Talk:Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions

message: In general, can people please "sign" their comments (you can do this automatically with four "~" characters in a row). It makes it easier to see where a question ends and the answer begins, apart from anything else. - Paul 18:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What a relief that that law didn't get passed. Wikipedia would have definitely been communism (and so would "free software") if that happened. Nazism isn't cool 22:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to read the article again.  That comment suggests that you've really not understood what was going on.  The consequence of the vote collapsing is that there is now nothing to stop individual member governments giving patents on ideas, as is already the case in the USA.  The amended version of the Directive would have limited the scope of what can be patented strictly to processes.  Its defeat has been a pyrrhic victory. --Red King 12:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments on consequences

message: There has been some sort of revert war relating to the inclusion of this reference: http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/2005/07/software-patents-manifesto.html. Please could you briefly make your point here on the talk page so that other wikipedians may participate to the debate. Wikipedia articles should cite reliable sources for their information. --Edcolins 12:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the source reliable? 

message: Trips 27 is often misinterpreted by lobbyists, i.e. they mix up colloquial and legal wording.
Software is no "field of technology" (in the meaning of patent law). The wording technical has a special meaning in patent law. This also the Parliament confirmed.
Furthermore researchers doubt whether TRIPS 27 defines what has to get patented. TRIPS is a trade agreement with the goal to combat IPR abuse in trade policy, that is that patents were used as non-tariffic trade barriers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.129.107.131 (talk • contribs) .
:Whether you like it or not. TRIPS says that the memberstates of the World Trade Organisation should make patents available in all fields of technology. In ordinary language, "all" means "none excluded", and the law of treaties requires treaties to be read literally. One of the aims of TRIPS is to make patents on medicines mandatory, so to extend patentability. Rbakels (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  TRIPS lie 

message: Every time I look for the software patents directive in wikipedia I'm redirected to a page with a name that is highly disputed and controversial. I don't know what to compare it with, but maybe it's similar to that if someone looks for "Free software" ends up on pages called "Open_Source". There must be hundreds of examples where a word in itself conveys a biased meaning that shape the understanding of what is described, so I'm not saying this is a geek matter, but a serious and well known problem (particularly for historians).
To substantiate my claim, I refer to the comprimise amendment tabled by all political groups changing the name to computer-aided inventions. Here is the amendment and it's justification:
            Council common position                                 Amendment by Parliament
                                              Amendment 135
                                                  Article 1
  This Directive lays down rules for the                    This directive lays down the rules
  patentability of computer-implemented                     concerning the patentability of computer-
  inventions.                                               aided inventions.
                                                                                               Or. en
                                               Justification
  This replacement is to be performed at all places in the text where the expression “computer-
  implemented invention” is used.
  The expression “computer-implemented” is not suitable, because it implies that an invention
  can be wholly realised by means of a computer, which would mean that pure software is
  patentable. Since both the Commission and the Council agreed that software should not be
  patentable, the terminology used in the directive should not imply the contrary. The scope of
  the directive is thus the one of the patenting of devices that use software in order to aid the
  performance of the claimed invention.
  The concept of a computer-implemented invention is not used by computer experts either, and
  in fact is not in wide use at all. It was introduced in May 2000 by the European Patent Office
  (EPO) to justify the patenting of "computer-implemented business methods" and bring EPO
  practice into line with Japanese and US practice. The term “computer-implemented
  invention” implies that solutions involving only generic computers are patentable inventions.
  This idea is contrary to Article 52 of the European Patent Convention, which states that
  algorithms, methods for doing business, and computer programs do not constitute inventions
  within the meaning of patent law.The directive can not be intended to declare computer
  programs to be patentable inventions by presenting them in some other wording.
I don't know how to solve the problem in wikipedia, but to me redirecting Software Patents Directive as done now is not a good solution IMHO.
//Erik
The statement above was posted by someone on the talk page for Talk::Software patents directive and I have moved it here. Someone complaining about the title of this article it seems. I say the current article title is correct since it was the official name of the proposed directive. What other people called it is irrelevant. GDallimore (Talk) 14:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from [[Talk:Software patents directive]]