[erlang-questions] Best way to do wall time alarms?

Matthias Lang <>
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".
 > 
 > http://swpat.ffii.org/log/epgl01A/index.en.html
 > 
 > 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.
   |
   | http://wiki.ffii.org/ComGierekPr060524En

Matthias



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list