Software Patents > Analysis > Test Suite
| |||||
| Analysis | Invention | Test Suite | EPC | Shield? | Compensate? |
| Patent | Claim 1 | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Runlength Coding (JPEG) | An ordered redundancy method for coding digital signals, the digital signals taking a plurality of different values, using two types of runlength code (R, R'), the method comprising the steps of.
| This patent was granted by the EPO in 1994 after 7 years of examination, with priority date 1986. In 2002 it prompted Sony and other companies to pay many million USD for using the JPEG standard and made JPEG cease to be an international standard. |
| Network Sales System (OpenMarket) | A network-based sales system, comprising
| This patent, granted to OpenMarket Inc by the European Patent Office in 2002 after 6 years of examination, is identical to a system which is currently being used in the USA to squeeze money out of various e-commerce companies. |
| Audio Coding (MPEG) | Digital coding process for transmitting and/or storing acoustic signals, specifically music signals, comprising the following steps.
| Iteratively perform certain calculations on acoustic data until a certain value is reached. The patent owner Karlheinz Brandenburg, core researcher of the MP3 project at Max Planck, received this patent in 1989. This patent and its owner were showcased by the European Commission's "IPR Helpdesk" project in 2001 as "inventor of the month". This is one of several dozen patents which cover the MP3 audio compression standard, and perhaps the most famous and basic one. It has always been treated as a model of how "technical" and "non-trivial" software patents can get. |
| Pay per Read (Canon) | An information processing system comprising
wherein the charge for use of the information is defined in units corresponding to the decoding information being prerecorded on said recording medium | In 1993, the European Patent Office (EPO) granted Canon K.K. of Japan owns a patent on charging a fee per a unit of decoded information. The main claim covers all systems where a local application decodes information received from remote information distributor and calculates a fee based on the amount of information decoded. If an information vendor wants to realise a full "Pay Per Use" system where the fee arises only when the user actually reads the information (rather than when it is transmitted), he might want to beg Canon for a license. Perhaps Canon will be generous, since it is clear that the patent claim describes a class of programs for computers (computer-implemented calculation rules), and the supposedly novel and inventive problem solution (invention) consists in nothing but the program [ as such ]. All features of this claim belong to the field of data processing by means of generic computer equipment. |
| Tabbed Palettes (Adobe) | A method for combining on a computer display an additional set of information displayed in a first area of the display and having associated with it a selection indicator into a group of multiple sets of information needed on a recurring basis displayed in a second area of the screen, comprising the steps of
| This patent, granted by the EPO in Aug 2001, has been used by Adobe to sue Macromedia Inc in the US. The EP version took 6 years to examine, and it was granted in full breadth, without any modification. It covers the idea of adding a third dimension to a menu system by arranging several sets of options behind each other, marked with tabs. This is particularly found to be useful in image processing software of Adobe and Macromedia, but also in The GIMP and many other programs. |
| EP0101552 (Sumitomo) | An alloy comprising Fe-B-R characterized by containing at least one stable compound of the ternary Fe-B-R type, which compound can be magnetized to become a permanent magnet at room temperature and above, where R stands for at least one rare earth element inclusive yttrium. | This is the strongest known magnet. Sumitomo found it by experimentation in the early 1980s. Subsequent experiments failed to turn out anything nearly as strong. No mobile phone can be competitive today without this magnet. |
Would this kind of innovation be patentable under the proposed rules? Why (not)?
Would any judge reach the same conclusions? Where are areas of incertainty?
| test sample | innovation vs imitation cost ratio | innovation vs development cost ratio | other indicators | should be patentable? | invention by standard A (CEC/BSA)? | invention by standard B (EPC/FFII)? | candidate for sui generis property |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tabbed Palettes | 1 | 0.00001 | ... | - | + | - | - |
| Network Sales System | 0.5 | 0.005 | ... | - | + | - | - |
| Audio Coding | 1 | 0.05 | ... | - | + | - | o |
| EP101552 | 10 | 0.5 | ... | +? | + | + | o |
| ... |
| check item | CEC | CULT | ITRE | PARL | FFII | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tabbed Palettes not a technical invention | - | - | ?+ | ? | + | + |
| Network Sales System not a technical invention | - | - | ?+ | ? | + | + |
| Audio Coding not a technical invention | - | - | ?+ | ? | + | + |
| disposition program 1976 not a technical invention | - | - | +? | ? | + | + |
| Rod Splitting 1980 not a technical invention | - | - | +? | ? | + | + |
| Flight Costs 1986 not a technical invention | - | - | +? | ? | + | + |
| ABS 1980 not a technical invention | - | - | ? | ? | +? | +? |
| EP0101552 is a technical invention | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| clear goal statement in preambule | - | - | ? | ? | ? | + |
| No Information Claims | + | - | + | + | + | + |
| Publication Freedom Guarantee | - | - | - | + | + | + |
| Software Property (copyright) Guarantee | -- | -- | - | - | - | + |
| Software on the Disclosure side | - | - | - | + | + | + |
| Software on the Disclosure side | - | - | - | - | - | + |
| Interoperability privilege | - | - | - | + | + | + |
| "Technical" defined | - | - | + | - | + | + |
| Negative Definition of "Technical Invention" (e.g. "Technical" defined) | - | - | + | - | + | + |
| "Technical" defined (e.g. by reference to forces of nature) | - | - | + | - | + | + |
| 4 Separate Tests on 1 Unified Object (Invention = Contribution = novel and technical core) | - | - | ? | - | +? | + |
| EPO slang debugged, biased terminology such as "computer-implemented invention" etc eliminated or redefined | - | - | ? | - | + | + |
| Supervision of Execution | - | - | - | - | - | + |