On Monday 16 August 2010 11:43:18 Krithika wrote: > 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.
Excellent. Both you and Prasanth Sugathan concur on the course of action. So do we have a list of potential patents to challenge? -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
