ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Netherlands"

(External links: * Apple v. Samsung (2011, Netherlands) - it's only a preliminary injunction, but did the court uphold a software patent?)
(==During the Software Patents Directive== {{help|Need clearer details}} Coming up to one of the important votes by the Council, the Dutch parliament passed a motion ordering the relevant minister)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{navbox}}
 
 
'''The Netherlands''' is part of the [[European Union]] and is a signatory of the [[European Patent Convention]].
 
'''The Netherlands''' is part of the [[European Union]] and is a signatory of the [[European Patent Convention]].
  
Line 17: Line 16:
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
  
Comment: The wording in 2.2 is identical to the Dutch version of [[Belgium]]'s law.  The wording of 2.3 is different, but the "''als zodanig''" ("as such") is the same, which is probably the most substantial part.
+
Comment: The wording in 2.2 is identical to the Dutch version of [[Belgium]]'s law.  The wording of 2.3 is different, but the "''als zodanig''" ("[[as such]]") is the same, which is probably the most substantial part.
  
 
==Case law==
 
==Case law==
  
 
* [[Apple v. Samsung (2011, Netherlands)]] - it's only a preliminary injunction, but did the court uphold a software patent?
 
* [[Apple v. Samsung (2011, Netherlands)]] - it's only a preliminary injunction, but did the court uphold a software patent?
 +
 +
==During the [[Software Patents Directive]]==
 +
 +
{{help|Need clearer details}} Coming up to one of the important votes by the Council, the Dutch parliament passed a motion ordering the relevant minister, Brinkhorst, to vote against software patents.  He disobeyed the parliament's order (without punishment).  So we have to remember that this could happen again.
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==

Revision as of 11:26, 24 April 2013

The Netherlands is part of the European Union and is a signatory of the European Patent Convention.

Legislation

Patentable subject matter is defined by Article 2 (copied below) of this law: Dutch original: Rijksoctrooiwet 1995 (English translations[?]: Google, bing translator)

Article 2

  1. Vatbaar voor octrooi zijn uitvindingen op alle gebieden van de technologie die nieuw zijn, op uitvinderswerkzaamheid berusten en toegepast kunnen worden op het gebied van de nijverheid.
  2. In de zin van het eerste lid worden in het bijzonder niet als uitvindingen beschouwd:
    • a. ontdekkingen, alsmede natuurwetenschappelijke theorieën en wiskundige methoden;
    • b. esthetische vormgevingen;
    • c. stelsels, regels en methoden voor het verrichten van geestelijke arbeid, voor het spelen of voor de bedrijfsvoering, alsmede computerprogramma’s;
    • d. presentaties van gegevens.
  3. Het tweede lid geldt alleen voor zover het betreft de aldaar genoemde onderwerpen of werkzaamheden als zodanig.

Comment: The wording in 2.2 is identical to the Dutch version of Belgium's law. The wording of 2.3 is different, but the "als zodanig" ("as such") is the same, which is probably the most substantial part.

Case law

During the Software Patents Directive

Can you help? Need clearer details

Coming up to one of the important votes by the Council, the Dutch parliament passed a motion ordering the relevant minister, Brinkhorst, to vote against software patents.  He disobeyed the parliament's order (without punishment).  So we have to remember that this could happen again.

External links