Even if such opposition is based on the " quality " argument, rather > than the fundamental issue of granting patents to software? >
The main ground of opposition should be on non-patentability of subject matter (software) under Section 3(k). The grounds of obviousness and novelty however, also serve a useful purpose: (a) In the event the 3(k) argument is rejected, these arguments serve as backup for the patent to be rejected on other grounds. Although the victory would not be great in terms of obtaining a ruling against patentability of software per se, it would avoid setting a bad precedent which is in favour of software patents (which might have happened in case the opposition was altogether rejected). (b) In the event the 3(k) argument is accepted, the other two grounds would only buttress our point on why it is good that software is not patentable under law - these "inventions" lack novelty and are obvious. I feel this would only bolster our case on fundamental opposition to the practice of granting patents to software. Either way, 3(k) should be the main ground but not without being followed up by other grounds of objection. > > > and it is not a case of > > accepting the concept of software patents. > > Ok. > > Thanks for this most useful mail. > > -- > 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
