Talk:European Information, Communications and Consumer Electronics Technology Industry Associations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Business and Economics Portal

This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.

rated as b-Class on the assessment scale

Mid

rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale

1 Sources and facts
2 Eicta: CII is not software
3 technical not defined
4 Mouthfull

[edit] Sources and facts

Can anyone cite a source for this:

For example, when asked at a meeting of Conservative-group MEPs in Brussels on 2004-11-09 whether he would class as a "software patent" a patent application for running a new software algorithm on a computer, which would calculate square roots more quickly, (ie the UK case "Gale's Application"), Mr. MacGann said that he was unable to answer.

It shouldn't in the article otherwise. Furthermore, the view that EICTA's construction of the expression "software patent" is narrow is actually very subjective, since there is no universal agreed definition of the expression. I removed both paragraph. --Edcolins 20:08, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ed, are you seriously contending that a definition of "software patent" which excludes "Gale's Application" isn't narrow?

Can you give an example of any definition which would be narrower than this?

As for the paraphrase, you can source it to me (j.heald at ffii.org.uk). I was there, I asked the question. If you doubt me, you could ask Florian Mueller (NoSoftwarePatents), Erik Josefsson (FFII), David Martin (M-CAM), Mark MacGann (EICTA), Tim Frain (Nokia) or Leo Baumann (EICTA) who were the panellists -- or 30 or so MEPs and assistants who were present. The question was later again put to Mr MacGann by Piia-Noori Kauppi MEP who was chairing the meeting. EICTA had said that unanimously they were against Software Patents. Did that mean they would be against an application like "Gale's Application" being patented. No answer.

I've added the words "according to anti-swpat activists" to the paragraph to clarify.

As you have extensively made the point, the term "software patent" is used by different people to mean different things. If you're going to include a quote that includes the term, it is responsible to give some indication of what the speaker means by it. (Jheald)

"Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources)" (No original research). On the one hand, you are acknowledging that you were on the meeting, on the other hand I can't find any primary sources (preferably independent news web sites or the like, but not just a blog). Unless you can point out some external sources, I do not think what you added complies with wikipedia's secondary source policy.

As for the narrow definition, I reworded it. The tricky thing is that EICTA does not explicitly defines the expression "software patent" and is scarcely used by them. Have they defined the expression "software patent" anywhere? --Edcolins 22:18, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Eicta: CII is not software

In fact this is a propaganda wiki page that cites a political lie as a fact. Read the definition of CII first.

Btw: Eicta is involved in other matters of public policy as well.

[edit] technical not defined

The term "technical" is not defined in the Commission and Council versions of above-mentioned directive, however.

Technical contribution is defined.

"Technical contribution" is defined as a "contribution in a field of technology", so that doesn't really help much without a definition of "technical" or "technology". Additionally, that definition continues:

The technical contribution shall be assessed by consideration of the difference between the state of the art and the scope of the patent claim considered as a whole, which must comprise technical features, irrespective of whether or not these are accompanied by non-technical features.

This means that "the scope of the patent claim considered as a whole" must comprise technical features, but that the technical contribution itself does not have to be technical (regardless of what (non-)definition of technical you use). E.g., suppose the claim as a whole is "a computer executing program that does X, where X is a novel and non-obvious algorithm applied to processing text", then the difference between the state of the art (a computer) and and the patent claim considered as a whole is "a program that does X". This will then be the "technical contribution", even though even the EPO considers processing text not technical. It's valid because the claims as a whole still contain technical features (the computer).

-- Jonas Maebe