
Software Patents > Players > Wilfried ANDERS
Klaus MELULLIS	Uwe SCHAREN	Wilfried ANDERS

Wilfried Anders and Software Patents

Presiding judge at the 20th senate of the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht), former Siemens employee, author of many articles in law journals advocate patentability of software and business methods. Praised by patent lawyers and patent administrators as an opinion leader. Anders gladly accepted the praise by labelling himself as "progressive" and his colleagues from the 17th senate as "conservative" in a speech at a public patent policy discussion meeting in november 2000. Anders may have he reached his preliminary climax of progressiveness when his senate officially declared business methods to be patentable in Germany through the Automatical Sales System (Automatische Absatzsteuerung) decision of 1999, a decision that scared even the patent lawyers from the EPO and the European Commission, who prefer not to put things so clearly.

BPatG 1999-06-14: "Automatische Absatzsteuerung": The 21st senate of the Federal Patent Court rejected a patent claim to the control of price by demand with the help of a computer program as obvious, but at the same time decided that business methods are patentable: "the technical character of a teaching does not become questionable by the fact that it uses a known computer in the predetermined way".
Düsseldorfer Patentrechtstage 2002: Bericht des Gastgebers Prof. Dr. Jan Busche über die Düsseldorfer Patentrechtstage 2002. Dort sprachen neben zahlreichen Patentanwälten auch Gert Kolle (BMJ), Wilfried Anders (EPA) und Raimund Lutz (BMJ). Der Richtlinienvorschlag der EU für die Patentierbarkeit von Organisations- und Rechenregeln vom 2002-02-20 war ebenfalls ein Thema.
Nack 2000 zu BGH: In spring 2000, the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) declared in a spectacular dogmatic u-turn that the technical character of a "program-technical device" should be considered indendently of whether that device contributes anything to the state of the art. Thus it seemed the way to an unlimited patentability of all business methods seemed to be paved. Nack asks whether this is really true. He introduces some basic questions, shows inconsistencies of jurisdiction of both the Federal Supreme Court and the EPO ("Dogmatically seen the chaos could not be greater"), makes the written law appear meaningless and demands that software should be patentable, points out the possibility of further surprising dogmatic u-turns and finally demands that the subject should not be only treated at a juridical but also at a political level. Like in 1877, when Germany decreed its patent law, we are facing a decision of whether to introduce the patent system to a large range of industries such as banking, commerce and services. "In 1877 the legislator was courageous and in the end very successful; why shouldn't we show the same courage today?"