES THE ACTIVITY OF PROGRAMMING A COMPUTER NECESSARILY INVOLVE TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS? (B) IF QUESTION 4 (A) IS ANSWERED IN THE POSITIVE, DO ALL FEATURES RESULTING FROM PROGRAMMING THUS CONTRIBUTE TO THE TECHNICAL CHARACTER OF A CLAIM? (C) IF QUESTION 4 (A) IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE, CAN FEATURES RESULTING FROM PROGRAMMING CONTRIBUTE TO THE TECHNICAL CHARACTER OF A CLAIM ONLY WHEN THEY CONTRIBUTE TO A FURTHER TECHNICAL EFFECT WHEN THE PROGRAM IS EXECUTED?

If specialised knowledge is required to write a particular program, i.e. series of commands, then it is likely to involve computer-independent knowledge such as mathematics or physics. To acquire a monopoly on areas of science where nature’s rules cannot be refuted should require the inventor to seek a patent in his/her particular field, not the field of software engineering. The question begs to insinuate that scientists deserve protection for their hard work, but rarely does this work have anything to do with computers; software is just where these ideas happen to be applied, although they could equally well be applied using pen and paper.

On a separate note, in order for Europe to preserve and promote autonomy, the rejection of software patents is encouraged. This gives tremendous advantage to those are are ably programming without the burden of lawsuits, filing of papers, and studying of too many papers. It gives European programmers the upper hand. The field of software is highly complex and there are many intersections in implementations of different ideas. It is not practically possible to ensure that one program does not `collide’ with another at a binary level and since composers of software are able to program without anything but a computer (and distribution likewise, thanks to the Internet), to impose unnecessary limits is virtually to forbid many the art of programming, turning it into a scarcely-explored field possessed and controlled by a small number of privileged classes with portfolios that represent monopolies on mathematics. This imperils both the economy and the value of innovation; history teaches that most brilliant software technologies are conceived by a small group of enthusiasts, and not with a patent application.

Yours sincerely,
Roy Schestowitz
Manchester, England

If you reside in Europe, please send your answers as well before the deadline is due. The address to mail answers to is Dg3registry_eba@epo.org.

Logo - stop software patents

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

This post is also available in Gemini over at:

gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2009/04/06/enlarged-board-of-appeal-g30/

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

A Single Comment

  1. Andre said,

    April 7, 2009 at 7:00 am

    Gravatar

    The comment should be on points of law as it is no consultation. For this reason it is important to read the full document.

    http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/B89D95BB305AAA8DC12574EC002C7CF6/$File/G3-08_en.pdf

    The most helpful contributions would be around the legal concepts.

What Else is New


  1. Links 18/6/2021: Mir 2.4, ActivityWatch 0.11, Microsoft Breaks Its Own Repos

    Links for the day



  2. [Meme] When the 'Court' Drops

    As the EPO sneakily outsourced courts to American companies and parties in dispute depend on their ISP for “access to justice” there’s a catastrophic impact on the very concept of justice or the right to be heard (sometimes you don’t hear anything and/or cannot be heard)



  3. The EPO's Virtual Injustice and Virtual ('News') Media

    A discussion of this morning's post (part 10 in a series) about the shallow media/blog coverage that followed or accompanied last month's notorious EPO hearing



  4. Links 18/6/2021: LibreOffice 7.2 Beta, Elementary OS 6.0 Beta 2, and Linux Mint 20.2 “Uma” Beta

    Links for the day



  5. The Self-Hosting Song

    Cautionary tales about outsourcing one's systems to companies that could not care less about anyone but themselves



  6. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, June 17, 2021

    IRC logs for Thursday, June 17, 2021



  7. [Meme] Swedish Justice

    The EPO‘s patent tribunals have been mostly symbolic under the Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos regimes; giving them back their autonomy (and removing those who help Battistelli and Campinos attack their autonomy) is the only way to go now



  8. Virtual Injustice -- Part 10: Vapid and Superficial Coverage in the 'IP' Blogosphere

    The media has come under attack by Benoît Battistelli; during the term of António Campinos most of the media critical of the EPO has mostly vanished already; so one needs to look carefully at comments and social control media



  9. Links 18/6/2021: RasPad 3 and Pushing Rust Into the Linux Kernel

    Links for the day



  10. Heli Pihlajamaa Promoting Software Patents to Patent Maximalists

    "Ms Pyjamas" from the EPO is promoting illegal software patents to a bunch of patent zealots (CIPA)



  11. The Lying by Team UPC, Led Again by Kevin Mooney

    Team UPC, or specifically Mr. Mooney, lies to the public about the prospects of the UPC; similarly, EPO and EU officials keep bringing up false claims about the UPC, so while the UPC itself has likely died for good the lies have not



  12. Links 17/6/2021: Cutelyst 3 and Lenovo Move Towards ThinkPad BIOS Configuration From Within Linux

    Links for the day



  13. Too Much Noise and/or Distraction and General Loss of Focus (on the Real and Urgent Issues, Such as the Ongoing Anti-FSF 'Coup')

    The media is full of Microsoft fluff and technical blog posts still focus on the Freenode fiasco, among other things that don't matter all that much; but we certainly need to talk about steps undertaken to undermine the FSF's power because long-term ramifications may be huge



  14. [Meme] The Enlarged Bored People With Presidential Decrees

    The laughable state of the EPO‘s EBA (or EBoA) is rarely commented on anymore, not even in so-called ‘IP’ blogs; maybe they’re just so eager to see patents on everything, even European software patents, so tyrants who destroy the courts (with UPC lobbying and removal of EBA independence) don’t bother them so much anymore



  15. Response to Misinformation From EPO Officials

    Opponents of European software patents are clearly being mischaracterised by EPO officials, who also use meaningless buzzwords to promote such patents; as an aside or footnote that relates to our ongoing series we’re making this quick video, which is days late



  16. [Meme] Tilting the Scales for Software Patents

    Shovelling up lots of patents, even worthless patents such as software patents, dooms the EPO (EPC violations, lawlessness), dooms European professionals, but the wrong people have been put in charge and courts are being intimidated by them



  17. Virtual Injustice -- Part 9: Heli, the EPO's Nordic Ice-Queen

    Team Campinos is full of people who instead of grasping and working to promote innovation are boosting the agenda of litigation (scientists are not being employed)



  18. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, June 16, 2021

    IRC logs for Wednesday, June 16, 2021



  19. Links 17/6/2021: elementary OS 6 Beta 2 and JingPad Linux Tablet Crowdfunding

    Links for the day



  20. Techrights Statement on IRC

    Freenode needs to explain what the hell happened this week and why communities that make up the network weren't informed or consulted



  21. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, June 15, 2021

    IRC logs for Tuesday, June 15, 2021



  22. Virtual Injustice -- Part 8: A Well-Connected 'IP' Maximalist

    The EPO‘s lobbying for European software patents goes all the way to the top, including António Campinos and his circle



  23. Links 16/6/2021: Alpine 3.14.0 and DXVK 1.9

    Links for the day



  24. Links 15/6/2021: Debian Installer Bullseye RC 2 and Zink Updates

    Links for the day



  25. IRC Proceedings: Monday, June 14, 2021

    IRC logs for Monday, June 14, 2021



  26. Virtual Injustice -- Part 7: Musical Chairs and Revolving Doors

    Cross pollination in Alicante and Munich serves to show that people aren't picked for their skills and experience; it's like a private club or a clique



  27. Hardly Shocking and Not At All Surprising That Thugs Who Run the EPO Hired External Thugs to Help Them Oppress Aggrieved Staff

    With the EPO's management flooding the bank accounts of aggressive law firms (at our expense) we need to ask serious questions about how such a "Mafia" (what EPO staff calls the management) managed to metastasise inside Europe's second-largest institution and how to remove this "Mafia" as soon as possible (some arrests too are well overdue)



  28. [Meme] There Are No Elections in Mafia-Type Regimes; It's About Family and Friends...

    With no real concept or notion of "elections" (the so-called 'mafia' members choose their successors and colleagues) the EPO's patent examiners clearly need outside intervention, e.g. inquest by the EU authorities (the EPC died and maybe the EPO too; it's unregulated and it grants false patents that harm Europe because the courts don't function, either)



  29. Today's Linux Standing for the Opposite of What Linux Users Stand for

    The so-called 'Linux' Foundation or the "Corporate Linux Foundation" is alienating many of the original users of GNU/Linux and it still insults their intelligence; it's rewriting history, it still distorts the objectives, and before we know Linux will perish and lose momentum because all the excitement associated with the brand will fizzle away



  30. Links 14/6/2021: Kdenlive 21.04.2 and Raspberry Pi 400 Support in Linux

    Links for the day


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