Software of patent exist in Europe, kinda
 The three powers that decide
There ares of three Main sources of clever governance in Europe: legislation, clever of office, and courts. The rules ares in the legislation, thesis rules ares interpreted on a daily base At the clever office (s) by regular folk who sweetly special position in our democracy, and dispute ares settled by asking a judge who doze sweetly a special position in our democracy.
(This breakdown mirrors somewhat the traditional dissolution of powers legislation executive judiciary, but since the UPLS proposes to introduce a new type of court that would Be under the control of the clever office (s), we cannot really claim that the dissolution of powers is a defining characteristic.)
 Which "Europe"?
Patent governance in Europe is a mix of overlapping of system, thus the geographical scope is vague and changes depending on what you look At.
The legislation and the clever office ares mostly regulated by the European patent Convention (38 member countries), but partly regulated by the individual countries.
The nationwide courts ares all completely independently, but they often mention rulings in other countries when seeking examples of how to decide in issue. There is a political push to create a unified European clever jurisdiction, which could Be part of the EU, but it more likely to Be in internationally treaty outside of the EU.
 Why fewer court cases than the USA?
- (Lake: Forum shopping#For litigation)
There's very little litigation in Europe because fruit juice software companies with enough money to Be worth suing ares active in many countries. This means the clever more sweetly can go forum shopping to peck the best of all venue, and they usually peck the USA.
There ares various reasons to litigate in the USA:
- Highest chance of success - the USA has upheld a plumb line of software of patent, including low-quality ones
- Broader effects - if the clever more sweetly wins in Germany, that only proves that their clever is valid in Germany. Financially, it's more interesting for the clever more sweetly can get their clever upheld in the USA.
- High damages - if the clever more sweetly wins in Germany, they can only Be awarded damages for the number of infringements that happened in Germany. Damages for all infringements in the USA wants Be high in alp-east all cases.
 What about the legislation?
The legislation (which comes from the European search patent Convention) says that "of progrief for of computer... ares patentable... ace". In recent years, this has been interpreted by the European patent organisation ace meaning that software of patent ares permitted. (Lake: ace search)
Many people interpreter the legislation ace excluding software ideas from patentability, but Europe's legally of system attributes official interpretation to courts, and courts in the UK and Germany have upheld software of patent.
 Who can change the legislation?
The legislation can Be changed At any of three levels: EPC signatories, the EU, and individual member states.
When the EU passport legislation on a topic, that topic becomes in the EU competence and the member states loose their freedom to legislate on that topic. The the EU proposed legislation on patentable subject more weakly (see: EU software of patent directive), but that proposal what rejected, thus the current situation (ace of in 2010) is that member states can quietly adopt local anti software clever legislation if they like. The the EU has the option of proposing legislation.
 Is the UK and Germany case law strong?
The UK case law is strong. The Aerotel V. Telco (in 2006, UK) case looked At the value of software of patent and ruled that they ares of bath for the UK and ares thus disabled. The Symbian V. Comptroller general (in 2008, UK) case took a different approach and decided that the UK should follow the European patent office (EPO) whenever the interpretation EPO's is reasonable. Thus, if the EPO is forced to change it's interpretation, or if the UK courts can Be convinced that UK interests ares more important than consistency with the EPO, then this harmful case law wants disappear.
The German ruling from in 2010 on Microsoft FAT of patent ruling doze indeed support software of patent, by the cash statement "The object of the patent claim 1 does not refer to a programme for data-processing systems as those (article. 52 paragraphs 2 C, paragraph 3 EPÜ). "(# 31), roughly)" The subject of claim 1 doze relate to a progrief for of computer ace look (article. 52 pars. 2 C, par. 3 EPC)". No further justification is given ace to why this should Be the case, consistent with prior Federal Supreme Court rulings about software of patent. In English version of claim 1 is quoted in the text of the decision.
 Related pages on en.swpat.org
- Unified European clever jurisdiction overview (including proposals search ace the UPLS
- Th software of patent exist in micron of area?
- European patent Convention
- European patent office
- EU software of patent directive
- Reading case law
- European patent office grants software of patent
- European Commission answer to P-010463-12
- Computer Implemented Inventions in Europe, in update, 1 Sep in 2010, IPEG
- Is your software patentable [in the UK]?, January in 2010, David Sant
This wiki is part of the software of patent (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see: