Talk:EPC 2000

Bundesgesetzblatt links are dead

The three links given to the Bundesgesetzblatt are incorrect. I hacked the (dead) URL and found the documents by their number (encoded in the old URL) on bgbl.de. I guess the (renewed) website does not allow deep links. So it would be helpful if you quote the actual documents as to allow manual retrieval. Rbakels (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Rbakels. I have fixed these three dead links now. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

TRIPS Agreement compatibility

The preparatory materials of "EPC 2000" emphasise that the amendments bring the EPC in line with the TRIPS Agreement. I believe that there are strong reasons to criticise those statements. But I wonder whether this disallowed "original research". Still I believe that the reader is misinformed if those statements are copied without due criticism.

In particular it is highly controversial whether the words "in all fields of technology" adopted from Art. 27(1) TRIPS into Art. 52(1) EPC really were intended to limit patentability to technology, as the preparatory works of EPC 2000 say. The intent of Art. 27(1) was to ban all distinction and discrimination by field of technology, notably in order to require WTO member states to allow patenting of pharaceuticals. And in plain language, "all" does not mean "only". The law of treaties requires the text to be read as literaly as possible, and allows recourse to the preparatory materials only if the treaty text is manifestly unclear or unreasonable. Which is not the case here IMHO. So "all" means "all" rather than "only".

Whether patents should be granted only for technology is controversial. That is a German tradition that is not really accepted in the UK, the other major "patent country" in Europe. The British do not want to patent really non-technical subject-matter like business methods either, but they disagree that the technical character is the single criterion.

Art. 2 TRIPS basically refers to the age-old Berne and Paris conventions that the member states had to observe anyway, and this provision only notes that TRIPS does not derogate from those rules.

Could anyone tell me whether the above criticism is alloweed in a Wikipedia lemma? (in particular the comment on "all fields of technology". Rbakels (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions and thoughts. Wikipedia:No original research policy reads: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves." Are you aware of any reliable, published sources where these analyses are proposed? --Edcolins (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EPC 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209112033/http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2009/20090206.html to http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2009/20090206.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)