Taking the Utilitarian Basis for Patent Law Seriously: The Case for Restricting Patentable Subject Matter

Olson, David S.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.933167

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 Article 52 (2) analysis shows that the European Patent Office (EPO) never intended to exclude all computer programs. 5 The history and the current differences between Section 1(2) and Article 52(2) are clear through case law analysis. In VICOM 6 and followed in IBM 7 and IBM 2, EPO decided that patent claims for computer programs are not part of the 'as such' if 'technical contribution' is found.…”

Section: IImentioning

confidence: 99%

“…82 More data manipulation occurs now in computer programming, and the Merrill Lynch approach is too restrictive. 83 The UK is pressured to liberalise the patents for computer programs from businesses. 84 The increasing number of patent claims for computer programs in the UK was found to be partly because businesses got similar patents in the US, and they need to get the rights everywhere before the competition does.…”

Section: IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Applicability of the Term ‘As Such’ While Protecting the Computer Programs: An Outlook for European Law

2023

IJFMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘The automatic bar on patent protection for computer programs ‘as such’ in section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977 is unduly restrictive and out of step with modern information technology-based innovation. This exception to patentability should be removed from the Act so that any program meeting the basic requirements of novelty, inventive step, etc. is patentable like any other invention.’ The current paper aims to analyse section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977 and its relation with article 52(2) EPC. It further tries to establish the differences between the two approaches. The aim remains to analyse why EPO changed its approach for a narrower interpretation of ‘as such’ and why the UK refuses to follow. The essay will show that the English interpretation of ‘as such’ in section 1(2) is not suitable for the computer programming market reality of today concerning the economic and industry changes in size and structure. The attempt has been made to focus on showing that section 1(2) is too restrictive considering the type of businesses and innovations and a broader interpretation of ‘as such’ effects. The UK’s law had expressed intentions to remain in harmony with the EPO, ‘collocation’ as an alternative solution to following the ‘any hardware approach’ and the lack of benefit the total removal of section 1 (2) would bring.

show abstract

Section: IImentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

Applicability of the Term ‘As Such’ While Protecting the Computer Programs: An Outlook for European Law

2023

IJFMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It can be found in both the popular press 27 and academic scholarship. 28 Courts, the Patent Office, and commentators are all divided on what types of innovation should be patentable and what should be off-limits to patenting, if any at all. 29 The problem of unnecessary patents has become worse in recent years, as companies have popped up that try to monetize patents by aggressively enforcing them against those who allegedly infringe on them.…”

Section: The Broken Patent Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patent law failure: A systematic literature review

Farooq

Bashir

Altaf

2022

World Intellectual Property

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides the systematic literature review of the literature on patent law failure. Specifically, we focus on both theoretical and empirical studies on patent law, its framework and evolution of its failure. We also explain the influence of TRIPS agreement on developing countries. Additionally, this paper also provides a broader overview of patent law in various settings. Further, to provide a broader framework and future aspects of the patent law in developing countries we tried to mostly mention and interpret the data in relation to the development of those countries. The article also covers different reasons of patent law failure.

show abstract

“…Hence, the State concludes that creative products (unlike physical property) could be better utilized by its people through sharing so as to maximize public welfare. Accordingly, the State grants a monopoly on the exclusive rights only for such period of time that ought to enable the creator to recover her economic investment in her creative product, i.e., earn normal profits from her creation (Olson 2009); after the expiry of this time period, the creation is ought to be made public.…”

Section: Economic Investment In Creative Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial Creations: Ascription, Ownership, Time-Specific Monopolies

Shekhar

2020

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taking the Utilitarian Basis for Patent Law Seriously: The Case for Restricting Patentable Subject Matter

Abstract: Courts, the Patent Office, and commentators are in vigorous disagreement about what types of innovation should be patentable, and what, if any, innovation should remain off-limits to patenting.

Cited by 8 publications

References 3 publications

Applicability of the Term ‘As Such’ While Protecting the Computer Programs: An Outlook for European Law

Applicability of the Term ‘As Such’ While Protecting the Computer Programs: An Outlook for European Law

Patent law failure: A systematic literature review

Artificial Creations: Ascription, Ownership, Time-Specific Monopolies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About