Say no to software patents

Patents on computer-implemented inventions and pure software patents: what's in a name?


(Note: there is also a three-page and a two-page PDF version of this text available. The text of both versions is identical. The font of the two-page version is simply somewhat smaller and it contains less whitespace)

This text tries to explain why allowing patents on "computer-implemented inventions" (as defined in the proposed directive) is no different from allowing "pure software patents", and as such why opponents of the directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions always talk about a directive on software patents.




What do you understand under "computer-implemented invention"?




How do patents normally work, for things that are not computer-implemented inventions?




So what about computer-implemented inventions?




Synthesis: how patents are supposed to work.




Can you give an example of how the proposed directive allows software patents?




So how can we fix the directive?




Acknowledgments

This document was written by Jonas Maebe, but was created with a lot of insightful input from Xavier Drudis Ferran. Without him, this page would not exist. Credits go to Erik Josefsson for the Trojan Horse.