2010年6月22日 星期二

德國軟體專利

相對於EPO,德國始終用較嚴格的態度去面對軟體專利,也就是說,EPO可能獲准的軟體方面的專利案,到了德國,可能不准或是被無效!

2010年4月22日德國聯邦法院才完成一個判決,專利申請案是有關一種文件動態產生的技術(dynamic generation of documents),這個決定推翻了德國專利法庭(GFPC)與先前聯邦法院的決定(之前的決定是:僅在裝置內呈現的軟體技術特徵不足以構成可專利的條件),也就是德國原來對於軟體專利的標準是比EPO僅需要一個技術元件的標準較為寬鬆的!(updated on Nov. 2012)
可參考:http://enpan.blogspot.com/2010/06/blog-post_22.html
但根據最新4月份的判決,德國法院決定以較寬廣的態度去面對軟體專利,也就是權利範圍中僅需要至少一個技術元件(硬體特徵,非軟體特徵),就已經足夠成為可專利的標的!

Ron
資料來源:Dr.Heinz Goddar博士的演講

補充:根據網站:http://271patent.blogspot.com/2010/05/german-bilski-de-high-court-declares.html的講法,這個判決可算是德國的bilski案(可參考:http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/03/in-re-bernard-l-bilski-and-rand-warsaw.html
德國聯邦法院翻轉之前的決定(機器翻的):
A technical means to solve a technical problem exists not only when equipment components are modified or addressed fundamentally different. It is sufficient that when the ending of a data processing program that is used to solve the problem, is determined by technical factors outside the data processing system or if the solution consists precisely in a computer program in such a way that the technical characteristics of the data processing system have regard to. That condition is satisfied in this case. The invention relates to teaching, such as the Patent Court in law, the basic approach for the generation of dynamic documents. It is aimed not so to the programmer, but to the system designer who has the overall architecture of the data processing system in the eye and takes into account the different characteristics and performance of hardware and software components. Precisely for this reason it concerns the use of technical means to solve the underlying technical problem.
簡譯:技術手段應解決技術問題,軟體程式最終的資訊應解決這個技術問題,才能稱為技術元件,或是解決問題的手段為軟體,則相關系統應關聯於該手段。本案「dynamic generation of documents」相關軟件所做的是,並非是軟體設計師所作,而是相關系統設計者提供的架構(軟、硬體)產生的效果,也就是判斷是否具有專利性的標的物,不應排除其具有專利性。
故軟體發明可朝向「系統」方面著手!

沒有留言: