|
The WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), particularly Article 27, is occasionally referenced in the political debate on the international legal framework for the patentability of software, and on whether software and computer-implemented inventions should be considered as a field of technology. == Article 27 of TRIPS== Article 27 paragraph 1 of TRIPS states that: The only acceptable exceptions to this provision are laid down in the paragraphs 2 and 3 of the same Article 27. The following elements may be excluded from patentability by WTO members under TRIPS: * (...) inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ''ordre public'' or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment, provided that such exclusion is not made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by their law.''(paragraph 2)'' * diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals; ''(paragraph 3(a))'' and * plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. (...) ''(paragraph 3(b))''. However as Paul Hartnack, then Comptroller-General of the UK Patent Office, commented in 1998:〔(Software Patents in Europe, Chairman's Opening Remarks, Speaker: Paul Hartnack, Comptroller General, The Patent Office ), Last updated 6 December 2000 (Archive.org).〕 The rules for in interpretation of international treaties,〔http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_2_1986.pdf Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties〕 do not allow specific European perceptions on terminology to be considered for TRIPS interpretation: Art. 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties requires "ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty". The same provision requires interpretation within the light of the object and purpose of the treaty, which leaves little room for "sound economic reasons" for legal interpretation purposes. The decision of the contracting states of the TRIPS Agreement was that patents should be granted in all fields of technology, without discrimination (Art. 27(1) TRIPS〔http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf TRIPS Agreement〕). To date, the interpretation of Article 27 has been tested in the 2002 dispute between the U.S. and Argentina over patent protection for pharmaceuticals (which was solved by mutual agreement) and the 2000 panel report also on patent protection for pharmaceuticals, in a case brought by the EU against Canada. However, there have been no dispute settlement procedures regarding software patents. Its relevance for patentability in the domains of, for example, computer-implemented business methods, computer science and software information technology remains uncertain, since the TRIPS agreement is subject to interpretation,〔John Moetteli, ''(The Patentability of Software in the U.S. and Europe )'', presented at St. Gallen, Switzerland, 28 October 2005, p.3 (pdf), retrieved on 3 July 2006〕 like all legal texts. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Software patents under TRIPs Agreement」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|