[Discussioni] Fwd: [Patents] Australia to reject ban on business method patents

[Alessandro Rubini]

I soliti trucchi. Basta chiamare chiamare una cosa "tecnologia" anche
se non lo e` (come il commercio); basta dire che una cosa e` nuova
anche se non lo e` (come il commercio); basta focalizzare sulle
restrizioni per chiamare "restrittivo" il sistema piu` liberista;
basta ignorare lo scopo originale del brevetto e ignorare gli studi
econimici.

Cosi` si puo` dire che in assenza di giustificazioni pro o contro
bisogna evitare le restrizioni.  Ed ecco che si possono benedire i
brevetti su qualunque cosa e chiedere piu` soldi per l'ufficio
brevetti.

Sono disgustato.

> To: Patent forum <patents a aful.org>
> Subject: [Patents] Australia to reject ban on business method patents
> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 17:33:08 +0000
>
> Story spotted by Tim Frain (Nokia)
> 
> Re: Business method patent policy in Australia.  In case you did not 
> already see this.  Tim
> 
> 
> Per www.legalmediagroup.com
> 
> 
> Australia to reject Europe's business method patent policy
> Emma Barraclough, Hong Kong - 29 February 2004
> 
> 
> Australia is set to ignore calls for a ban on patenting business
> methods after a leading think tank recommended no change to the present
> law.
> 
> The recommendation was made by the Advisory Council on Intellectual
> Property (ACIP). The Council, an independent body appointed by the
> government, released its report into patenting business methods last
> week.
> 
> The Council said the country should remain in line with Japan, the US
> and New Zealand, where business methods are patentable, rather than
> adopt the restrictive practice in jurisdictions administered under the
> European Patent Convention.
> 
> The patenting of business methods has proved controversial. So far,
> patents have been granted for Amazon's "one click" method of buying
> on-line and Priceline's "reverse auction" method for buying airline
> tickets.
> 
> But those calling for a ban on such patents systems say that patents
> for business methods are too abstract and stifle competition and
> innovation. Supporters of business method patents claim business
> innovators also deserve reward for their work.
> 
> Two years ago, the Australian government asked the Advisory Council to
> consider whether Australia should change its laws.
> 
> But the Council claims that it could find little evidence that patents
> for business systems either encourage or suppress innovation in
> Australia and recommends that the law should be unchanged. But it
> advised that IP Australia, the agency that grants patents, monitor the
> number and significance of business system patents and report back to
> the government each year until 2009.
> 
> David Webber, a partner at Davies Collison Cave, welcomed the report.
> "There is no logical argument that can be sustained for treating
> business system patents different from patents for any other
> technologies," said Webber. "Controversy has always surrounded patent
> protection for new emerging technologies, but over time this controversy
> has always subsided."
> 
> But Webber urged the government to provide the Australian Patent Office
> with more resources and training to ensure that it only grants patents
> to business systems that are truly inventive.
> 
> MIP Week welcomes your feedback on this or any other story. Please
> email the author with your comments. Letters may be published online.