Abstract
‘The automatic bar on patent protection for computer programs ‘as such’ in section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977 is unduly restrictive and out of step with modern information technology-based innovation. This exception to patentability should be removed from the Act so that any program meeting the basic requirements of novelty, inventive step, etc. is patentable like any other invention.’ The current paper aims to analyse section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977 and its relation with article 52(2) EPC. It further tries to establish the differences between the two approaches. The aim remains to analyse why EPO changed its approach for a narrower interpretation of ‘as such’ and why the UK refuses to follow. The essay will show that the English interpretation of ‘as such’ in section 1(2) is not suitable for the computer programming market reality of today concerning the economic and industry changes in size and structure. The attempt has been made to focus on showing that section 1(2) is too restrictive considering the type of businesses and innovations and a broader interpretation of ‘as such’ effects. The UK’s law had expressed intentions to remain in harmony with the EPO, ‘collocation’ as an alternative solution to following the ‘any hardware approach’ and the lack of benefit the total removal of section 1 (2) would bring.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
