tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999118035210794416.post3081918320260748263..comments2021-11-10T21:19:19.842+13:00Comments on PatentBuff: Alice and the Abstract IdeaPatentBuffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02740740331905014250noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999118035210794416.post-84776441686207473092012-10-12T15:03:39.668+13:002012-10-12T15:03:39.668+13:00Thanks Chris.
That January Report I mentioned be...Thanks Chris.<br /> <br />That January Report I mentioned before deals with a lot of what you say. The Report mentions that a EPO/UK exclusion 'will probably be considered too liberal by those opposed to software patents, and too restrictive by those who support them'. The EPO/UK exclusion is effectively a compromise.<br /> <br />The main point here is that we are not getting conned. We PatentBuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02740740331905014250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999118035210794416.post-52248528471960941492012-10-12T14:20:10.821+13:002012-10-12T14:20:10.821+13:00The report says "despite what appears to be a...The report says "despite what appears to be a 'blanket' exclusion, the EPO and UK courts have ruled that some types of computer programs can be patented." <br /><br />In reality, any type of computer program is patentable subject matter, provided it is described in the right way. The supposed exclusion is a mere illusion in this Looking Glass world. One source of the problem is Chris Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14132745896947116995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999118035210794416.post-56373839101669972282012-10-12T12:11:11.603+13:002012-10-12T12:11:11.603+13:00Chris,
Thanks for your comments. I don't thi...Chris,<br /> <br />Thanks for your comments. I don't think anyone is getting conned here, although I accept it may look that way to those encountering this issue for the first time.<br /> <br />Back in March 2002 New Zealand officials prepared a discussion paper (www.med.govt.nz/business/intellectual-property/pdf-docs-library/patents/review-of-patents-act/boundaries-to-patentability/PatentBuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02740740331905014250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999118035210794416.post-76551906348317316382012-10-12T09:46:45.379+13:002012-10-12T09:46:45.379+13:00Don't be conned. You may be getting "ther...Don't be conned. You may be getting "there", but "there" is not where you think it is. The supposed "exclusion" in the Supplementary Order Paper is not what it seems. The precedent from other jurisdictions is that Section 10A(2) almost completely negates the restriction on patenting software in clause 10A(1). <br /><br />Very similar wording is used in Article 52Chris Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14132745896947116995noreply@blogger.com