Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael K. Edwards wrote: > > Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The problem is exactly the same: European patent law does not > > > exclude patents on mathematical methods, but only on mathematical > > > methods _as such_. Apparently this is not the same thing for the > > > people who wrote that law. They may have been wrong, but if this > > > is the law, then that's what we have to work with. > > > > Can you point me to an appellate decision that speaks to this > > distinction, even if that isn't dispositive under your system? > > The law says so: articles 52(2) and (3) EPC. > http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/e/ar52.html
If the EPO is an artefact of the EPC, it can't be "the people who wrote that law" so why is EPO reinterpreting the EPC? Is it actually known whether the drafters meant the claimed "you can patent maths as part of a machine" view rather than the "maths is not patentable" from the UK Patent Act? That's something that I've wondered more than a few times. I know that's not the end of it, as pro-patenters seem to be pushing for their interpretation just in case it's not clear. I'm still amazed that the commercial UKPO has such a vital role in informing legislation - I thought the idea of Executive Agencies and Trading Funds was to offer some independence of government. Having them involved is like inviting Unisys (of BurnAllGIFs fame) to help run an information service about Free and Open Source software... -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
