JuriSuigen0505En

Recital 18

number

submitter

recommendation

text

18

Rocard

++

The legal protection of computer-controlled inventions does not necessitate the creation of a separate body of law in place of the rules of national patent law. The rules of national patent law remain the essential basis for the legal protection of computer-controlledinventions. This Directive simply clarifies the present legal position witha view to securing legal certainty, transparency, and clarity of the legislation and avoiding any drift towards the patentability of unpatentable methods in particular inherently non-technical methods such as algorithms, software, data processing methods or educational or business methods.

242

Lichtenberger, Frassoni

++

The legal protection of computer-assisted inventions does not necessitate the creation of a separate body of law in place of the rules of national patent law. The rules of national patent law remain the essential basis for the legal protection of computer-assisted inventions. This Directive simply clarifies the present legal position with a view to securing legal certainty, transparency, and clarity of the law and avoiding any drift towards the patentability of unpatentable methods, in particular inherently non-technical methods such as algorithms, software, data processing methods or teaching or business methods.

18 replaces "computer-implemented" with "computer-controlled", and additionally removes the ambiguous Council sentence, which could be interpreted that "technical business methods" should be patentable.

242 the same, except that it uses "computer-assisted" instead of "computer-controlled".

Recital 19

| number | submitter | recommendation | text | | 19 = 244 = 245 = 246| Rocard; Kudrycka and Zwiefka; Bertinotti; Ortega | ++ | [deletion] |

Similarly to Council recital 13, this newly inserted Council recital claims that there are non-technical inventions. This can obviously not be the case.

Hosting sponsored by Netgate and Init Seven AG