undefined | Better HN

0 pointsamiga3861y ago0 comments

Maybe the examiner erred in issuing it then, and it needs to be cancelled because it's non-patentable subject matter as per Article 52 of the European Patent Convention.

I don't know how I can be clearer about that. It's literally not allowed, and you think the first one you've looked at has somehow escaped the very direct statement that programs for computers are not patentable subject matter

Perhaps if you'll cite any of those French patents (I note you alluded to "over 300" but managed not to cite any), we can get started on the cancellations

0 comments

jcranmer1y ago

The first patent I found was EP3975559 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/08/b8/01/acb4bfe...)

The complete list of patents in the MPEG-LA for H.264 is here: https://www.via-la.com/wp-content/uploads/Final-February-1-2...

amiga386OP1y ago

The first patent you found is Danish - though is issued in several jurisdictions simultaneously via the EPO.

And yes, it is carefully written to not imply it's patenting a computer program, and yet try to get the maximum "I'll sneak this past the examiners because I really want to patent computer programs" without actually breaching their direct rules about what are and aren't computer programs (and what is and isn't a technical solution, and what is and isn't novel).

So if you want to say "looks like a software patent", the EPO would disagree directly with you, as they literally followed their rules saying don't do that - but the adversary is also trying their best to get software-implementation-fucking patent claims despite those rules. I'd like the EPO to be even stricter, and reject even more claims.

kelnos1y ago

I'm a little confused what your argument is, then. You claim that software is not patentable in the EU, but then accept that some companies manage to get software patented in EU countries by writing their patents creatively.

So... software is patentable in the EU, at least in some circumstances. That's the end result, even if technically it's not allowed.

Unless these patents in question don't actually cover video codec software, which it seems they do?

The ultimate test, of course, is if these patents would stand up in court. But it seems no one has challenged them? Which indicates to me that either a) people believes they would hold up in court, and so they don't try to challenge them, or b) no one is sure, and is afraid to find out. Either outcome has the end result of "software can be patented in the EU sometimes".

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse