On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 03:34:30PM +0100, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 12:46:43PM +0100, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
I don't think I said that. Patents should be available for all technical inventions, and I believe it makes no difference whether the invention is based on software. But a purely mental technique, or a method of doing business should not be patentable.
The problem is that the patentability of all pure mental tewchniques is a direct consequence of allowing any software patents, because it is not possible to draw the distinction you want to draw. The term "Technical effect" is without real meaning.
It is impossible to give a clear definition of "technical", that is true. But it is also impossible to give a clear definition of many other legal terms, like "reasonable doubt", and most constitutional rights.
Now, come on. It's a pretty weak argument, even as a defense, and much weaker to actively support a position. First, many terms are quite clear. "Killing" for example is pretty easy to understand. "Stealing" too. So is the term "technical invention", based on the concept of "forces of nature" which you consider to be so antiquated and old-fashioned.
The forces-of-nature concept was introduced into patent law to restrict patents to technical inventions, rather than new abstract and logical ideas. The reason you have a problem with this definition is that you (as the EPO) want to patent something non-technical. The EPO had the problem that the law restricted patents to technical inventions. The clever trick they use is the hyperartificial construct of the "technical effect" to justify (poorly) their actions.
I don't know why you also use the "technical effect" to defend your position, as you could just argue for non-technical patents because you are not bound to law in your position. Maybe it is easier for you to pick up the newspeak by the EPO rather than actually use the language that everybody understands. Maybe you don't really realize that the newspeak by the EPO is hollow and circular.
Anyway, the world is not helped with constructions like "technical effect", which have an overly broad meaning, ie "anything that is related to something technical", like your images from x-rays.
We should ignore the normal interaction between hardware and software when determining the technical effect. If the only technical effects you can identify are "there are now electrical currents running" or "the computer does something new", that's not enough.
EPO newspeak. Now we not only have the imprecise term "Technical effect", we have the even more imprecise term "further technical effect". So what is the "further technical effect" in saving memory or bandwidth? As far as I can see, a new algorithm that consumes only half the memory does only have the normal interaction between hardware and software (it's completely normal for that new algorithm to consume half that memory).
Please start to make sense. Speak in a language I can understand. If you want to use terms like "technical effect", I assume you are just picking up the apologetic EPO vocabulary unless you give an acceptable definition for them. It must be possible, because if it is not, these terms are not useful to be used in law (you can use them in a novel, or in a speach in front of patent attorneys, but for law they have to be avoided).
And you said it yourself. You said you believe that every patent attorney can introduce a technical effect into a claim.
Every *competent* patent attorney :) But yes, this is almost always possible. But I also think most of such claims will be of very little value (very limited because of lots of limitations to establish the technical effect) and they will almost always be obvious (because the technical effect obtained is very simple and not surprising).
The current practice of 30000 harmful logic patents proofs you wrong.
Thanks, Marcus