Comment Re:Directive is unclear (Score 1) 32
> Actually, if the data is business data (like
> monetary values), then that produces no
> (further) technical effect.
What about EP504287 "Method and system for remote delivery of retail banking services" valid in most of EU?
As I read this patent, this is valid if you use a browser to connects to an online webbanking service, and transfers a request for debiting or crediting your account a certain a monetary value. E.g. pays your bills online.
Where is the novelty? I have paid bills before this patent was issued! Where is the technical effect, or 'further technical effect'?
Business methods are not laws of nature, nor do they pertain to the fenomenology of material objects. That's why economy and physics are two very different branches of science, even though both business methods and scientific theories belong to Popper world 3.
> I've tried to summarize also the technical
> problem they claim to solve.
What is your definition of 'technical' or rather what is the EPO definition of 'technical'? I think all the softwarepatent issues are directly caused by the dismanteling of this concept.
According to Mark Schar (Former EPO judge):
http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/papri/jwip-sc har98/ind ex.en.html
The objective concept of technicality, [..] requires mainly the four following criteria:
* solution
* of a problem
* in a practical and
* repeatable manner.
Because a solution implies a problem, one can reduce this definition by mentioning only three criteria which are then absolutely indispensable: - a practical and repeatable solution.
And according to Schar the following are not requirements for technicality:
* by using controllable forces of nature
* the direct consequence of the use of
controllable forces of nature
These two requirements limit patentable inventions to be within the Popper world 1. Numerous practical and repeatable problems exists within Popper World 3 (such as business methods), but the solution of these these have not previously been patentable subject matter, because they've been untechnical. Clearly a business method has some indirect consequences in world 1, e.g. transferring products. But this is not a direct consequence of applying the business method.
And he states:
The technicality concept discussed here corresponds to the EPO also in that context, by which it becomes clear form this alone that a computer program which is not destined to be used for the objectively ascertainable solution of a certain problem, cannot fulfil that concept.
E.g. computer programs that solve a objectively
ascertainable problem are by EPO standards technical. Hence, almost all programs are by EPO standards technical, and hence patentable.
This is why even though the EU commission directive talks about 'technical computer implemented inventions', they are essentially requiring unlimited patentability of software that runs on computers. Including software that when it runs happens to execute a function which is a business method.
E.g. EP 086 199 This is a queing problem.
This is completely abstract problem (world 3). Selecting a que subject to some preferential criterion is identical to the scheduling problem of multitasking operatingsystem, same problem different language, because the problem does not depending on technical issues.
By reading the summary, I guess that the invention is a machine that issues tickes with a que number on it, where the solution is determined using software that solves the abstract que problem.
Machines that issues tickets with que numbers are not novel, but they are technical apparatuses (requires natural forces). The solution to the queing problem is completely abstract. Thus the combination of a technical machine (known) and a completely abstract problem (also known) is novel and has technical effect?
Certainly the problem is practical and repeatable so if that is the definition of technical then the invension is technical, but is that good definition of technical from the perspective of the society?
> But how do you distinguish between the three
> Popper worlds in practice? I mean, I can see
> the definitions, but I wonder how workable
> they are in practice.
I see the commissions harmonisation directive as the direct consequence of the unworkability of the concept of 'technical', as indicated by Schar...
In the context of both Shar and Popper, it's essential for something to be objective that it can be formulated in language and discussed. Because if different observers can reach intersubjective concensus by debate, and thus define objective criterions using a common shared language.
The goal is to formulate objective criterions for patentale subject matter, and thus this requires first the definition of a language in which the patent problem can be discussed.
Clearly relying on the subjective interpretation of a word like technical does nothing to ensure objective harmonised patent practice. As the EPO slippery slope practice shows.
Thus as long as the EC commission directive does not attempt to define the language it uses, it will not result in harmonized patentpractice on the long term. Thus defining language and giving examples are important.
Returning to your question.
Requiring the direct application of natural forces to bring about the solution of a problem is a good start to ensure an innovation is a world 1 invention.
The que problem is not such an example, because the solution can be obtained without referring to application of natural forces.
But I grant you that it is an good question, which I'll think about.
--
Best Regards Carsten Svaneborg
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/~svanebor/
> monetary values), then that produces no
> (further) technical effect.
What about EP504287 "Method and system for remote delivery of retail banking services" valid in most of EU?
As I read this patent, this is valid if you use a browser to connects to an online webbanking service, and transfers a request for debiting or crediting your account a certain a monetary value. E.g. pays your bills online.
Where is the novelty? I have paid bills before this patent was issued! Where is the technical effect, or 'further technical effect'?
Business methods are not laws of nature, nor do they pertain to the fenomenology of material objects. That's why economy and physics are two very different branches of science, even though both business methods and scientific theories belong to Popper world 3.
> I've tried to summarize also the technical
> problem they claim to solve.
What is your definition of 'technical' or rather what is the EPO definition of 'technical'? I think all the softwarepatent issues are directly caused by the dismanteling of this concept.
According to Mark Schar (Former EPO judge):
http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/papri/jwip-s
The objective concept of technicality, [..] requires mainly the four following criteria:
* solution
* of a problem
* in a practical and
* repeatable manner.
Because a solution implies a problem, one can reduce this definition by mentioning only three criteria which are then absolutely indispensable: - a practical and repeatable solution.
And according to Schar the following are not requirements for technicality:
* by using controllable forces of nature
* the direct consequence of the use of
controllable forces of nature
These two requirements limit patentable inventions to be within the Popper world 1. Numerous practical and repeatable problems exists within Popper World 3 (such as business methods), but the solution of these these have not previously been patentable subject matter, because they've been untechnical. Clearly a business method has some indirect consequences in world 1, e.g. transferring products. But this is not a direct consequence of applying the business method.
And he states:
The technicality concept discussed here corresponds to the EPO also in that context, by which it becomes clear form this alone that a computer program which is not destined to be used for the objectively ascertainable solution of a certain problem, cannot fulfil that concept.
E.g. computer programs that solve a objectively
ascertainable problem are by EPO standards technical. Hence, almost all programs are by EPO standards technical, and hence patentable.
This is why even though the EU commission directive talks about 'technical computer implemented inventions', they are essentially requiring unlimited patentability of software that runs on computers. Including software that when it runs happens to execute a function which is a business method.
E.g. EP 086 199 This is a queing problem.
This is completely abstract problem (world 3). Selecting a que subject to some preferential criterion is identical to the scheduling problem of multitasking operatingsystem, same problem different language, because the problem does not depending on technical issues.
By reading the summary, I guess that the invention is a machine that issues tickes with a que number on it, where the solution is determined using software that solves the abstract que problem.
Machines that issues tickets with que numbers are not novel, but they are technical apparatuses (requires natural forces). The solution to the queing problem is completely abstract. Thus the combination of a technical machine (known) and a completely abstract problem (also known) is novel and has technical effect?
Certainly the problem is practical and repeatable so if that is the definition of technical then the invension is technical, but is that good definition of technical from the perspective of the society?
> But how do you distinguish between the three
> Popper worlds in practice? I mean, I can see
> the definitions, but I wonder how workable
> they are in practice.
I see the commissions harmonisation directive as the direct consequence of the unworkability of the concept of 'technical', as indicated by Schar...
In the context of both Shar and Popper, it's essential for something to be objective that it can be formulated in language and discussed. Because if different observers can reach intersubjective concensus by debate, and thus define objective criterions using a common shared language.
The goal is to formulate objective criterions for patentale subject matter, and thus this requires first the definition of a language in which the patent problem can be discussed.
Clearly relying on the subjective interpretation of a word like technical does nothing to ensure objective harmonised patent practice. As the EPO slippery slope practice shows.
Thus as long as the EC commission directive does not attempt to define the language it uses, it will not result in harmonized patentpractice on the long term. Thus defining language and giving examples are important.
Returning to your question.
Requiring the direct application of natural forces to bring about the solution of a problem is a good start to ensure an innovation is a world 1 invention.
The que problem is not such an example, because the solution can be obtained without referring to application of natural forces.
But I grant you that it is an good question, which I'll think about.
--
Best Regards Carsten Svaneborg
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/~svanebor
