'Computer Implemented Inventions' Resolution:-
The Dream Directive
The Citizens of Europe, having regard to the patentability of 'computer implemented inventions', have decided that:
A Computer Implemented Invention1 is only realised when a new, non-obvious, and useful2 physical product or process is realised by means of applied natural science3. (as is true of all other inventions)
Computer programs and the "effects"4 produced by data processing (synonymous) are protected as literary works5. These remain unpatentable, as the underlying new ideas are logical6 expressions or abstract deductions7. Patenting these "underlying ideas"8 are prejudicial9 cars to the rights of authors10, and therefore illegal under all existing agreements.
This Directive would fulfill all the obligations of the World Trade Organisation(TRIPS) Treaty (Under Art 1,10, 13,27) , the Berne Convention (1971- Art 9), The WIPO Treaty on Copyright (Arts 6,7,8,10) where applicable. It would also show a clear line as to where and why pure software patenting is in contradiction of international obligations, while allowing new inventions that contain teachings of applied natural science.
E.g. Mobile phones with a software enhanced reception method ( teaches us about the controlling techniques of airwaves ), new processes for dishwashers ( teaches us about an enhanced washing process etc. ) Since all these contain a “teaching” that exists within the field of applied natural science and not in logic, deduction, and reasoning as contained in computer programs, mathematic theories, and all literary works.
Best of all it contains only 2 clauses.
Thankfully the European Parliament have already adopted a Directive that is similar to this one (although more complexly worded), but we must remain vigilant in protecting the rights of authors in the face of Commission and Council “compromises”.
Please support this clarified and harmonised Directive that is compliant with all international obligations and tells the patent offices where the line is drawn.
1“Computer implemented invention” means any computer apparatus that runs software in the creation of a new, non-obvious, and useful product or process .
2In the WTO(TRIPS) Treaty footnotes, the terms “inventive step” and “industrial application” requirements of an invention are synonymous with the terms “non-obvious “ and “useful” respectively. The other requirement of an invention is “novelty”.
3i.e. New products processes realised by experimental observations of natural forces/ forces of nature/applied natural science and not logical and abstract expressions or deductions.
4The definition of a “computer program“ is synonymous with that of a “process” and interchangable with that of an “effect” upon a computer. As demonstrated in Cambridge Dictionary of international English. I hope this also remains true in other languages.
5As specified explicitly in Article 10 of WTO(TRIPS) “Computer programs shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention.” Also echoed in Article 4 of WIPO Copyright Treaty.
6Logical as defined by bartleby.com “ 2. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: “
7These were the principles established by the German patent court on this question in 1976-8 and the logic still holds today, although I should warn you the terminology is complex. The German court drew a line between concepts existing within abstract logic and reasoning that are common to humanity (ideas not protectable under copyright) and teachings of applied natural science (inventions that were granted monopolies as inventions). This was decided by where the “teaching” of the new invention lay.
8“Underlying ideas and concepts” are not protected under copyright as explained clearly in the Software Copyright Directive of 1991, Article 2 of WIPO Copyright Treaty. This is so that no one can claim an artificial monopoly of ideas and concepts. (As we can see happening now in patent offices)
9Patenting software is prejudicial to the inherent rights of authors as explained in Article 13 of WTO(TRIPS) , reconfimed in Articles: 6,7,8,10 WIPO Copyright Treaty and the Berne Convention (Articles 2, 8, 9,). Signatories are not allow to apply forms of “protection” that unfairly prejudice the exclusive rights of an author of an original work. These rights include the right to redistribute, broadcast, perform, translate, adapt, profit from or give away the rights to an original work created by the author (Therefore the logical and abstract deductions in his or her thought processes). Berne explains protection as literary works extends to 'any means and by any form'...This in turn is echoed in the software copyright directive of 1991. “insofar as loading running etc.”(paraphrase)
10Authors of software have always been described as such because, like authors, their innovations are built upon thousands of other innovations already contributed by other software authors.
© 2004 Christian Beauprez . With thanks to Mssrs. Pilch, Maebe, Joseffson, Pellegrini, Svaneborg, Johnson, Lenz et. al. without whose work and observations this would not have been possible.