Natural Forces Advocacy

Arguments pro Natural Forces

• divides the spheres of interest between software and technical inventions
• harmonisation objective fails without definition of technical
• a sharp borderline with good tradition in Germany, see Red Dove GRUR 69
• even UK with its soft technical definition hold a swpat workshop series which concluded in favour of a Nat forces definition
• wildeboer has quote of BMJ which says Nat forces are fine

Arguments against Natural forces

• polemics: 19 century, "obviously" to narrow.
• no love of first sight
• not known in all member states, anti-German sentiment
• legal drift in court ruling toward software patenting and breaking the nat forces teaching
• Japanese Patent Office interprets forces of nature in such way that they can grant software patents

-> hard to sell

Rote Taube

• Technisch ist eine Lehre zum planmäßigen Handeln unter Einsatz beherrschbarer Naturkräfte zur Erreichung eines kausal übersehbaren Erfolges, der ohne Zwischenschaltung menschlicher Verstandstätigkeit die unmittelbare Folge des Einsatzes beherrschbarer Naturkräfte ist. BGH GRUR 1969, 672 "Rote Taube".

• Technical is a teaching for the planned acting under usage of controllable forces of nature for reaching a causal forseeable effect without Intermediation of human mental acts which are the direct result of the use of contrallable forces of nature.

Arend Lammertink

• The doctrine of "the new technical effect" (ring a bell?) has been used for over 100 years to enable re-patenting of a known process only when it is used for a new product. That cannot be changed within the current directive, leaving only one choice: turning back the clock to before the Sohei decision. In other words: re-introducing the forces of nature line that used to be there before. All other options are going to create a big mess. There is no way to divide "technical" and "non-technical" software, "software" and "software as such" or for that matter, any other devision of software in two groups that is usable to "carve out" a compromise. You cannot devide the un-devidable!

References in current legal literature

Tauchert

Technisch ist dabei (wie z.B. in der Entscheidung zu "ABS"(8) ausgeführt) eine Lehre zum planmäßigen Handeln unter Einsatz beherrschbarer Naturkräfte zu Erreichung eines kausal übersehbaren Erfolgs, der ohne Zwischenschaltung menschlicher Verstandestätigkeit die unmittelbare Folge beherrschbarer Naturkräfte ist.

Tauchert, W.:Patentierung von Programmen für Datenverarbeitungsanlagen - neue Rechtsprechung und aktuelle Entwicklungen JurPC Web-Dok. 40/2001, Abs. 9

Andreas Wiebe

Eine Erfindung als Gegenstand des Patentrechts ist eine „Lehre zum planmäßigen Einsatz beherrschbarer Naturkräfte zur Erreichung eines kausal übersehbaren Erfolges.“15 Mit dem Bezug auf den Einsatz beherrschbarer Naturkräfte ist zugleich das Technikerfordernis Teil des Erfindungsbegriffs. Eigentlich stammt das Technikerfordernis bereits aus einer Entscheidung des Reichsgerichts (RG) des Jahres 1933, in der es um die Patentfähigkeit einer Multiplikations- und Divisionstabelle in Buchform ging (RG GRUR 1933, 289). Eine Erfindung müsse „ihrem Wesen nach“ technisch sein, also mit den Mitteln von Naturkräften arbeiten, während das Rechenwerk von Tabellen dem Gebiet rein geistiger Tätigkeit angehöre und außer Betracht bleiben müsse. „Die Technik bezieht sich auf die Erscheinungswelt im Gegensatz zur Welt des Geistes; sie arbeitet nach den Lehren von Physik und Chemie“ (RG GRUR 1933, 289, 290).

Wiebe, Andreas: Patentschutz und Softwareentwicklung - ein unüberbrückbarer Gegensatz?, in: Opensource-Jahrbuch, Lutterbeck(hrsg.), Berlin: 2004

Bakels/Hugenholtz regarding the original COM proposal

• "experience has indeed demonstrated that “technical” patents may include (potentially undesirable) software and business method claims."

Reinier Bakels, Brent P. Hugenholtz: Discussion of European-level legislation in the field of patents for software (point 5, page 33, discussion of the original Commission proposal) http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20020619/SoftwarePatent.pub.pdf

Verkade a.o. - Ruimere octrooiëring van computerprogramma's: Technicality of revolutie? - 1999

http://www.vrijschrift.nl/nl/softwarepatenten/publ_overheid/ovc (Dutch)

This contains a part about the Dutch case about bar-code readers in which "materialised information" was regarded as belonging to a domain of nature by the department of appeal of the Dutch patent office:

(Dutch original can go, once someone checked my translation...)

• "De vraag voor de Afdeling van Beroep was in hoeverre 'informatie', die onderwerp is van de streepjescodeherkennings- en verwerkingswerkwijze, als 'verandering brengend in de natuur' kon of moest worden gerekend. De Afdeling van Beroep maakte in haar beslissing een onderscheid tussen 'informatie als zodanig' en 'gematerialiseerde informatie'. Gematerialiseerde informatie betreft informatie die vastgelegd is op een materiële drager. Volgens de Afdeling van Beroep behoort gematerialiseerde informatie tot het domein van de natuur en kan derhalve het onderwerp van een octrooieerbare werkwijze zijn."

In English:

• "The question to the department of appeal was to what extend 'information', that was subject of a barcode recognition and processing working method, could be regarded as "bringing a change in nature". The department of appeal made a distinction between 'information as such' and 'materialised information'. Materialised information is information stored on a fysical carrier. According to the department of appeal, materialised information belongs to the domain of nature and can therefore be the subject of a patentable working method."

It also contains a part about the Japanese situation:

(Dutch original can go, once someone checked my translation...)

• "De Japanse octrooiwet bepaalt dat een uitvinding in de zin van die wet is 'the highly advanced creation of technical ideas by which a law of nature is utilised'. Een 'law of nature' (of: natuurwetenschappelijke wetmatigheid) moet naar Japanse maatstaven worden onderscheiden van een wiskundige wet. Computerprogramma's zijn octrooieerbaar als een natuurwetenschappelijke wetmatigheid in de software zelf wordt toegepast, of als de software gebruikt wordt in samenhang met hardware elementen. Toepassing van natuurwetenschappelijke wetmatigheden in de software zelf kan betrekking hebben op software die hardware elementen aanstuurt of op computerprogramma's die beogen de computer zelf te besturen. Volgens de Guidelines van 1994 van het Japanse Patent Office zijn ook octrooieerbaar computerprogramma's voor de bewerking van gegevens die afkomstig, dan wel afgeleid zijn van fysische of technische eigenschappen van objecten. Hanneman geeft als voorbeelden computergestuurde beeldverwerking, computergestuurde detectie/correctie van transmissiefouten in digitale signalen of een werkwijze voor het genereren en het weergeven van een geometrische figuur, bijvoorbeeld een cirkel op een beeldscherm."

In English:

• "The Japanese patent law says that an invention in the sense of that law is 'the highly advanced creation of technical ideas by which a law of nature is utilised' A 'law of nature' must be separated from a mathematical law according to Japanese practice. Computer programs are patentable if a law of nature is used in the software itself, or if the software is used in combination with hardware elements. Useage of laws of natures in the software itself can handle about software that controls hardware elements or computer programs that aim to control the computer itself. According to the Guidelines of 1994 bij the Japanes Patent Office, computer programs for processing data originating or derived from fysical or technical featurs of objects are also patentable. Hanneman gives examples as computer controlled image processing, computer controlled decection/correction of transmission errors in digital signals or a working method for generating and displaying a geometric figure, for example a circle on a computer display."

In other words: forces of nature offers plenty of room for interpretation. We also need CoreTheoryEn and interoperability.

Comment by Ante:

• The EP 2003 text says: "new teaching on cause-effect relations in the use of controllable forces of nature..." Is seems to me this is something different than the Japanese text. IANOJL (I am not a Japanese laywer), but my guess is we should not conclude too much from the Japanese examples.

EICTA letter to Rocard 2005-04-21

• While it is acknowledged that there may be room for further improving the definition of “technical contribution” as it stands in the Common Position, any definition or test based on “controllable forces of nature” or “physical forces” would exclude patents for intangible inventions, e.g. speech coding, communication protocols, radio signal handling, error correction, data compression etc., all of which are currently patentable and traditionally have been patentable for decades. It is a fact of life that what we think as ordinary everyday tangible products, like cars, mobile phones, washing machines, etc are all controlled by intangible software-enabled inventions. The UK Patent Office has recently been holding a series of workshops around the UK, exploring various definitions of Technical Contribution that have been mooted in public. The broad conclusion from these workshops was that while definitions based on “physical forces” and “controllable forces of nature” may be more legally certain than the current definition, they are also (very) expansive, and would render almost all CII inventions unpatentable. An official report of the workshops is in preparation, but in the meantime the Case Studies and the Definitions used at the workshops can be seen at:

  http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/issues/cii-workshops.htm Drawing a distinction between tangible and intangible inventions may seem to address the problem of those opponents who do not want patents for anything to do with what might be regarded as “classical” computer program (software), but it throws out the baby with the bath water, by excluding all software-enabled innovation in the tangible world.

http://w3.cantos.com/05/eicta-504-0arfg/documents/comment_on_rocard_english.pdf

Other stuff

• Nasa: Four forces