午夜伦·理片 电影无码,久久成人伊人欧洲精品,成人黄色性爱视频,97人妻精品视频一区,亚洲中文字幕激情啪啪,激情av一区二区三区久久久,中文字幕 亚洲 欧美 国产

Debate and legislation
       For several years now, opponents of EPO practice regarding CIIs have voiced their criticism in public. Some argue that patent protection should not be available for any computer programs at all, and question the patentability of CIIs altogether.
      On the contrary, others complain that patent protection for software is not available at all in Europe - which is not true. Computer programs can gain patent status if they make a proven technical contribution. The only noteworthy exception is the UK, where patent applications for computer programs are not eligible.
       Nevertheless, the ongoing discussion has set in motion a number of official conferences debating the patent status of computer programs. In June 1999, the member states of the EPO gathered in Paris at an intergovernmental conference to discuss the reform of the patent system in Europe. One of the key aims of the conference was "to eliminate any ambiguity regarding the patentability of inventions involving software."
      To gain clarity on the issue, the conference decided on a revision of Article 52(2) of the EPC, which excludes computer programs (as such) from patentability. Some members requested the removal of computer programs from the list of non-patentable inventions in Article 52(2).
     This step was evaluated over a number of months. Finally, in November 2000, at the diplomatic conference for the revision of the EPC, it was decided to leave Article 52(2) EPC unchanged. In a conference resolution adopted on 29 November 2000, the member states attending the conference "agreed to maintain for the present the EPC's current provisions on software".
     Today, all EPO member states have national patent laws, which, in their basic provisions, specifically in patentability requirements, have been harmonised with the EPC. However, the attempt to introduce EU legislation by way of a directive that would have harmonised the patenting practice in the EU failed in July 2005, when the proposal for the directive was rejected by the European Parliament.