Talk:Computer-implemented inventions under the European Patent Convention

Why this article should not be calles "Computer-implemented inventions under the European Patent Convention":


 * All the other wikipedia articles on this topic are called "software patents in "
 * Almost universally, people talk about software patents rather than computer-implemented invention patents. For example, during the debate about what was (officially) supposed to be known as the CII directive, the name Commission internal market group called it in internal discussions was "the SoftPat directive"; the UK patent office's focus group was called the "Software patent focus group"; and the term "software patent directive" was universally used by politicians and the media.
 * Interestingly, even lobbyists in Brussels supporting wider and more certain patentability now avoid the term "computer implemented invention". The idea which the term encouraged, that there was a significant difference between a software patent and a computer-implemented invention patent, is now seen as a notable public relations failure; something that particularly encouraged MEPs towards amendments to reduce software patentability.
 * UK judgements don't use the term "computer-implemented inventions" either. Typically the term used has been "software-related patents". It should be remembered that this article is about the law under the EPC across the whole of Europe, not specially software patents at the EPO.
 * An important topic the article discusses is potential software patents which are not granted. An important ground for not granting them is if they are "not considered to be inventions".  Renaming the article computer-implemented inventions forecloses that discussion.
 * Finally, for many people "computer implemented invention" is seen as a POV slanted term, a piece of purpose-made Newspeak, precisely because it seems to shut down the Article 52 discussion.  (Some would go further, and identify it as an attempted piece of spin, which failed; and which, like much failed spin, is now seen as an embarassment by both sides).
 * The defining aspect of the potential patents, in regard to the legal questions they raise, is that they relate to software.

Jheald 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)