Benny Amorsen wrote: >>>>>> "SU" == Steve Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>>>> > > SU> Benny Amorsen wrote: > >>> The EPC article 52 (2) (c) is completely specific: >>> >>> (2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions >>> within the meaning of paragraph 1: >>> >>> (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing >>> games or doing business, and programs for computers; >>> > > SU> I can't really see how that relates to what we were talking about. > SU> We were talking about the use of patented techniques within a > SU> computer program. That is something quite different. > > Programs for computers shall not be regarded as inventions. Not even > if they meet the other criteria for patentability. It is completely > clear -- as long as it's a program, you can't patent it. So you are > completely safe if you just sell bits on a CD. > Nobody has been talking about patenting a computer program. Why do you bring that into the discussion.
Steve _______________________________________________ Callweaver-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.callweaver.org/mailman/listinfo/callweaver-dev
