6 ms·

Algorithms can be(and is being)patented in the EU. It is the software you cannot patent.

by hcho 16y ago

alextingle 16y ago
[Citation needed]
- hcho 16y ago
  http://www.epo.org/topics/issues/computer-implemented-inventions/software.html http://www.epo.org/topics/issues/computer-implemented-invent... What patentese means by inventive technical step is changes to or creation of algorithms.
  - alextingle 16y ago
    "schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers" are excluded from patentability by the European Patent Convention Article 52, paragraph 2.
    - vmind 16y ago
      I think that the argument used is that an algorithm can be implemented in hardware, at which point it is no longer a "program for a computer" and thus avoids that clause.
      - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
        This doesn't work before the UKPO (aka UKIPO) as any software application can be implemented in hardware. It might meet the letter of the law as drafted but avoids the intention.
    - hcho 16y ago
      Let me replace the quatation marks for you: "schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business," and programs for computers; This how the patent lawyers interpret this clause. Companies I worked for pays £xxxx to their employees for patents. I've sat in some of the commitees which decides a patent is worth pursuing. My experience is the inventive step almost always involves some tweaking in existing algorithms.
loup-vaillant 16y ago
Wait a minute: what is the difference between an algorithm and a piece of software? I don't see any.
- Deestan 16y ago
  There's a massive difference. Here, let me show you: Algorithm: Algorithm Maximum Input: Two numbers M and N. Output: The largest number of M and N. if M > N, then return M else return N Software: // Returns the largest of m and n. int Maximum(int m, int n) { if (m > n) return n; else return n; } There. Clear?
  - borisk 16y ago
    I must request that you do not ship, deploy or post the code presented in your post ... Patent Trolls LLC
  - paraschopra 16y ago
    Wow, someone can easily write a compiler/interpreter for your Algorithm It is a very lame example, IMO.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    The only difference I see is that your Algorithm is written in a programming language that doesn't have an implementation. Yet. If I write one, that difference will go. Therefore this is not an intrinsic difference. It does not count. Do you have something more substantial? Meta: funny how this comment is doing karma oscillation (so far: + - - + -). But I would've like people tell me why 3 of them thought I have "crossed the line".
    - RyanMcGreal 16y ago
      >There's a massive difference. I'm pretty sure Deestan is being facetious here.
      - 16y ago
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
You can patent software. I used to examine and grant software patents on behalf of the UKPO (now UKIPO) Comptroller (sic). The UK practice had substantially changed since I left (after Macrossan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerotel_v_Telco_and_Macrossan%27s_Application http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerotel_v_Telco_and_Macrossan%2...), the UK Patents Act has harmonising terms such that various sections are interpreted to match EPC articles. In the EU software patents were ruled out "as such" and traditionally the loophole was that as long as a "technical effect" (beyond that expected from mere computerisation) was demonstrated in the application of a patent then the software patent was allowed. Generally the EPC and UKIPO treatments have differed as software patents were actually ruled out "per se" in UK Patents Act 1977 S1(1)(d) referencing 1(2)(c) and UK has been stricter in interpreting this (see Macrossan). UK law also states that [pure] business methods and mathematical algorithms are unpatentable (again Section 1; see examiners manual - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/practice-sec-001.pdf http://www.ipo.gov.uk/practice-sec-001.pdf) amongst other things. However historical quirks meant that compression algos were allowed in certain areas (imaging) that wouldn't be allowed unless they were couched in the right way (that's my interpretation, I couldn't understand why they were granted). The Macrossan tests are spelt out clearly in the above Patent Examiner's manual link as is the UK practice (but this can be amended by court decisions). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Euro... and the corresponding UK page appear to be thorough treatments for those that wish to read more.

Algorithms can be(and is being)patented in the EU. It is the software you cannot patent.

by hcho 16y ago

Algorithms can be(and is being)patented in the EU. It is the software you cannot patent.

alextingle 16y ago

[Citation needed]

hcho 16y ago
http://www.epo.org/topics/issues/computer-implemented-inventions/software.html http://www.epo.org/topics/issues/computer-implemented-invent... What patentese means by inventive technical step is changes to or creation of algorithms.
- alextingle 16y ago
  "schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers" are excluded from patentability by the European Patent Convention Article 52, paragraph 2.
  - vmind 16y ago
    I think that the argument used is that an algorithm can be implemented in hardware, at which point it is no longer a "program for a computer" and thus avoids that clause.
    - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
      This doesn't work before the UKPO (aka UKIPO) as any software application can be implemented in hardware. It might meet the letter of the law as drafted but avoids the intention.
  - hcho 16y ago
    Let me replace the quatation marks for you: "schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business," and programs for computers; This how the patent lawyers interpret this clause. Companies I worked for pays £xxxx to their employees for patents. I've sat in some of the commitees which decides a patent is worth pursuing. My experience is the inventive step almost always involves some tweaking in existing algorithms.

loup-vaillant 16y ago

Wait a minute: what is the difference between an algorithm and a piece of software? I don't see any.

Deestan 16y ago
There's a massive difference. Here, let me show you: Algorithm: Algorithm Maximum Input: Two numbers M and N. Output: The largest number of M and N. if M > N, then return M else return N Software: // Returns the largest of m and n. int Maximum(int m, int n) { if (m > n) return n; else return n; } There. Clear?
- borisk 16y ago
  I must request that you do not ship, deploy or post the code presented in your post ... Patent Trolls LLC
- paraschopra 16y ago
  Wow, someone can easily write a compiler/interpreter for your Algorithm It is a very lame example, IMO.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  The only difference I see is that your Algorithm is written in a programming language that doesn't have an implementation. Yet. If I write one, that difference will go. Therefore this is not an intrinsic difference. It does not count. Do you have something more substantial? Meta: funny how this comment is doing karma oscillation (so far: + - - + -). But I would've like people tell me why 3 of them thought I have "crossed the line".
  - RyanMcGreal 16y ago
    >There's a massive difference. I'm pretty sure Deestan is being facetious here.
    - 16y ago

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

You can patent software. I used to examine and grant software patents on behalf of the UKPO (now UKIPO) Comptroller (sic). The UK practice had substantially changed since I left (after Macrossan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerotel_v_Telco_and_Macrossan%27s_Application http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerotel_v_Telco_and_Macrossan%2...), the UK Patents Act has harmonising terms such that various sections are interpreted to match EPC articles. In the EU software patents were ruled out "as such" and traditionally the loophole was that as long as a "technical effect" (beyond that expected from mere computerisation) was demonstrated in the application of a patent then the software patent was allowed. Generally the EPC and UKIPO treatments have differed as software patents were actually ruled out "per se" in UK Patents Act 1977 S1(1)(d) referencing 1(2)(c) and UK has been stricter in interpreting this (see Macrossan). UK law also states that [pure] business methods and mathematical algorithms are unpatentable (again Section 1; see examiners manual - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/practice-sec-001.pdf http://www.ipo.gov.uk/practice-sec-001.pdf) amongst other things. However historical quirks meant that compression algos were allowed in certain areas (imaging) that wouldn't be allowed unless they were couched in the right way (that's my interpretation, I couldn't understand why they were granted). The Macrossan tests are spelt out clearly in the above Patent Examiner's manual link as is the UK practice (but this can be amended by court decisions). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Euro... and the corresponding UK page appear to be thorough treatments for those that wish to read more.