Via la FFII : http://wiki.ffii.org/Cpfh0507En
D'apres ce que dit le juge il peut y avoir appel (je ne connais pas le circuit UK), et vu la durete et fermete du jugement et de ces commentaires envers le traitement des brevets logiciels par l'EPO, je pense qu'il y en aura un. Je vous conseille de lire le jugement, il est assez accessible et il y a toute une section sur l'interpretation du fameux Article 52c. Laurent http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2005/1589.html << [...] # I am satisfied that neither of the two alleged inventions are patentable. And even if the tests that are currently used by our Patent Office had been applied the result would be the same. So also if the tests currently used by the European Patent Office had been applied. VII. SOME REMARKS # Despite the prohibition on granting patents for computer programs as such, it is said that the EPO has granted more than 40,000 of them. It is said that not a few of these pertain to business methods as well. >From the point of view of the applicants in our case, if there is any chance of getting such a patent it may be said to be a rational business choice to try it. If not, their competitors might. I have pointed out that patents that are wrongly granted can be very expensive to challenge, and perhaps beyond the means or inclination of small and medium enterprises. An accumulation of patents of that sort (sometimes known as a "patent thicket") may be a serious barrier to entry. # The only safeguard against that wrong – and it is a wrong – is the vigilance of the Patent Office. When I was a Patent Office examiner (though that was many years ago) we knew that we sometimes granted patents that we shouldn't, but did it anyway because we thought the Patents Appeal Tribunal would not support us. I believe that when a Patent Office examiner upholds the law he or she ought to be named and praised. And even if the Patents Court may disagree with the objection on appeal, it is a matter of praise all the same if the objection was reasonable. # I understand that the Examiner who objected to these applications was Mr Roland Whaite. The Hearing Officer who, rightly in my judgment, upheld the objection was Mr H Jones. VIII. CONCLUSION # In my judgment the objection was rightly taken, Mr Jones' decision was correct, and the appeal must be dismissed. Submissions about costs and the proposed form of order may be sent to my clerk by email. # Although I have no doubt whatever about the result, the case does raise issues of public importance because it affects the future practice of the Patent Office. I would be inclined to say that either party may have permission to appeal, even though it would be a second appeal. If the Patent Office did wish to appeal, they would not be appealing the actual result (for that is in their favour). They would be appealing the reasoning of this judgment as affecting the public administration. Compare Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Salem, R v. [1999] UKHL 8; [1999] 1 AC 450. >> _______________________________________________ Liste de discussion FSF France. http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-france
