1. Copyright Vs Patent Software authors lost their rights Benjamin Henrion Knowright2008 Krakow, 19 September 2008

2. Copyright for software: TRIPS10 “TRIPS10: Computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971).”

3. Copyright for software "WCTart4: Computer programs are protected as literary works within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention. Such protection applies to computer programs, whatever may be the mode or form of their expression."

4. Copyright for software "TRIPSart13: Members shall confine limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder"

5. Copyright for software "WCTart10: (1) Contracting Parties may, in their national legislation, provide for limitations of or exceptions to the rights granted to authors of literary and artistic works under this Treaty in certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate of the author. "

6. Copyright for software "(2) Contracting Parties shall, when applying the Berne Convention, confine any limitations of or exceptions to rights provided for therein to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. " ""

7. Copyright for software Software patents prevent a software author from exercising several author’s rights (such as the “normal exploitation of the work”, because a software patent can prevent him from selling his work), and as such conflict with this treaty.

8. 2 Clarifications to the EPC A claimed object that consists only of instructions for use of generic data processing hardware (universal computer), also called “program for computers” or “computer-implemented solution”, is not an invention in the sense of patent law, regardless of the form in which it is claimed.

9. 2 Clarifications to the EPC A claimed object can be an invention in the sense of patent law only if it contributes knowledge to the state of the art in a field of applied natural science.

10. Central case law "The acrimonious debate over the proposed directive on computer- implemented inventions might never have arisen if the patent litigation system in Europe had been unified, thereby eliminating the possibility of disparate national rulings on the same patent matter." — David Sant, former EPO lobbyist in Brussels

11. Central case law (2) "We must moreover continue to attempt to harmonise the practise of granting patents for computer-implemented inventions at the European level. This is to be attempted by a common European patent court system (EPLA) in which the member states can voluntarily participate. Thereby a unified procedure and legal certainty are achieved." — German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology

12. Central case law (3) "Baumann added that the new court was not intended to "codify software patents ", but it was hoped it would provide better intellectual property protection for inventions with embedded software, such as mobile phones and satellite navigation systems." — James Murray, IT Week

13. Central case law (4) "The current situation shows why such talks are necessary – a central European patent court will help bring the certainty that, in a number of areas such as software and biotechnology, we currently do not have." — Joff Wild, Intellectual Asset Management Magazine

14. Central case law (5) "Applying the EPLA to software patents granted by the EPO would create a dangerous body of jurisprudence on an issue which was clearly discarded by the European Parliament and by European stakeholders one year ago." — UEAPME, Patent litigation agreement is not a substitute to a comprehensive patent policy

15. Save the EPO of swpat flood?

16. EPO stands for quality or...

17. EPO stands for progress?

18. Free speech! "Like censorship of religious speech in the 17th century, the issue here is not what the original justifications were (software patents as incentives to invention, etc.), but rather, how we can eliminate a dangerous, but avoidable, error: restrictive licensure of software; and how we can, instead, re-establish full freedom of speech in the writing and publishing of computer programs. " — Phil Salin, 1991