1 / 25

KÕHURÄÄKIJA

KÕHURÄÄKIJA. (ehk seniks, kuni seedite). Tarkvara patentimine on juba täna võimalik. Peeter Marvet, kodanik. Millest me täna ei räägi?. Kas tarkvara peaks olema patenditav?

isolde
Download Presentation

KÕHURÄÄKIJA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. KÕHURÄÄKIJA (ehk seniks, kuni seedite)

  2. Tarkvara patentimineon juba täna võimalik Peeter Marvet,kodanik

  3. Millest me täna ei räägi? • Kas tarkvara peaks olema patenditav? • Kas Eesti hääl “tarkvara patentimise direktiivi” poolt muudaks praegust Euroopa tava tarkvaraideede patentide käsitlemisel?

  4. SEST:tarkvara patentimineon juba täna võimalik!

  5. Siiski, veidi tausta: • ITL seisukoht • EITS seisukoht • Eesti seisukoht

  6. ITL seisukohast: • “Kahjuks praegusel kujul väljapakutud Euroopa Parlamendi ja Euroopa Liidu Nõukogu tarkvara patentimist puudutava direktiivi tekst viib ITLi arvates igal juhul Eesti tarkvarafirmade konkurentsivõime kahanemisele - kas kuluka patenteerimistegevuse tõttu, aeganõudvate kohtuvaidlustes osaledes või lihtsalt võimaliku patendivaidluse tõenäosust oma riskianalüüsis mitmekordistades.”

  7. EITS seisukohast: • “Euroopa Komisjoni poolt pakutav direktiiv, vaatamata toetajate hulgale suurfirmade hulgas, ei ole vastuvõetav Eesti ja enamusele Euroopa väikeettevõtetele (Eestis muid infotehnoloogia ettevõtteid ei olegi). Viimasele väitele annab aluse teave EITS rahvusvahelistest koostöö võrgustikest. Selle direktiivi rakendamine seab ohtu Eestis infotehnoloogia arendusega tegelevate ettevõtete konkurentsivõime suurenevate patendiuuringute kulutuste tõttu.”

  8. Veel EITS seisukohast: • “Samuti kaotavad tellijad kindluse uute võimaluste kasutuselevõtul ohu tõttu saada enesele teadmata patendi rikkujaks. Mõlemal juhul pikeneb iga uue rakenduse kasutuselevõtu aeg mitte vähem kui aasta.”

  9. Eesti seisukoht • “Oluline on meeles pidada ka, et tarkvara kaitsmine leiutisena (ehk siis nende patentimine) aitab kaasa innovatsiooni arengule EL-s ja maailmas tervikuna. Komisjoni poolt algatatud eelnõu põhineb juba eksisteerival tarkvara patentimise praktikal ning kohaldab üldisi patentsuse kriteeriumeid ka tarkvara patentimisele.”

  10. Kui “Eesti toetab eksisteerivat praktikat”, siis on Eesti IT-firmad vist mingist rongist maha jäänud?

  11. Axel H Horn, Patent Attorney: • “[…] it looks as if in the 80es and 90es of the past century little efforts have been made by patent professionals to remove in the general public the widespread urban myth that software-related inventions cannot be patented at all in view of Article 52 EPC. Perhaps the current difficulties can be seen as something like a late nemesis in return for the lapses that occurred during those years.“

  12. Arikkel 52 • (2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; (b) aesthetic creations; (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; (d) presentations of information.

  13. Ehk: • In the practice of examiningcomputer-implemented inventions, however, it may be more appropriate forthe examiner to proceed directly to the questions of novelty and inventivestep, without considering beforehand the question of technical character. Inassessing whether there is an inventive step, the examiner must establishan objective technical problem which has been overcome (see IV, 9.8.2).|The solution of that problem constitutes the invention's technical contribution to the art. The presence of such a technical contribution establishesthat the claimed subject-matter has a technical character and therefore isindeed an invention within the meaning of Art. 52(1).

  14. Ehk maakeeles: • Kas sinu patendiadvokaat suudab kirjeldada mõnda tehnilist probleemi, mida sinu programm võiks lahendada?

  15. Vicom case: • Decision T 208/84 (OJ 1987, 14) set out the principles governing the patentability of computer-related inventions. Even if the idea underlying an invention may be considered to reside in a mathematical method, a claim directed to a technical process in which the method is used does not seek protection for the mathematical method as such. A claim directed to a technical process carried out under the control of a program (whether by means of hardware or software) cannot be regarded as relating to a computer program as such. A claim which can be considered as being directed to a computer set up to operate in accordance with a specified program (whether by means of hardware or software) for controlling or carrying out a technical process cannot be regarded as relating to a computer program as such.

  16. Aga lugege ise edasi  Tänud! pets@tehnokratt.net

More Related