- submitted by:
- Michel Rocard
- provision:
- art 5 par 2
- language:
- French
- topic:
- Program Claims
- recommendation:
- +
| amendment |
| A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed unless that program would, when loaded and executed in a programmable computer, programmable computer network or other programmable apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same patent application in accordance with paragraph 1. |
In accordance with Article 3, Member States shall ensure that the use of information processing methods can never constitute a direct or indirect patent infringement.
|
| justification |
| This second paragraph, which is not an additional restriction but rather a consequence of the definition of technicity introduced in Article 2, guarantees freedom of information. It reproduces and refines the meaning of Article 7(3) adopted by Parliament at first reading, drawing on the definition of information processing method included in the amendment to Article 2(e) new. |
Critique
Art 5(2) deserves to be deleted or negated. A positive statement of freedom of publication would also be appropriate here. Freedom to use information processing methods, as stipulated here, goes too far in the other direction for this context.
- submitted by:
- Andrzej Jan Szejna
- provision:
- art 5 par 2
- language:
- Polish
- topic:
- Program Claims
- recommendation:
- +
| amendment |
| A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed unless that program would, when loaded and executed in a programmable computer, programmable computer network or other programmable apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same patent application in accordance with paragraph 1. |
A claim to a computer program, as the major provision of the invention, cannot apply to a computer programme on its own or on a carrier. Member States shall ensure that a patent claim for a computer-implemented invention shall lead to a change in the state of the art.
|
| justification |
Critique
excludes program claims. The second sentence is unclear and offtopic.
- submitted by:
- Malcolm Harbour
- provision:
- art 5 par 2
- language:
- English
- topic:
- Program Claims
- recommendation:
- --
| amendment |
| A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed unless that program would, when loaded and executed in a programmable computer, programmable computer network or other programmable apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same patent application in accordance with paragraph 1. |
A claim to a computer program product, on its own or on a carrier shall be allowed only if the invention realised by a computer program would, when loaded or run on a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, have an antecedent main claim in the same patent with a product or process claim as described in Article 5.1.
|
| justification |
| An inventive product which can be realised by a computer program must be able to be distributed by carrier. |
Critique
authorises program claims under a limiting condition which is always true.
- submitted by:
- Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka
- provision:
- art 5 par 2
- language:
- English
- topic:
- Program Claims
- recommendation:
- ++
| amendment |
| A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed unless that program would, when loaded and executed in a programmable computer, programmable computer network or other programmable apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same patent application in accordance with paragraph 1. |
A patent claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed.
|
| justification |
| It is contradictory to say that computer programs at the same time cannot be inventions, and saying that they nevertheless can be claimed in a patent. Additionally, the condition after the "unless" in the Council version can always be fulfilled.
The Commission purposefully did not include these so-called "program claims" in its original proposal, as allowing patent monopolies on programs on their own is hard to defend if you at the same time want to maintain that "program as such" are not patentable.
Getting rid of this Council amendment is one of the most basic requirements. In first reading, the EP rejected a similar amendment, and the replacement is part of an amendment which was adopted (article 7 paragraph 2 of the consolidated version). |
Critique
briefly and clearly states that program claims (= claims like "computer program, characterised by that ...") are not allowed.
- submitted by:
- Fausto Bertinotti
- provision:
- art 5 par 2
- language:
- English
- topic:
- Program Claims
| amendment |
| A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed unless that program would, when loaded and executed in a programmable computer, programmable computer network or other programmable apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same patent application in accordance with paragraph 1. |
A patent claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed.
|
| justification |
| It is contradictory to say that computer programs at the same time cannot be inventions, and saying that they nevertheless can be claimed in a patent. Additionally, the condition after the "unless" in the Council version can always be fulfilled.
The Commission purposefully did not include these so-called "program claims" in its original proposal, as allowing patent monopolies on programs on their own is hard to defend if you at the same time want to maintain that "program as such" are not patentable.
Getting rid of this Council amendment is one of the most basic requirements. In first reading, the EP rejected a similar amendment, and the replacement is part of an amendment which was adopted (article 7 paragraph 2 of the consolidated version). |
- submitted by:
- Piia-Noora Kauppi
- provision:
- art 5 par 2
- language:
- English
- topic:
- Program Claims
- recommendation:
- ++
| amendment |
| A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed unless that program would, when loaded and executed in a programmable computer, programmable computer network or other programmable apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same patent application in accordance with paragraph 1. |
A patent claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed.
|
| justification |
| Self-explanatory. |
Critique
briefly and clearly states that program claims (= claims like "computer program, characterised by that ...") are not allowed.
- submitted by:
- Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni
- provision:
- art 5 par 2
- language:
- English
- topic:
- Program Claims
- recommendation:
- ++
| amendment |
| A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed unless that program would, when loaded and executed in a programmable computer, programmable computer network or other programmable apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same patent application in accordance with paragraph 1. |
A patent claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed.
|
| justification |
| This is 1st reading article 7.1 ; it specifies that a computer program cannot be claimed either on its own or on any carrier : that would be tantamount to allowing software patentability on the basis of considering that software can possess patentable technical features. The programme claims are considered as patents on software as such, therefore these should not be included in this Directive. |
Critique
briefly and clearly states that program claims (= claims like "computer program, characterised by that ...") are not allowed.
- submitted by:
- Manuel Medina Ortega
- provision:
- art 5 art 2
- topic:
- Program Claims
| amendment |
| A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed unless that program would, when loaded and executed in a programmable computer, programmable computer network or other programmable apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same patent application in accordance with paragraph 1. |
A patent claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed.
|
| justification |
| It is contradictory to say that computer programs at the same time cannot be inventions, and saying that they nevertheless can be claimed in a patent. Additionally, the condition after the "unless" in the Council version can always be fulfilled.
The Commission purposefully did not include these so-called "program claims" in its original proposal, as allowing patent monopolies on programs on their own is hard to defend if you at the same time want to maintain that "program as such" are not patentable.
Getting rid of this Council amendment is one of the most basic requirements. In first reading, the EP rejected a similar amendment, and the replacement is part of an amendment which was adopted (article 7 paragraph 2 of the consolidated version). |
- submitted by:
- Klaus-Heiner Lehne
- provision:
- art 5 par 2
- language:
- language
- topic:
- Program Claims
- recommendation:
- --
| amendment |
| A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed unless that program would, when loaded and executed in a programmable computer, programmable computer network or other programmable apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same patent application in accordance with paragraph 1. |
A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed unless that program would, when loaded and executed in a computer, programmed computer network or other programmable apparatus, put into effect a product or process claimed for the invention in accordance with paragraph 1.
|
| justification |
| authorises claims to computer programs on their own, under a condition which is always true. The reasoning is self contradictory: the only way to "make clear that the program on its own cannot be the object of claims" would be to disallow such claims. Lehne can't have his cake and eat it. |
Critique
authorises claims to computer programs on their own, under a condition which is always true. The reasoning is self contradictory: the only way to "make clear that the program on its own cannot be the object of claims" would be to disallow such claims. Lehne can't have his cake and eat it.
![[DE Deutsch]](/img/flags/de.png){kind=small}
![[FR Francais]](/img/flags/fr.png){kind=small}
![[NL Nederlands]](/img/flags/nl.png){kind=small}
![[IT Italiano]](/img/flags/it.png){kind=small}
![[translatable text]](/img/icons/txt.png){kind=icon}
![[howto help]](/img/icons/questionmark.png){kind=icon}
![[printable version]](/img/icons/pdficon.png){kind=icon}
![[Addenda]](/img/icons/addenda.png){kind=icon}
