ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Pen and paper patents"

(Economically, computers are like paper: FFII)
(==EPO says they can qualify== In the EPO decision '''T 258/03''', the section ''Reasons 4.6'' says that:<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_258/03</ref> <blockquote> comparatively broad interpretati)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{navbox}}
 
{{navbox}}
 
"'''Pen and paper patents'''" refers to the question of whether allowing patents on writing software implies that people can also apply for patents on writing other things, with a pen or pencil.
 
"'''Pen and paper patents'''" refers to the question of whether allowing patents on writing software implies that people can also apply for patents on writing other things, with a pen or pencil.
 +
 +
==EPO says they can qualify==
 +
 +
In the EPO decision '''T 258/03''', the section ''Reasons 4.6'' says that:<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_258/03</ref>
 +
 +
<blockquote>
 +
comparatively broad interpretation of the term "invention" in Article 52(1) EPC will include activities which are so familiar that their technical character tends to be overlooked, such as the act of writing using pen and paper.
 +
</blockquote>
  
 
==Economically, computers are like paper==
 
==Economically, computers are like paper==

Revision as of 13:06, 26 October 2010

"Pen and paper patents" refers to the question of whether allowing patents on writing software implies that people can also apply for patents on writing other things, with a pen or pencil.

EPO says they can qualify

In the EPO decision T 258/03, the section Reasons 4.6 says that:[1]

comparatively broad interpretation of the term "invention" in Article 52(1) EPC will include activities which are so familiar that their technical character tends to be overlooked, such as the act of writing using pen and paper.

Economically, computers are like paper

FFII argues:[2]

the economic rationale behind not granting patents on thoughts applies also here: abstract ideas are, regardless of their applicability to technical problems, produced without experimentation cost, applicable to an infinite range of problems, and replicated at zero cost with no overhead to which patent license fees could be added. The division of the extra cost of patents by the marginal cost (and long-term ideal price) of information goods is a division by zero. Moreover the deal between the inventor and the public, characterised as "monopoly on commercial implementation in return for disclosure of idea", is led ad absurdum: since between the idea and the application there is no invention, any adequate disclosure of the idea in turing-complete syntax risks to become an act of patent infringement.

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

References