| |||||||||||||
What happens next:What happens next:Posted Sep 24, 2003 21:18 UTC (Wed) by j_heald (guest, #15398)In reply to: What happens next: by coriordan Parent article: Text of the proposed EU patent directive Ciaran wrote: > This is highly unlikely since after 78 amendments were adopted, the Actually, what amazed me doing the consolidation was how *little* contradiction there is. The EU said it wanted a directive that could patent a new computer-controlled steel mill (if it makes better steel), or a technically superior computerised device like a mobile phone, but not 'pure' software doing routine data processing. It seems to me that MEPs have been very careful picking and choosing amendments (or astonishingly lucky), and that is exactly what they have come up with.
(Log in to post comments)
What happens next: Posted Sep 25, 2003 0:00 UTC (Thu) by wweber (guest, #11678) [Link] Interesting: "Software for Hardware" is what will be patentable. I left that field in the right nick of time!
What happens next: Posted Sep 25, 2003 0:45 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > "Software for Hardware" is what will be patentableSoftware *with* [innovative] hardware will be patentable. A hardware invention will not be excluded from patentability just because it uses software. Software on it's own, whethere it's "for Hardware" or not, will not be patentable. (What type of software isn't for hardware?)
What happens next: Posted Sep 25, 2003 0:55 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Good point. Now you'll see hardware manufacturers like IBM and Motorola submitting pure software patents wrapped into "this is a piece of hardware" crap. I've seen such patents in Australian patent application database. For instance, Motorola applied for a patent on a device+software that checks its own ID and then downloads the software for itself (application date in 2001).If that kind of thing flies, one might expect that things like up2date would be infringing on that patent. The intentions of the legislator sometimes don't matter when the case is heard in court...
What happens next: Posted Sep 25, 2003 8:21 UTC (Thu) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] "Now you'll see hardware manufacturers like IBM and Motorola submitting pure software patents wrapped into "this is a piece of hardware" crap."Yes, but as I see it, the directive also ensures that red hat can distribute up2date (in europe, of course) as long as it has nothing to do with the hardware that is patented. Put another way: If you distribute software on a CD, you cannot be infringing on a hardware patent. henrik
What happens next: Posted Sep 25, 2003 8:47 UTC (Thu) by RobDavies (guest, #9930) [Link] That's the reason why the amended directive is a good thing. NationPatent Offices have been lax in awarding patents for obvious ideas, ones with prior art, and finally in many cases simply because software or a network and computing is used. It looks like the text makes it clear that should not happen.
What happens next: Posted Sep 26, 2003 0:55 UTC (Fri) by wweber (guest, #11678) [Link] (What type of software isn't for hardware?)The phrase "software for hardware" is how a EE explains "firmware" to desktop computer literates.
|
|||||||||||||