Most recent full copy of Directive on patentability of computer implemented inventions

[MJ Ray]

Niall Douglas <s_fsfeurope2 at nedprod.com> wrote:
> As much as we may want a complete overhaul of the EU parliamentary 
> system and indeed democracy, I think it's unproductive in this 
> particular context.

It is happening anyway, but not in time for this.

> I state once again that software patents will exist in some form. 
> There is no point arguing that we're not mandated to, or that they 
> can be averted. Being unrealistic is the single best way to bring 
> down the worst possible form of software patent upon us.

Being defeatist is the single best way to ensure that we get a form
of software patents.  Devil and the deep blue sea.  Given this, I'm
arguing that "These are crap because X, Y, Z but please at least
don't let them do A, B, C."

Core is that I regard programs as a branch of mathematics, discoveries
not inventive acts.

I also look forward to patenting electronic documents, etc, if they
really screw it up.

[...]
> The first thing which struck me is "why is this proposed legislation 
> so vague?". Vague legislation is automatically bad legislation.

And yet, we are often told that one reason for this is to reduce the
ambiguity in the current system.

[...]
> The third highly important amendment is needing to set what precisely 
> involves an inventive step. I would make it high ie; "a substantial 
> advance over the status quo".

Is this not fixed already?  I thought you said you couldn't change EPO
rules.  Immovability of this has been suggested as one reason why we
must have them voted down.

-- 
MJR/slef   My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
      http://mjr.towers.org.uk/   jabber://slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/