Logikpatente > Rezensionen > CEC/BSA > Stellungnahmen > REU/DKPMA 2002/09/23: Änderungsvorschläge zum Softwarepatente-Richtlinienentwurf
Stellungnahmen	REU/DKPMA 2002/09/23: Änderungsvorschläge zum Softwarepatente-Richtlinienentwurf	France: Non Merci	EPA 2002-06-21: Bericht an EPA-Beirat über EUK/BSA-RiLi-Vorschlag

REU/DKPMA 2002/09/23: Änderungsvorschläge zum Softwarepatente-Richtlinienentwurf

Der Rat der Europäischen Union (REU) schlägt vor, den Softwarepatent-Richtlinienvorschlages der Europäischen Kommission in einigen Punkten umzuschreiben, um diverse Kritikpunkte aufzunehmen, die im Kreis der Patentrechts-Arbeitsgruppe des Rates geäußert wurden. Diese Arbeitsgruppe besteht aus Fachreferenten nationaler Regierungen, die wiederum weitgehend aus den nationalen Patentämtern stammen oder mit diesen in enger Tuchfühlung stehen. Der Gegenvorschlag des REU stammt aus der Feder der dänischen Delegierten (d.h. des dänischen Patent- und Markenamtes DKPMA), die im zweiten Halbjahr 2002 die Präsidentschaft des REU inne haben. Der DKPMA-Vorschlag steht auf der Arbeitssitzung vom 3. Oktober 2002 zur Entscheidung an. Wir präsentieren ihn in tabellarischer Gegenüberstellung mit dem Entwurfder Europäischen Kommission (BSA/EUK-Entwurf) vom 20. Februar 2002. Es zeigt sich, dass das DKPMA -- bei aller Beschwörung der Technizität -- zusätzliche Unklarheiten schafft und die Grenzen des Patentierbaren nur noch weiter ausdehnt.

---

Anmerkungen

^[1] This still means that pure computer programs, i.e. ideas consisting exclusively of calculation rules and elements of the universal computer, must be considered to be patentable inventions. The crucial question, whether a calculation rule defined in terms of the universal computer is an invention, is answered only indirectly. Yes, calculation rules are, according to the DKPTO proposal just as according to other EPO-dominated proposals, patentable inventions. By lumping logical and physical innovation together into the propagandistic term "computer-implemented invention" and surrounding it with unintelligible pseudo-limitations, the DKPTO, like other friends of the EPO, is trying to blur borders and assure that patent offices can do whatever they like.
^[2] What must comprise technical features? The "difference" or the "claim as a whole"? If the former is meant, untechnical ideas are not patentable. If the latter is meant, anything is patentable. Unfortunately the latter meaning seems to be intended -- and reinforced by the appositive "as a whole".
^[3] The DKPTO is merely moving text around without making it any better: truth of statements such as "X belongs to a field of Y" is independent of legislative decisions. The question of non-obviousness (inventive step) again is independent of the question of technical character. An invention can be technical, non-obviousness cannot, no matter how hard member states try. Notwithstanding the DKPTO's attempts at changing fundamental truths by means of legislation: if computing (informatics/programming) is a "field of technology" under Art 27 TRIPs, then it will become difficult to refuse any software patent on other grounds than obviousness or lack of novelty. And this is precisely what the DKPTO's legalese junktalk is likely to boil down to in practise: technicity is inherent in non-obviousness and therefore no longer available as an independent means of determining whether an invention is present.
^[4] This could be seen as requiring that some peripheral hardware that goes beyond the universal computer, such as e.g. equipment for an industrial production process, must be present. Unfortunately this is not made clear, and any patent attorney who is unable to construct a "technical effect" according to the DKPTO proposal's terms will not be worth his money.
^[5] If the computer program really did implement a technical invention, it would be sufficient to claim the technical process which involves some novel peripheral hardware or novel physical causality. By allowing direct program claims, the DKPTO makes it clear that it did not mean paragraph IV as a real restriction on what can be patented. The Italian addition is likely to be interpreted as a tautology without practical effect, but it shows that even within the Brussels round of patent administrators some people are concerned about the CEU/DKPTO's assault on freedom of expression.
^[6] This makes the article clearer and thereby somewhat stronger. Still it stops short of creating a meaningful interoperability exemption as proposed by the FFII counter-proposal's version of this article.

http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere/eubsa-swpat0202/dkpto0209/index.de.html
© 2005/01/10 Arbeitsgruppe
deutsche Version 2003/12/17 von Hartmut PILCH