[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive]
 
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Skåne Sjælland Linux User Group - http://www.sslug.dk Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Forum   Calendar   Search
MhonArc Date: [Date Prev] [Date Index] [Date Next]   Thread: [Date Prev] [Thread Index] [Date Next]   MhonArc
 

JURI ændringsforslag (dårlige)



Amendment by Ward Beysen Amendment 62 Article 5, paragraph 2 (new)

2. A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier,
shall be allowed if that program would, when loaded and executed in
a computer, programmed computer network or other programmable
apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same
patent application in accordance with paragraph 1.

Justification:

The European Patent Office presently permits a computer-implemented
invention that meets the normal tests to be claimed as a computer
program. The Commission's proposal diverges from current EPO practice
and would forbid such claims. The result would be to introduce a
disconformity with current EPO practice and create doubt about the
status of granted patents including such claims. Enforcement of
patents will become more difficult, particularly against infringing
distributors of computer programs. In cases where such distributors
are located in one EU Member State and the users of the computer
program are situated in another Member State, enforcement of valid
patents against distributors may well be impossible. Users will be
put in the untenable situation of purchasing computer programs in
good faith, but unwittingly infringing valid patents when executing
the computer program.

Europæiske distributører af OSS programmer kan krænke patenter
hvis dette ændringsforslag accepteres.


Amendment by Willy C.E.H. De Clercq
Amendment 64 Article 5, paragraph 2 (new)

2. 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, implement a product or process claimed in the same patent
in accordance with paragraph 1.


Justification:

Paragraph 2, as proposed, corresponding to the orientation of the
Council, draws the normal and important consequence for the program
of its being a decisive part of the computerimplemented invention.
Deciding differently would deprive the patentability of
computerimplemented inventions of any practical meaning, since the
program is the core of it and, above all, the part which is under
attack through patent infringement. The most energetic defence must
be applied to the program.




Amendment by Luis Berenguer Fuster Amendment 69 Article 6,
second paragraph (new)

The Member States shall ensure that computer-implemented inventions
that meet the conditions laid down in this Directive do not benefit
from protection by both patent and copyright.

Justification: The substance of this directive should not entail
protection additional to that provided under Directive 91/250/EC.


Betyder det at hvis A udtager et softwarepatent på et OSS program
som B har lavet, så gælder B's copyright ikke længrer for dette
program?


Amendment by Toine Manders Amendment 72
Motion for a legislative resolution, paragraph 1

1. Calls on the Commission to withdraw the directive. For reasons
of legal certainty, calls on Member States which are contracting
states to the European Patent Convention to examine the possibility
of including the patentability of computerimplemented inventions
in Article 52 of the European Patent Convention.


Justification:

Withdrawing the directive and amending Article 52(3) of the EPC
will provide the harmonisation and legal certainty desired. The
fact that the European Patent Convention and Community legislation
exist alongside each other makes the current legal rules concerning
the granting of patents unnecessarily confusing. Amending Article
52 of the EPC in accordance with the spirit of, and the criteria
proposed in, this directive will enhance legal certainty.


Det vil formodeligt være endnu sværre at få indsigt i de
demokratiske processer i dette tilfælde.










-- 
          Mvh. Carsten Svaneborg
       http://www.softwarepatenter.dk
 hvor fremtidens idemonopoler bekæmpes idag.


 
Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Index   Calendar   Search

 
 
Questions about the web-pages to <www_admin>. Last modified 2005-08-10, 20:20 CEST [an error occurred while processing this directive]
This page is maintained by [an error occurred while processing this directive]MHonArc [an error occurred while processing this directive] # [an error occurred while processing this directive] *