The arguments in Richard Stallman's article (Beware: Europe's 'unitary patent' could mean unlimited software patents, 22 August) appear to be founded on a number of serious misapprehensions:
• He states that the recent Hargreaves report "urged the UK to avoid software patents". This is incorrect. Hargreaves accepted the status quo, where patents are granted for computer-implemented inventions that make a "technical contribution". Incidentally, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) agrees with this position.
• Despite Stallman's comments to the contrary, UK and European statute law regarding the patentability of computer-implemented inventions has not changed in substance for many years.
• He also writes: "corporate lobbyists for software patents … have contrived another sneaky method [of getting software patents]: the 'unitary patent' system". However, the community ("unitary") patent has been an ongoing project for nearly 50 years and does not involve any change to the current boundaries of patentability.
• Stallman suggests that "appeals against the [European Patent Office's] decisions would be decided based on the EPO's own rules", and is concerned how the EPO would act "with external limits (such as national courts) removed". However, the EPO is bound by legislation agreed by its member states, has independent boards of appeal, and the current proposals involve creating a separate community patent court that will provide "external limits" in place of national courts.
CIPA welcomes informed debate about which computer implemented inventions should be patented. However, the proposed community patent is irrelevant to this debate.
Tim Roberts
President, Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys
--
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/aug/24/community-patent-irrelevant
~
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment