Extrait de la réaction de Philippe Aigrain : [...] this is truly a victory against extension of patentability. Amendements have been voted that completely overturn the original meaning of the directive to make it a text that excludes from patentability anything beyond the use of forces of nature to control physical effects and exclude explicitly any form of information processing, handling or presentation. In addition an amendment explicitly stating than software claims can not be accepted has been voted. For specialists 69-70-71-72 and first part of 55 + 57 + interoperability exception have gone through.
I guess that the Green and GUE have voted against the global report because they are afraid that this might be manipulated in the further political and implementation proces (in particular they wanted another version of the definition of technical - amendment 55 second half instead of 69 to go through, but it was not even submitted to vote, based on erroneous statement that 69 would be equivalent). Another very important amendment of the Green (57) has nonetheless made it (it forbids to use on-technical characteristics to judge if there is a technical contribution, practice that had allowed the patent office to decree that anything was technically innovative).
Maintenant, il faut que la commission accepte le texte avec les amendements, et c'est loin d'être évident ... Continuons le combat !
# C'EST UNE BONNE NOUVELLE
Posté par Lucas . En réponse à la dépêche Directive sur les brevets logiciels adoptée. Évalué à 6.
Pour preuve, deux réactions de personnes au courant, qui ont pris le temps de regarder le détail des amendements votés :
Philippe Aigrain : http://listes.samizdat.net/wws/arc/escape_l/2003-09/msg00110.html(...)
Maurice Ronai :
http://listes.samizdat.net/wws/arc/escape_l/2003-09/msg00112.html(...)
Extrait de la réaction de Philippe Aigrain :
[...] this is truly a victory against extension of patentability. Amendements have been voted that completely overturn the original meaning of the directive to make it a text that excludes from patentability anything beyond the use of forces of nature to control physical effects and exclude explicitly any form of information processing, handling or presentation. In addition an amendment explicitly stating than software claims can not be accepted has been voted. For specialists 69-70-71-72 and first part of 55 + 57 + interoperability exception have gone through.
I guess that the Green and GUE have voted against the global report because they are afraid that this might be manipulated in the further political and implementation proces (in particular they wanted another version of the definition of technical - amendment 55 second half instead of 69 to go through, but it was not even submitted to vote, based on erroneous statement that 69 would be equivalent). Another very important amendment of the Green (57) has nonetheless made it (it forbids to use on-technical characteristics to judge if there is a technical contribution, practice that had allowed the patent office to decree that anything was technically innovative).
Maintenant, il faut que la commission accepte le texte avec les amendements, et c'est loin d'être évident ... Continuons le combat !