Source: http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/
Timestamp: 2013-05-22 20:48:32
Document Index: 729449661

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1997', 'Art 52', 'Art 52', '§1', '§1', 'Art 52']

Papers on Software Patents
Summaries and Critiques of Journal Articles, Books et al
BPatGPublications of the German Federal Patent Court
BGHPublications of the German Federal Court
EPOOfficial Journal of the European Patent Office
Europarl 2003-09-24: Amended Software Patent Directive:
CEC & BSA 2002-02-20: proposal to make all useful ideas patentable:
European Consultation on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Rules of Organisation and Calculation (= Programs for Computers):
Digital Dilemma 2000:
FTC 2002: Hearings on Anti-Competitive Effects of Patents:
Bessen & H 2003/05:
Bessen & M 2000:
Somaya & T 2000:
Waterson & I 1998:
Bronwyn H. Hall & Rose Marie Ham: The Patent Paradox Revisited:
Kortum & L 1998:
CEC/ETLA 2002:
Tang, A & P 2000:
Study on Software Patents carried out by British researchers at the order of the European Commission's General Directorate for Enterprises. The findings of this study are partially based on the ESRCIP project (see above). It's purpose is to find out how software SMEs deal with Intellectual Property Rights in general and patents in particular, how useful patents are for them and what can be done to raise patent awareness. The study finds that we are not in a "pro-patent era" but rather in a "pro ipr area", and that software patents are not very much appreciated by software SMEs and probably not very helpful for them.
IPI 2000:
Hart 1997:
UKPO 2002:
EWHC 2002:
Fraunhofer/MPI 2001: Economic/Legal Study about Software Patents:
Security in Information Technology and Patent Protection for Software Products -- Expert Opinion by Lutterbeck et al written at the order of the German Ministery of Economics and Technology:
Machlup 1958:
Report to the US congress from 1958, which also extensively narrates the history of the patent movement and of earlier economic research on this subject. Machlup, a renowned American economist of Austrian origin, is the first author of a large treatise on knowledge economics and other treatises which belong to the teaching repertoire of economics departments in universities. His report cites a wealth of historical and economic evidence to refute most of the reasoning used by lawyers to legitimate the patent system.
Machlup 1962:
Newell 1986: Models Broken:
Chisum 1986:
Konno 1995: Karmarkar:
Tamai 1998: Abstraction orientated property of software and its relation to patentability:
Oz 1998:
Titus 1967:
NYT 1968:
Samuelson 1989:
Samuelson 1989 AIPLA:
Samuelson 1990:
RMS 2002/03:
In this 90 minutes long speech, given at the Cambridge University computer science lab on monday 25th March 2002, Richard Stallman draws on his rich experience to show patents have turned software development into a dangerous activity, similar to running through a minefield. Moreover he uses vivid examples and metaphors to let outsiders understand why the patent system doesn't work for software. Our text is a transcription of an audio file which is also available on the Net.
RMS 2001/11:
Reports about the Munich Diplomatic Conference of 1973:
EPO 1978: Examination Guidelines:
EPO 1990 T 22/90:
A pathbreaking decision of the European Patent Office's Technical Board of Appeal, which states that an solution for faster processing of image data is patentable even when it resides in a computer program.
According to this landmark decision of the European Patent Office's Technical Board of Appeal of 1995, computer-implemented business methods are patentable. In the EPO's own words "An invention comprising functional features implemented by software is not excluded from patentability under Art 52(2"(c) if technical considerations lend a technical nature to the invention in that they imply a problem to be solved by implicit technical features. So an accounting system can be technical if it has technical features (in this case, shuffling of files).)
BGH 1980-09-16: Rolling Rod Splitting (Walzstabteilung) Decision:
CEC Software Patent Consultation 2000 Submissions: :
BGH 1986-03-11: Beschluss Flugkostenminimierung:
BGH copyright senate 1990-10-04: "Betriebssystem" (operating system) Decision:
One of two revolutionary decisions, by which the German Federal Supreme Court's Patent Senate loosened the concept of Technical Invention and prepared the ground for an unlimited patentability of all ideas, which can be described as "program-technical apparatusses". Among others, the decision states: If the solution refers to an intermediate step in the process that ends with the production of silicon chips, then it cannot be denied patent protection simply because it desists from the immediate use of controllable forces of nature and instead seeks to advance the possibilities of manufacturing useful goods by knowledge that is based on technical considerations.
BGH 2000-05-11: Sprachanalyseeinrichtung:
Language Analysis is patentable if something tangible is mentioned in the claims. Two years after the Street Decision, the Federal Court's Patent Senate declares exclusions of statutory subject matter meaningless, decrees that if not anything under the sun then at least any idea that is claimed in connection with a programmable device is patentable: "A device that is program-technically configured in a certain way has a technical character ... For the evaluation of the technical character of such a device it is not relevant whether a (further" technical effect is achieved, whether the technical field is enriched by it or whether it makes a contribution to the state of technology.
The 21st senate of the Federal Patent Court rejected a patent claim to the control of price by demand with the help of a computer program as obvious, but at the same time decided that business methods are patentable: "the technical character of a teaching does not become questionable by the fact that it uses a known computer in the predetermined way".
BPatG Error Search 2002/03/26: system for improved computing efficiency = program as such:
The 17th senate of the Federal Patent Court (BPatG/17) rejects a patent claim on a method for automatically correcting erroneous text strings due to lack of technical character and violation of Art 52 EPC / §1 PatG. Saving computing time or storage space cannot constitute a patentable achievement, because otherwise any computer program (any teaching for use of computers) would become patentable subject matter. The senate leaves open the question whether program claims could be admissible according to §1 PatG, when the process claim to which they refer is grantable. Earlier BPatG/17 had argued that program claims are not permissible under Art 52.2c, but BGH/10 had found the argumentation unsatisfactory and sent the case back with the request that the teaching in the process claim should be examined first.
BGH 2001: Non-technical teachings may not become patentable by computerisation:
K&M 1968:
EPO 2000/05/19: Examination of "business method" applications:
Die Rolle des Europäischen Patentamts im Spannungsfeld globaler Wirtschaftsentwicklungen --- Bestandsaufnahme, Herausforderung und Ausblick:
EC Survey 1999:
Schar 1998:
Laat 2000:
Schiuma 2000:
Wuesthoff 2001:
Kober 1997:
EPO Survey 1995:
Greenpeace has since the beginning of the 1990s been fighting against the extension of the realm of patentability to elements of life and animals. Much of this extension was carried out by decisions of the president of the EPO which were in blatant contradiction to the written law. Later many of these decisions were ex posteriori legalised by EU directives which again were results of abusive legislative procedures. Greenpeace has never shyed to raise these charges in unambiguous language. Their patent specialist Christoph Then from Hamburg explains in detail that the EPO is not subject to any effective control mechanisms and why this has happened.
3rd Paradigm 1994:
UNION 1997:
TRIPs 1999:
Thurow 1997:
Kingston 1997:
Fitzgerald 1994:
Stoianoff 1999:
Wood 1998:
Fellas 1999:
WIPO SPLT 2001:
Through international patent treaties, the worldwide patent movement, a lobby of patent lawyers who speak in the name of multinational corporations, industry associations and governments, has already installed an unflexible system, where patents of 20 years runtime have to be granted for "any invention in any field of technology". Now the arm of the patent movement at the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) seems to be preparing a further advance in what a study report of the United Nations Development Project (UNDP) calls "the relentless march of intellectual property".
Nack 2000 zu BGH:
PA Jürgen Betten answers questions about software patents:
Schölch 2001: Softwarepatente ohne Grenzen?:
M. Vivant: Le Recours a la Propriété Industrielle:
Gispen 1997: 1877 bis heute:
The presiding judge of Germany's Federal Constitutional Court has published a series of articles and statements in newspapers in which he warns about serious deficiencies of the planned European Constitution, especially a lack of a division of executive and legislative power, the uncontrolled power of the Council and Commission, the unclear limitations on the competence of the EU vs the national states and the lack of a broad debate about the EU constitution. Papier moreover argues that the German system of a second legislative chamber which consists of regional governments is a bad model, which has made Germany's legislative process both undemocratic and inefficient.
[ EU Patent | Future | Past | Analysis | Papers| Players| Group| C4I ]