<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wikidot="http://www.wikidot.com/rss-namespace">

	<channel>
		<title>Mondaq: United Kingdom: Software Patents: The More Things Change...</title>
		<link>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-61981/mondaq:united-kingdom:software-patents:the-more-things-change</link>
		<description>Posts in the discussion thread &quot;Mondaq: United Kingdom: Software Patents: The More Things Change...&quot; - However, as illustrated by Kapur, the EPO will generally remain the better forum for obtaining software patents while the &quot;technical contribution&quot; requirement remains good law in the UK. In contrast, current EPO jurisprudence8 allows any claim which involves the use of or is to a piece of hardware however mundane to bypass the Article 52 exclusion and move on to an assessment of inventive step.</description>
				<copyright></copyright>
		<lastBuildDate></lastBuildDate>
		
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-61981#post-170984</guid>
				<title>Mondaq: United Kingdom: Software Patents: The More Things Change...</title>
				<link>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-61981/mondaq:united-kingdom:software-patents:the-more-things-change#post-170984</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Sun, 25 May 2008 21:56:34 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>zoobab</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>2946</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p><a href="http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=61002">http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=61002</a></p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
				</channel>
</rss>