<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/plain; charset=utf-8">

#Hae: Titeltext

#TrA: Tabellarische Gegenüberstellung: EUK/BSA vs REU/DKPMA

#Rlt: Recitals 13 to 13c

#Aaw: Wenn eine festgelegte Prozedur oder Handlungsfolge in einer
Vorrichtung, z. B. einem Computer, abläuft, kann sie einen technischen
Beitrag zum Stand der Technik leisten und somit eine patentierbare
Erfindung darstellen. Dagegen besitzt ein Algorithmus, der ohne Bezug
zu einer physischen Umgebung definiert ist, keinen technischen
Charakter; er stellt somit keine patentierbare Erfindung dar.

#Axn: A defined procedure or sequence of actions when performed in the
context of an apparatus such as a computer may make a technical
contribution to the state of the art and thereby constitute a
patentable invention.

#HWr: However, the mere implementation of an otherwise unpatentable method
on an apparatus such as a computer is not in itself sufficient to
warrant a finding that a technical contribution is present. Thus, a
computer-implemented business or other method in which the only
contribution to the state of the art is non-technical cannot
constitute a patentable invention.

#Mle: Moreover, if the contribution to the state of the art relates solely
to unpatentable matter, then there can be no patentable invention
irrespective of how that matter is presented in the claims.

#Fea: Furthermore, an algorithm which is defined without reference to a
physical environment is inherently non-technical and cannot therefore
constitute a patentable invention.

#Dit: Begriffsbestimmungen

#FWW: Für die Zwecke dieser Richtlinie gelten folgende Begriffsbestimmungen:

#cWe: %(q:Computerimplementierte Erfindung) ist jede Erfindung, zu deren
Ausführung ein Computer, ein Computernetz oder eine sonstige
programmierbare Vorrichtung eingesetzt wird und die auf den ersten
Blick mindestens ein neuartiges Merkmal aufweist, das ganz oder
teilweise mit einem oder mehreren Computerprogrammen realisiert wird.

#cWi: %(q:Technischer Beitrag) ist ein Beitrag zum Stand der Technik auf
einem Gebiet der Technik, der für eine fachkundige Person nicht nahe
liegend ist.

#FWW2: For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall
apply:

#cWe2: %(q:computer-implemented invention) means any invention the
performance of which involves the use of a computer, computer network
or other programmable apparatus, the invention having one or more
features which are realised wholly or partly by means of a computer
program or computer programs;

#Tsv: 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 %(q: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.

#cWt: %(q:technical contribution) means a contribution to the state of the
art in a field of technology which is [new and] not obvious to a
person skilled in the art. The technical contribution shall be
assessed by consideration of the difference between the state of the
art and the scope of the patent claim considered as a whole, which
must comprise technical features, irrespective of whether or not these
are accompanied by non-technical features.

#Wro: What must comprise technical features?  The %(q:difference) or the
%(q: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 %(q:as a whole).

#CeW: Gebiet der Technik

#Mue: Die Mitgliedstaaten stellen sicher, dass eine computerimplementierte
Erfindung als einem Gebiet der Technik zugehörig gilt.

#Dlt: Deleted

#sop: substance incorporated in paragraph 4(1)

#Cse: Voraussetzungen der Patentierbarkeit

#ItW2: In order to involve an inventive step, a computer-implemented
invention must make a technical contribution. A %(q:technical
contribution) is a contribution to the state of the art in a technical
field which is not obvious to a person skilled in the art.

#Tnc: The technical contribution must be assessed by consideration of the
difference between the scope of the patent claim considered as a
whole, which may comprise both technical and non-technical features,
and the state of the art.

#MvI: Member States shall ensure that a computer-implemented invention is
considered to belong to a field of technology. However, in order to be
patentable it must be new, involve an inventive step and be
susceptible of industrial application. It is a condition for involving
an inventive step that a computer-implemented invention  makes a
technical contribution.

#Tea: The DKPTO is merely moving text around without making it any better: 
truth of statements such as %(q: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 %(q:field of technology)
under Art 27 %(tr: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.

#Aac: A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a
technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a
computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly,
computer programs which implement business, mathematical or other
methods having no technical character, and which do not produce any
technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between the
program and the computer, network, or other apparatus in which it is
run, shall not be patentable.

#Trh: 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
%(q:technical effect) according to the DKPTO proposal's terms will not
be worth his money.

#FWc: Form des Patentanspruchs

#Msc: Die Mitgliedstaaten stellen sicher, dass auf eine
computerimplementierte Erfindung entweder ein Erzeugnisanspruch
erhoben werden kann, wenn es sich um einen programmierten Computer,
ein programmiertes Computernetz oder eine sonstige programmierte
Vorrichtung handelt, oder aber ein Verfahrensanspruch, wenn es sich um
ein Verfahren handelt, das von einem Computer, einem Computernetz oder
einer sonstigen Vorrichtung durch Ausführung von Software verwirklicht
wird.

#Msc2: Member States shall ensure that a computer-implemented invention may
be claimed as a product, that is as a programmed computer, a
programmed computer network or other programmed apparatus, or as a
process carried out by such a computer, computer network or apparatus
through the execution of software.

#Apa: A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier,
shall not be valid unless that program would, when loaded in a
computer, programmed computer network or other programmable apparatus,
implement a valid patent claim relating to the same application in
accordance with paragraph IV. [ The Italian Delegation has suggested
adding the following sentence: Nevertheless, patent protection for a
computer-implemented invention does not extend to the expression of a
computer program based on that invention, in source code or object
code or in any other form. ]

#IlW: 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.

#RWi: Konkurrenz zur Richtlinie 91/250/EWG

#Aod2: Zulässige Handlungen im Sinne der Richtlinie 91/250/EWG über den
Rechtsschutz von Computerprogrammen durch das Urheberrecht,
insbesondere der Vorschriften über die Dekompilierung und die
Interoperabilität, oder im Sinne der Vorschriften über Marken oder
Halbleitertopografien bleiben vom Patentschutz für Erfindungen
aufgrund dieser Richtlinie unberührt.

#Txp: The rights conferred by patents granted for inventions within the
scope of this Directive shall not extend to acts permitted under
Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs by
copyright, in particular under the provisions thereof in respect of
decompilation and interoperability.

#TiW: This makes the article clearer and thereby somewhat stronger.  Still
it stops short of creating a meaningful interoperability exemption as
proposed by the %(p6:FFII counter-proposal's version of this article).

#Mir: Beobachtung

#Tnt: Die Kommission beobachtet, wie sich computerimplementierte Erfindungen
auf die Innovationstätigkeit und den Wettbewerb in Europa und weltweit
sowie auf die europäischen Unternehmen und den elektronischen
Geschäftsverkehr auswirken.

#Tta: The Commission shall monitor the impact of the protection by patents
of computer-implemented inventions on innovation and competition, both
within Europe and internationally, and on European businesses,
including electronic commerce.

#PWW: PDF-Version des REU/DKPMA-Vorschlages

#Tss: Das Original wurde als MSWord-Datei verbreitet.

#Trg: Enthält detaillierte Angaben über die Positionen des
Bundesministeriums der Justiz während der Verhandlungen der
REU-Arbeitsgruppe.  Der BMJ-Vertreter Dr. Dietrich Welp verlangte
recht genau nach dem, was der dänische Vorschlag vorsieht.  Dadurch
handelte er gegen den ausdrücklichen Willen führender IT- und
Wirtschaftspolitiker der rotgrünen Koalition.

# Local Variables: ;
# coding: utf-8 ;
# srcfile: /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/phm/sys/mlht.el ;
# mailto: mlhtimport@ffii.org ;
# login: phm ;
# passwd: YYYYY ;
# feature: swpatdir ;
# dok: dkpto0209 ;
# txtlang: de ;
# multlin: t ;
# End: ;