| • Science | • People | • Locations | • Timeline |
It is fair to say that when different people refer to "software patents", they may often mean very different things; and that individual views on the "patentability of software" may vary considerably depending on what definition of the term is understood.
One potential definition of software patent would be "a patent which can be infringed by software". FOLDOC, for example, defines software patent as "A patent intended to prevent others from using some programming technique".
However, this apparently simple definition masks some fundamental questions:
There is no legal text that defines what exactly is a software patent and what is not; and no universally accepted definition of the expression.
A further difficulty in drawing a clear boundary between software patents and other patents may come from the fact that a patent claim can be written so as to embrace many different implementations (some using purely mechanical or electrical means, others using software), for instance by using functional features under certain jurisdictions (e.g. "means for controlling"). Additionally, under the so-called doctrine of equivalents and its analogues, a patent that on its face does not appear to require software can be infringed in certain circumstances if software is used as an equivalent of (i.e. to substitute for) a non-software element, making even more difficult to draw the boundary.
The term "computer-implemented invention" was put forward by the European Commission and defined as "any invention the performance of which involves the use of a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus and having one or more prima facie novel features which are realised wholly or partly by means of a computer or computer programs." [1]
The terms "software-enabled invention", "software-related invention", and "software-operated invention" have also been used similarly.
Because the term "software patent" has acquired strongly negative associations in some circles, some campaigners on both sides of the debate prefer to reserve the term "software patent", or "patent on pure software", more narrowly, to refer to contributions that they believe should not be patentable subject matter, in contradistinction to the term "software-enabled invention" which would refer only to contributions which would involve patentable subject matter (otherwise they would not be "inventions").
According to taste, a "pure" software patent might therefore be a patent on: