|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{navbox}}
| + | U0FycE <a href="http://qudrzptxyhrr.com/">qudrzptxyhrr</a>, [url=http://xwhypxidkvbi.com/]xwhypxidkvbi[/url], [link=http://arorrpubikqp.com/]arorrpubikqp[/link], http://wtromtkfluwu.com/ |
| − | [[Germany]] has [[software patent]] case law and is a signatory of the [[European Patent Convention]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==1999: Digital Circuits== | |
| − | * Full name: [http://www.ip-agents.de/Lawyer/Rulings/Patent-Rights/inter/BGH-Softwarepatente/BGH-Softwarepatente_digitale-Schaltungen.html X ZB 11/98 – Digital Circuits], 13th December 1999
| |
| − | | |
| − | This important ruling introduced the test of "''controllable natural forces''".
| |
| − | | |
| − | This [[legal wording]] was used in the EU by the anti-swpat campaign in September 2003.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==2006: Judge Mellulis' comments==
| |
| − | | |
| − | The following are comments made by Judge Mellulis of Germany's Bundesgerichtshof at a Symposium of European Patent Judges in September 2006. They were quoted in the UK's 2008 ruling on [[Symbian v. Comptroller General (2008, UK)|Symbian v. Comptroller General]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | :"''[his court] proceeds from the assumption that the prohibition on the patenting of software 'as such' means what the law says ... software is not patentable merely by virtue of being used in conjunction with a general-purpose computer''"
| |
| − | | |
| − | Deprecating the reliance on the word "technical", he noted:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :"''when assessing software as such, the program's interdependence with the technical device makes the technical content hard to deny''"
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==2006: UK's Lord Justice Jacobs' comments on German case law==
| |
| − | | |
| − | The UK 2006 [[Aerotel v. Telco]] ruling, page 49, notes:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :"''129. Two cases of the German BGH were brought to our attention. The first was Sprachananlyseeinrichtung (language analysing device) 11th May 220 X ZB 15/86 GRUR 200 1007, 454 OJ EPO 8-9/2002. The headnote accurately states the holding:''
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::''“(a)An apparatus (computer) which is programmed in a specific way has technical character. The applies even if texts are edited on the computer.''
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::''(b) For the purpose of assessing the technical character of such an apparatus it is not relevant whether the apparatus produces a (further) technical effect, whether technology is enriched by it or whether it makes a contribution to the state of the art.”''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :''130. For reasons we confess we do not fully understand the BGH considered that the case was not concerned with the computer program as such exclusion. It therefore did not find it necessary to consider the EPO case law on the point. Significantly, in the more recent case of Jesco Schwarzer 28th September 2004 17''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :''131. W (pat) 31/03, the BGH appears to have some reservations about Sprachananlyseeinrichtung, refusing to extend it to the image processing system of the claim because it was basically a claim to mathematical method as such even though it would implemented by a computer. Most significantly, however, the BGH declined to follow Hitachi (see para 3.2.2.).'''
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==2010, January==
| |
| − | | |
| − | * {{translate de|url=http://news.swpat.org/2010/02/german-jan2010-ruling-as-text/|title=German Federal High Court ruling, January 20th 2010 "GBH X ZB 22/07"}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==2010, April: MS FAT patent upheld==
| |
| − | | |
| − | :''(see also: [[Microsoft's FAT patents]])''
| |
| − | | |
| − | * [http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/German-appeal-court-upholds-Microsoft-FAT-patent-985550.html German appeal court upholds Microsoft FAT patent], The H, April 2010 (also: [http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/04/23/169253 slashdot story])
| |
| − | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20070315210041/http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/86141 Federal Patent Court declares FAT patent of Microsoft null and void], The H, April 2007 (also: [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/07/03/15/142203/Germany-Rejects-Microsoft-FAT-Patent slashdot story])
| |
| − | * [http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/04/fatal-patent-ruling-in-germany.html FATal patent ruling in Germany?], by [[Florian Mueller on software patents|Florian Mueller]]
| |
| − | * {{translate de|title=WINDOWS - Dateiverwaltung beruht auf, patentfähiger Erfindung |url=http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=pm&Datum=2010&Sort=3&nr=51702&anz=84&pos=0&Blank=1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==2010, May: document generation patent upheld==
| |
| − | | |
| − | :''(See: [[Xa ZB 20/08 (2010, April, Germany)]]''
| |
| − | | |
| − | In May, a German court published this decision:
| |
| − | | |
| − | * http://news.swpat.org/2010/05/german-court-ruling-upholding-siemens-patent-as-text/<br />(That page includes links to machine translations)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Which [[Florian Mueller]] says is a pretty clear endorsement of software patents:
| |
| − | | |
| − | * [http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/05/german-high-court-declares-all-software.html German high court declares all software potentially patentable]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
| |
| − | | |
| − | * [[German patent courts and appeals]]
| |
| − | * [[Software patents exist in Europe, mostly]]
| |
| − | * [[Case law in the UK]]
| |
| − | * [[Court cases and lawsuits]]
| |
| − | * [[Countries and regions]]
| |
| − | * [[Reading case law]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==External links==
| |
| − | | |
| − | * [http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/05/german-high-court-declares-all-software.html German high court declares all software potentially patentable], May 19th 2010, [[Florian Mueller]]
| |
| − | * [http://www.european-patent-office.org/epo/pubs/oj007/04_07/special_edition_2_judges_symposium.pdf Some problems of patent law from a German viewpoint], page 184, by Klaus-J. MELULLIS, Presiding judge at the Federal Court of Justice, Karlsruhe, Germany.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==References==
| |
| − | <references />
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{footer}}
| |
| − | [[Category:Case law by region]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Court cases and litigation|Germany, case law in]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Germany]]
| |
