On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:32 PM, jtd <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday 13 August 2010 01:12:59 Pranesh Prakash wrote: > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 12:05 AM, jtd wrote: > > > On Tuesday 10 August 2010 16:09:33 Krithika wrote: > > >> The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is filing a pre-grant > > >> opposition to a software patent application by Microsoft. > > > > > > As an adhoc measure too it will wind up as agreeing in principle > > > to software patents. The patent law is explicit in not allowing > > > software patents. The "per se" term is (imo) a qualifier to the > > > next parts which state that a programmable machine with software > > > does not qualify. > > > > Slight confusion here; which other next part are you referring to? > > Section 3(k) of the Patent Act reads: > > 3) The following are not inventions within the meaning of this Act: > > (k) a mathematical or business method or computer programme per se > > or algorithms. > > I dont remember the exact words of the relevant clauses in the act, > but there is a sentence which specifies "software running on a > general purpose computer or programming machine". >
Section 3(k) makes computer programme per se not patentable. The Patent Act does not mention "software" much less qualify it. "Computer programme per se" would include software. In fact, the the legislature had toyed with the idea of qualifying "computer programme per se" in the Patent Amendment Ordinance 2004 which had the following clause for its Sections 3(k) and 3(ka): (3) The following are not inventions within the meaning of this Act: (k) a computer programme *per se* other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware; (ka) a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms. This interpretation was rejected by the Parliament in 2005 when the Patent (Amendment) Act 2005 retained the original Section 3(k) devoid of any qualifications for "computer programme per se". Thus, software is not patentable simply because it produces some technical result (which software does NOT produce a technical result?). Similarly, a software run in combination with hardware will not be patentable simply because it is running on a general purpose computer (hardware). This is especially true if the claimed innovation is entirely in the software, with the hardware only utilised to execute the software. > > Again i cant recollect the exact sentences. > > > > > -- > Rgds > JTD > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in >
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
