[erlang-questions] Best way to do wall time alarms?
Wed Jan 24 10:12:04 CET 2007
Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB) writes:
> Bengt Kleberg wrote:
> > EPO guidelines 1978: "If the contribution to the known art resides
> > solely in a computer program then the subject matter is not
> > patentable in whatever manner it may be presented in the claims."
> You need to update your signature. ;)
> The "New Guidelines":
> 1. Art 52(2) EPC is a list of non-inventions.
> 2. The "programs for computers" listed therein are
> "computer-implementable inventions".
> 3. Programs can be patented as such, when they have a
> "further technical effect".
> 4. Practically all programs have a "further technical effect".
> The Guidelines for Examination clarify that while a program
> is not patentable in itself, what it does is, assuming that
> the program actually solves a technical problem and does
> something (observably) useful. Then, the concepts embodied
> in the program are patentable (barring prior art).
The "New Guidelines" are not entirely uncontroversial. In particular
the meaning of "as such" seems to vary
| Brussels, 24 May 2006. In a reply to a question from Polish MEP and
| inventor Adam Gierek, the European Commission has confirmed that the
| European Patent Office's (EPO) case law is not binding for member
| states, nor (under the proposed Community Patent regulation) for the
| European Court of Justice (ECJ). For the first time, the Commission
| has also clearly stated that computer programs are not patentable
| subject matter, without hiding behind the infamous "as such" cop-out.
More information about the erlang-questions