Patents on computer programs and on electronic game systems / patents on methods of carrying on economic activities?
DOI:
10.16928/2316-8080.v10n1p.1-46Keywords:
Software patents Scope of protection Gaming Methods for doing business CopyrightAbstract
The work analyses the patentability of inventions involving computer programs in the field of electronic gaming and of methods for doing business and, where such patentability is admitted in particular cases, seeks to clarify the scope of protection of these patents; subsidiarily, it analyses the protection of computer programs and gaming systems by copyright. The argument sets the concept of invention as a technical solution producing a technical effect against the exclusions of Article 52(2) of the EPC, and draws on the practice of the European Patent Office, United States case law, the examination guidelines of the Brazilian INPI and Portuguese law. It addresses the distinction between computer programs and methods for doing business "as such" and their mere technical implementation, the assessment of inventive step, the reach of the ius prohibendi and the function of independent claims. It holds that implementation by means of a computer program can hardly be denied technical character, but that recognising an invention does not suffice for the grant of a patent, which depends on the distance from the state of the art, and that copyright protects the form of the sequence of instructions, not its inherent utilitarian function.
References
EPO, Annual Report 2013: European Patent Applications (Março 2014). Este nomen (veiculada pelo IEP e pela Comissão Europeia) espelha, desde logo, a interpretação restritiva da proibição prevista no art. 52.º, n.º 2, alínea c), in fine, da CPE, visando legitimar somente exclusão dos processos mentais puros do universo das realidades patenteáveis.
JOSÉ ALBERTO VIEIRA, A Proteção dos Programas de Computador pelo Direito de Autor, 2005, cit.
Ralph NACK, Die patentierbare Erfindung unter den sich wandelnden Bedingungen von Wissenschaft und Technologie, Köln, Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2002, p. 147 ss., p. 306 ss.; Ralph NACK, "Der Erfindungsbegriff - eine gesetzberische Fehlkonstruktion", in: GRUR, 2014, p. 148 ss., p. 149; Jürgen ENSTHALLER, "Muss der Erfindungsbegriff in § 1 PatG und Art. 52 EPÜ reformiert werden?, in: GRUR, 2015, p. 150 ss., 152. Também, R. NACK, in: HAEDICKE, M./TIMMANN, H. (ed.), A Handbook on European and German Patent Law, München, Oxford, Baden-Baden, C. H. Beck, Hart, Nomos, 2014, § 2, anotação à margem n.º 65 ss., p.
US, 130 S. Ct 3218, de 2010. Cfr. um comentário crítico a este acórdão em R. H. STERN,"Bilski: A"Flipped"Vote and then a Damp Squib", in: EIPR, 2011, p. 115 s.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Os autores mantêm os direitos autorais sobre seus trabalhos e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação. A licença aplicável a este artigo é a indicada nesta página e corresponde à política vigente na data de sua publicação.
Os autores estão autorizados a depositar a versão publicada em repositórios institucionais e temáticos, desde que indicada a publicação original nesta revista.
A PIDCC não cobra taxas de submissão, processamento ou publicação.