Should we patent "computer-implementable inventions"?

Should we patent EP0101552?

An alloy comprising Fe-B-R characterized by containing at least one stable compound of the ternary Fe-B-R type, which compound can be magnetized to become a permanent magnet at room temperature and above, where R stands for at least one rare earth element inclusive yttrium.

CEC & EPO 2001	YES, this is an invention.
EPC & EPO 1978	YES, this is an invention.

Should we patent EP 664041?

A computer based testing system comprising
a test development system for creating a computerised test having a number of questions to be answered by an examinee and rules for determining a sequence of questions to be presented;
a workstation operable to present the questions to at least one said examinee and operable to accept examinee responses to the questions so presented; and
a test delivery system operatively coupled to both said test development system and said workstation for delivering said computerised test by presenting the questions according to the rules to each said examinee on said workstation,
characterised in that
said computerized test has a plurality of related test screens containing messages and directions providing information to the examinee, and by a computerized test script created using said test development system for controlling said workstation to present the questions and related test screens according to rules defined by said test script.

CEC & EPO 2001	YES, this is an invention.
EPC & EPO 1978	YES, this is an invention.

Should we patent EP 0689133?

A method for displaying on a computer screen multiple sets of information needed on a recurring basis, comprising the steps of:
establishing an area on the computer screen in which the multiple sets of information are to be displayed, the area having a maximum size which is substantially less than the entire area of the screen;
providing within the area a plurality of selection indicators, one for each of the multiple sets of information; and
selecting one of the multiple sets of information for display within the established area by pointing to one of the selection indicators within the established area, whereby the selected set of information will be substituted within the area for the set of information previously being displayed therein.

CEC & EPO 2001	YES, this is an invention.
EPC & EPO 1978	YES, this is an invention.

Should we patent EP?

EP0954909	method for coding an audio signal
EP0978172	method for masking defects in a stream of audio data
EP1141890	method for marking a polygon-based binary data set of a three-dimensional model
EP...	10 more Fraunhofer audio compression patents

CEC & EPO 2001	YES, this is an invention.
EPC & EPO 1978	YES, this is an invention.

"Patentable Invention" = "Technical Invention" = "Technical Contribution"

Art 52 EPC: mathematical methods, abstract plans & rules, programs for computers, presentation of information etc "are not patentable inventions".

BGH: a teaching about use of natural forces to immediately achieve a causally overseeable success

Patentability Legislation Test Suite

test sample	innovation/imitation cost ratio	innovation/development cost ratio	other indicators	should be patentable?	invention by CEC/BSA standard	invention by EPC/FFII standard	worthy of privilege by other standards
Tabbed Palette	1	0.00001	...	-	+	-	-
School Exams	0.5	0.005	...	-	+	-	-
Audio Coding	2	0.05	...	-	+	-	o
Fe-B-R Alloy	10	0.5	...	+	+	+	o
ep1099197
ep1141890
...

Who favors the Traditional Invention Concept?

• Software Industry
  • 115,000 signatories and 300 sponsors petition.eurolinux.org
  • 800 software company CEOs
  • nx100 employees and leading managers of Siemens, IBM, Alcatel etc, especially programmers and technical/entrepreneurial project managers
  • > 1400 of 1500 respondents in CEC consultation
  • CEC DG Infosoc,COR,French Government,politicians etc
• All respected economists -- not 1 study points out advantages of software patentability
• many patent examiners, judges and law scholars

Who favors the new Invention Concept of the EPO?

• Patent Industry
  • EPO, Patent Office Management, AIPPI, FICPI etc
  • CEC Indprop, governmental patent departements
  • "Economic Majority" --- corporate patent departments
    • Bitkom: 7 patent lawyers vs 1 SME
    • submissions from EICTA, UNICE, BSA etc
      • unqualified patent-lawyer applause
      • sollicited by "very specific questions" from CEC Indprop
• perhaps some telco or sw companies -- but no credible case studies available

CEC Proposal: Replacing Clear Rules by a Carte Blanche

• Any computing-related idea is technical and therefore patentable.
• The idea must contain an invention in its non-obviousness aspect.
  • This invention needn't be new.
  • This invention may even be a business method.
  • The terms "technical" and "invention" are undefined.
  • Strange reasoning about "algorithms" and about software economy.
  • The idea of passing laws that say some kinds of algorithms belong to mathematics and some do not strikes me as absurd as the 19th century attempts of the Indiana legislature to pass a law that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is exactly 3, not approximately 3.1416. It's like the medieval church ruling that the sun revolves about the earth. Man-made laws can be significantly helpful but not when they contradict fundamental truths.

    Donald Knuth to the USPTO

Bringing the Patent System under Control

• The patent industry is used to creating, ignoring and changing its own laws.
• To the patent industry, art 52 EPC is painfully clear.
• The problem is a political one.
• Europarl Commission for the Supervision of the European Patent System
  • <20% patent industry participation.
  • Patentability Legislation Test Suite
  • Make sure the Patentability Rules really generate the patents which we want!
  • First Fix the Bugs, then Release the Code!
  • Appeal: 5 Problems, 9 Solutions