| |||||||||||||
What happens next:What happens next:Posted Sep 25, 2003 0:55 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)In reply to: What happens next: by coriordan Parent article: Text of the proposed EU patent directive 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...
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||