Contradiction?

Contradiction?

Posted Sep 4, 2003 11:53 UTC (Thu) by huysmans (guest, #14315)
Parent article: Arlene McCarthy's software patent "factsheet"

From the fact sheet:

===
Recital 13c
(13c) Furthermore, an algorithm is inherently non-technical and
therefore cannot constitute a technical invention. Nonetheless, a
method involving the use of an algorithm might be patentable provided
that the method is used to solve a technical problem. However, any
patent granted for such a method would not monopolise the algorithm
itself or its use in contexts not foreseen in the patent.
===

My understanding: you can patent the use of an algorithm for a specific purpose

(side note: that sounds exactly like what we are afraid of, but still depends on the definition of what exactly comprises a 'technical invention')

===
Myth: Programmes and ISPs will be regularly sued for patent
infringement.

Truth: The Parliament's proposal reinforces the right of computer
programmers and software developers to engage in reverse engineering
practices or to achieve interoperability as currently permitted under
exceptions to the Software Copyright Directive.
===

Reverse engineering is finding out the algorithm used for a specific purpose and then implementing that for the same purpose, am I right?

But, according to the previous paragraph you can patent the use of an algorithm for a specific purpose ...

That sounds like a contradiction to me, but I may not be interpreting this correctly.

Jasper

---

(Log in to post comments)