PILCH Hartmut wrote:
largely spoken on the lines of the representations made by FSF India against the introduction of patentability for embedded software.
This talk of "patentability for embedded software" is propaganda from patent camp. There is no distinction between embedded and other software in the proposed law or in the recent INPTO practise.
Initially the patents ordinance used the expression "a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware" and its literal interpretation only produced the absurd meaning that "all computer programs" are patentable, that plainly goes the former part of the clause, which could never be deemed to be the intention. In such an event, it is legitimate to look into the objects and reasons for the amendment, and the Minister's Statement at http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=6074 was the only one available then and it clarified that it was introduced for patentability for embedded software. Thanks to the Left and the campaign against it, all that nonsense is now past us.
BTW, the Hindu report is available online at: http://www.hindu.com/2005/03/26/stories/2005032605431600.htm
More seriously, we should reject the illegitimate expression "software patents" as a propaganda term from the patent camp. The expression is devoid of any legal content under TRIPS Treaty, and in many countries like India. Please avoid using the expression "software patents" that give needless credibility to the illegal practice in a few countries. Please talk about "Computer Programs", "Software", "Copyrights", "Mis-application of patent law to cover Computer Programs", and please use any other suitable expressions that are consistent with the TRIPS Treaty. We could infact make a list of countries where computer programs are protected by copyrights as required by the TRIPS Treaty, and encourage the others to follow suit to avoid issues in this regard.