Defining "Technical" and "Field of Technology"

The directive as proposed makes patentability depend on the TRIPs terms "technical" and "technical field" but fails to concretise these terms. Or worse, it concretises them by stating that data processing is a field of technology, thereby using TRIPs to lock Europe into a regime of software patentability.

There is a choice between two meanings for the term "technology" to be taken:

1. applied natural science (advocated by the German Federal Court of Justice in decisions from 1976 to 2004.)
2. applied exact science (advocated by EICTA in their comment on the JURI amendments and by EPO judge Mark Schar in an article of 1998.)

Natural science is the subset of exact science in which knowledge is gained by experimentation with controllable forces of nature. The "four forces of nature" are a basic concept of physics, see e.g. the recent explanation by http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980127c.html. Since we are dealing with "exact science", these four forces must be controllable. The formula of the Federal Court is thus very much to the point.

Lichtenberger et al have proposed to split the clause that defines "field of technology" and "technical" into two. This may be a good idea and should be clarified before decisions about which version to go for are taken.

It can be inferred from the tabled amendments that "technology is applied natural science". This very simple phrase is also worth tabling on its own.

Other phrases, such as "a field of technology is a discipline of applied science in which knowledge is gained by experimenting with controllable forces of nature" or "a field of technology is an application domain requiring the use of controllable forces of nature to achieve predictable results" can not achieve anything more than to reduce "natural science" to more elementary terms. The first of these two alternatives is to be preferred, because it corresponds to the normal understanding of "natural science" as a discipline in which experiments matter.

no.	submitted by	vote	critique
26	Rocard	+	explains that what happens within the data processing system is not technical.
67	Lehne	-	meaningless definition, resulting from flawed transformation of a flawed EPO doctrine.
68 74	Kauppi; Ortega	+	provides the needed definition of "technical" by reference to forces of nature.
70 71	Kudrycka, Zwiefka; Bertinotti	++	provides a clear and adequate definition of "technology", with minimal reliance on other patentability criteria and thus minimal circularity.
72	Lichtenberger, Frassoni	+?	The question of splitting must be clarified before this amendment can be recommended.
73	Gauzès	-	Symbols are never "technical".
76	Lichtenberger, Frassoni	+?	Provides the needed definition of "technical" by reference to forces of nature. Splitting the amendment may be a good idea.

Amendment 67

submitted by:

Klaus-Heiner Lehne

provision:

art 2 pt b a nov

language:

English

topic:

Further Technical Effect

recommendation:

-

amendment
	"Technical" means the identification of a physical effect which goes beyond the digital representation of information and the normal physical interaction between software and hardware of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus.
justification
It is necessary to make clear that the term "technical" demands the identification of a physical effect. Such an effect must be produced in addition to effects with regard to digital representation of information and such caused merely by the interaction between software and hardware with regard to operability.

Critique

meaningless definition, resulting from flawed transformation of a flawed EPO doctrine.

It could have been a good idea to define "technical" simply as "physical". In its current convoluted state, the amendment is meaningless. It reads like an erroneous term transformation of the EPO's erroneous doctrine of "further technical effect".

Amendment 68

submitted by:

Piia-Noora Kauppi

provision:

art 2 pt b a nov

language:

English

recommendation:

+

amendment
	"field of technology" means an industrial application domain requiring the use of controllable forces of nature to achieve predictable results. "Technical" means "belonging to a field of technology".
justification
These definitions are essential, especially to clarify the term "field of technology".

Critique

provides the needed definition of "technical" by reference to forces of nature.

Amendment 74

submitted by:

Manuel Medina Ortega

provision:

art 2 pt b bis nov

recommendation:

+

amendment
	"campo de la tecnología" significa ámbito de aplicación industrial requiriendo el uso de fuerzas de la naturaleza controlables para alcanzar resultados fiables. "Técnico" significa "perteneciente a un campo de la tecnología";
justification
El hecho de que los aparatos programables, tales como un ordenador genérico, hagan uso de efectos físicos para procesar la información no debe utilizarse para permitir la protección de patentes a programas que funcionan por medio de tales instrumentos. Esta enmienda también aclara el término no definido de ADPIC "campo de tecnología" Esta enmienda corresponde a la letra c del artículo 2 del texto consolidado de la primera lectura del Parlamento Europeo.

Critique

provides the needed definition of "technical" by reference to forces of nature.

Amendment 70

submitted by:

Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka

provision:

art 2 pt b a nov

language:

English

recommendation:

++

amendment
	A "field of technology" is a discipline of applied sciences in which new knowledge is gained by experimentation with controllable forces of nature. "Technical" means "belonging to a field of technology";
justification
This amendment clarifies the term "field of technology" from Art 27 TRIPs. It is an improved version of the Parliament's first reading article 2(c). A discipline is normally characterised not by its domain of application but by the way in which it gains knowledge. For patent granting, what matters is where the achievement lies, not to which domain it is applied. Also, "industrial applicability" is a separate requirement of patentability. Patentability requirements should stand on their own, relying on each other as little as possible.

Critique

provides a clear and adequate definition of "technology", with minimal reliance on other patentability criteria and thus minimal circularity.

Amendment 71

submitted by:

Fausto Bertinotti

provision:

art 2 pt b a nov

language:

English

recommendation:

++

amendment
justification
This amendment clarifies the term "field of technology" from Art 27 TRIPs. It is an improved version of the Parliament's first reading article 2(c). A discipline is normally characterised not by its domain of application but by the way in which it gains knowledge. For patent granting, what matters is where the achievement lies, not to which domain it is applied. Also, "industrial applicability" is a separate requirement of patentability. Patentability requirements should stand on their own, relying on each other as little as possible.

Critique

provides a clear and adequate definition of "technology", with minimal reliance on other patentability criteria and thus minimal circularity.

Amendment 72

submitted by:

Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni

provision:

art 2 pt b a nov

language:

English

recommendation:

+?

amendment
	"Technical" means "belonging to a field of technology";
justification
This is very close to EP 1st reading article 2a ; In order to ensure that software cannot be patentable, but rather only computer-controlled hardware inventions, software needs to be excluded from the "technical" field, as Parliament did at first reading.

Critique

The question of splitting must be clarified before this amendment can be recommended.

Amendment 73

submitted by:

Jean-Paul Gauzès

provision:

art 2 pt b bis nov

language:

English

recommendation:

--

amendment
	"domaine technique" signifie toute activité utilisant directement ou indirectement des forces de la nature contrôlables afin d’obtenir des résultats prévisibles dans le monde physique tels que des signaux électriques, radios ou lumineux. Le traitement de l’information dans le but d’exécuter ou de soutenir une telle activité doit être considéré comme appartenant à un domaine technique, alors que le traitement de l’information à des fins de calcul, de gestion de valeurs financières ou de traitement de texte ne doit pas être considéré comme appartenant à un domaine technique.
justification
La première phrase codifie essentiellement une doctrine utilisée dans la jurisprudence actuelle allemande (« Logikverifikation » de 1999, BGHZ 143, 255) et propose quelques exemples de types de résultats à considérer. Les signaux électriques, radios et lumineux, qui ont fait l’objet d’une mention dans le document de travail 2002/0047 (COD), sont caractéristiques de la technologie moderne. La seconde phrase clarifie que le traitement de l’information pour exécuter ou soutenir des activités tels que mentionnées à la première phrase est considéré comme technique, alors que le traitement à d’autre fins (par exemple : méthode de gestion) ne peut être considéré comme technique. Cette limite reflète la pratique actuelle en Allemagne et en Europe.

Critique

Symbols are never "technical".

The operation of a machine is technical, but an operation manual is not. The use of the machine is technical, but the instruction manual, computer program or algorithm that describes it is not.

Amendment 76

submitted by:

Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni

provision:

art 2 pt b b nov

language:

English

recommendation:

+

amendment
	"Field of technology" means an industrial application domain requiring the use of controllable forces of nature to achieve predictable results.
justification
This is very close to EP 1st reading article 2a ; In order to ensure that software cannot be patentable, but rather only computer-controlled hardware inventions, software needs to be excluded from the ‘technical’ field, as Parliament did at first reading.

Critique

Provides the needed definition of "technical" by reference to forces of nature. Splitting the amendment may be a good idea.