<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: A. Horns: FeeFiFoII bomardiert uns ins 19. Jahrhundert



On 26 Feb 2004, at 19:27, Hartmut Pilch wrote:

> Der amerikanische Patentrechercheur G. Aharonian zitiert in seinem
> vielgelesenen Rundschreiben Axel Horns:
> 
>         It seems to be quite clear that the Council as well as
>         the Commission refuse to provide any fixed definition of
>         "technicality".  This will surely prevent us from being
>         bombed back to the world of the nineteenth century as
>         intended by the FeeFiFoII but it might render the entire
>         Directive fruitless in views of its ultimte goal to provide
>         legal certainty.  If the Directive should eventually be
>         enacted more or less as proposed by the Irish Presidency, I
>         expect that the legal disputes before the Patent Offices and
>         Courts will continue, fueled by different approaches to the
>         concepts of "technology", "technicality", "technical
>         contribution", etc.
> 
> M.a.W. das lästige Wort "Technik" soll ganz aufgegeben werden, weil
> der Bereich der angewandten Naturwissenschaften heute nicht mehr so
> sehr im Zentrum der wirtschaftlichen Aktivität steht wie noch im 19.
> Jahrhundert?
> 

Aeh... falls jemand im Zusammenhang nachlesen will, was ich in meinem 
Blog geschrieben habe:

<http://www.ipjur.com/2004_02_01_archive.php3#107729755840839722>

(Warum tut sich FFII immer so schwer, Quellen mit URL zu zitieren?)

Dagegen FFII-inspirierte Definitionsansetze in

<http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/03/st11/st11503.en03.pdf>

z.B. 

"Additionally, to deserve a patent, the technical contribution has to 
be new, non-obvious, and susceptible of industrial application." 

in Verbindung mit

"(bb) 'industry' within the meaning of patent law means the automated 
production of material goods;"  

--AHH

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: debate-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: debate-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx