這算是"漏新聞"（以下補一點資訊），印度曾於8月提出審查指南，但在各方壓力下擱置，直到爭議被解決為止。
這個具有爭議的修法涉及專利法Section 3(k) of Indian Patents Act，其中規定數學、商業方法或是電腦程式本身不得專利的規定。對此，總有正反兩方，贊成修法的認為軟體專利會阻礙軟體發展，特別是一些非營利的自由軟體組織、新創公司，且印度應該是美國以外軟體工業最發達的國家，這個修法自然是十分受歡迎；但反對的人卻說，如果專利專利不成，則可能無法保護印度的軟體工業。這大概就是「專利」的必要之惡的充分討論。
類似地，印度法律將軟體程式視為著作權的領域，軟體程式本身自然並非是專利的標的。而軟體專利仍有必要之處，理由之一是著作權不足以保護一個軟體當中的演算法則與功能，但為了克服軟體程式本身不可專利的阻礙，於是印度審查軟體專利時的標準也是要求電腦軟體植入硬體裝置內（如電腦、手機、電視），並應具有產業利用性。
HG.org網站有段話可供參考：
"To avoid application of Section 3 (k) of the Indian Patents act, in the claims few hardware components must be shown to form the essential part of the invention and some form of interdependence should be shown between the software and hardware components."
MONDAQ提到一個日前德里高等法院的案例，印度公司Intex Technologies Ltd.對瑞典電信公司Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson提出侵權告訴，要求支付授權金，其中專利涉及行動通訊技術，案件除了授權金的意題外，更關於電腦軟體的可專利性，也是討論如上專利法Section 3(k)的規定。
法規參考：
THE PATENTS ACT, 1970
CHAPTER II INVENTIONS NOT PATENTABLE
Section 3 What are not inventions （不可專利標的）
...
（2002年版本，數學、商業方法或電腦程式本身不得專利）
(k) a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms;
(k) a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware;
(ka) a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms;
（2011年審查指南有詳細對各種用語定義範圍，包括此議題下定義"mathematical methods", "business methods", "algorithm"等）
（資料來源：http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions）
審查的方法：電腦程式本身不得專利，請求項涉及電腦程式產品如儲存程式的可讀取媒體本身不可專利，即便標的非電腦程式，仍會審查相關標的是否在說明書有足夠的揭露，以及是否為發明的重要部分，也就是說，如果僅是用裝置包裝軟體本身的發明，仍不得專利。
"If the claimed subject matter in a patent application is only a computer programme, it is considered as a computer programme per se and hence not patentable. Claims directed at computer programme products' are computer programmes per se stored in a computer readable medium and as such are not allowable. Even if the claims, inter alia, contain a subject matter which is not a computer programme, it is examined whether such subject matter is sufficiently disclosed in the specification and forms an essential part of the invention."
（2013年版本，來源：http://spicyip.com/2015/09/new-cri-guidelines-seem-to-be-result-of-patent-office-overreach.html）
被排除可專利性的標的：
2.3 It further introduced explicit exclusions from patentability with regard to Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) under section 3:
(k) a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms;
(l) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other aesthetic creation whatsoever including cinematographic works and television productions;
(m) a mere scheme or rule or method of performing mental act or method of playing game;
(n) a presentation of information;”
（2015年版本，審查指南連結：http://www.ipindia.nic.in/iponew/CRI_Guidelines_21August2015.pdf）
不可專利標的：
2.2 The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 also introduced explicit exclusions from patentability under section 3 for Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) as under:
(k) a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms;
(l) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other aesthetic creation whatsoever including cinematographic works and television productions;
(m) a mere scheme or rule or method of performing mental act or method of playing game;
(n) a presentation of information;
軟體專利可專利性要考量以下內容：
5.1 For being considered patentable, the subject matter should involve either
- a novel hardware, or
- a novel hardware with a novel computer programme, or
- a novel computer programme with a known hardware which goes beyond the normal interaction with such hardware and affects a change in the functionality and/or performance of the existing hardware.
A computer program, when running on or loaded into a computer, going beyond the “normal” physical interactions between the software and the hardware on which it is run, and is capable of bringing further technical effect may not be considered as exclusion under these provisions.
判斷是否有技術進展的標準：
6.1 While examining CRI applications, the examiner shall confirm that the claims have the requisite technical advancement. The following questions should be addressed by the examiner while determining the technical advancement of the inventions concerning CRIs:(i) whether the claimed technical feature has a technical contribution on a process which is carried on outside the computer;
(ii) whether the claimed technical feature operates at the level of the architecture of the computer;
(iii) whether the technical contribution is by way of change in the hardware or the functionality of hardware.
(iv) whether the claimed technical contribution results in the computer being made to operate in a new way;
(v) in case of a computer programme linked with hardware, whether the programme makes the computer a better computer in the sense of running more efficiently and effectively as a computer;
(vi) whether the change in the hardware or the functionality of hardware amounts to technical advancement.
If answer to ANY of the above questions is in affirmative, the invention may not be considered as exclusion under section 3 (k) of the Patents Act, 1970.
大意就是，將電腦軟體執行於「已知硬體」，沒有超越一般功能（軟硬體交互作用）的，仍不得專利。
my two cents:
這裡僅報導別的國家的一些專利資訊，供申請參考，印度顯然也是一個值得注意的軟體大國，希望這裡可以將印度專利資訊比重放多一些。
有一撰寫建議是（在所參考資訊來源有此建議），可以在說明書提到軟體與硬體的交互作用，雖請求項可能不用刻意植入不願置入的硬體元件，但是這樣可以為了將來答辯應用。
關於軟體，至少將其與硬體有著特殊的關聯，就可迴避一般不予專利的規定，但也不是每種軟體發明都有這個特性，於是，各國的CRI/CII可專利性態度就變得需要去理解。
相關資訊：
http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions
http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/394478/Patent/Section+3k+Of+The+India+Patents+Act+1970+A+Never+Ending+Challenge+For+It+Giants
http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=5508
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/patent-office-puts-on-hold-norms-for-software-patenting/article8031900.ece
http://spicyip.com/2015/03/15017.html
http://spicyip.com/2015/09/new-cri-guidelines-seem-to-be-result-of-patent-office-overreach.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言