Software and patents in Europe

Software and Patents in Europe

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 1-204

  Leith, Philip ^a  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922894724     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511495267     Document Type: Book

References (175)

1. Peter Prescott QC sitting as Deputy Judge in Patent Applications by CFPH LLC [2005] EWHC 1589 (Pat).
2. K. Beresford, Patenting Software Under the European Patent Convention (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2000).
3. Bertil Hjelm, Principal Director DG2, suggested (in 2001)
4. I. Lakatos, Proofs and Refutations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976)
5. G. W. Stocking, ‘Delimiting anthropology: historical reflections on the boundaries of a boundless discipline’, Social Research (Winter 1995), available online at http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-18229219.html.
6. S. Thorley, R. Miller, G. Burkill and C. Birss, Terrell on the Law of Patents (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2000), xx1.11, 2.01–2.06
7. Re GEC’s Application (1942) 60 RPC 1.
8. F. W. Neitzke, A Software Law Primer (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1984)
9. G. Ghidini and E. Arezzo, ‘Patent and Copyright Paradigms vis-a-vis Derivative Innovation’ IIC 36 (2005), 159
10. D. M. Ritchie, ‘The Evolution of the Unix Time-sharing System’, in AT&T Bell Laboratories Technical Journal 63(6) (October 1984), 1577–93.
11. A. R. Burks and A. W. Burks, The First Electronic Computer: the Atanasoff Story (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1989).
12. US equivalent, US 3,581,072 ‘Auction Market Computation System’ and note the change in title for the UK office. Filed 1968
13. US 5,193,056 ‘Data processing system for hub and spoke financial services configuration’. A PCT application was filed to include Europe (WO9215953)
14. G. Stobbs, Business Method Patents (New York: Aspen, 2002).
15. L. Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1979), p. 137
16. Frederick Nymeyer, Patents Appeal Tribunal, 16 October 1978
17. E. Von Boehm-Bawerk ‘Value and Price’, pp. 215–35 an extract from the three-volume work Capital and Interest (South Holland, IL: Libertarian Press, 1960).
18. J. Sprowl, who recalled discussions some years before with the author of Nymeyer’s patent application (Walther E. Wyss).
19. G. A. Stobbs, ‘Information wants to be free, but the packaging is going to cost you!’, Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 75 (1996).
20. E. W. Dijkstra, ‘ACM Turing Lecture: The Humble Programmer’, Commun. ACM 15(10) (1972), 859–66 (emphasis added).
21. G. Ferry, A Computer Called Leo (London: Fourth Estate, 2003).
22. G. Kolle, ‘The Patentability of Computer Software in Europe and under International Patent Treaties’, in H. Brett and L. Parry (eds.), The Legal Protection of Computer Software Oxford: ESC Publishing, 1981.
23. M. Wilkes, Memoirs of a Computer Pioneer (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985), p. 208
24. R. Jacob, ‘Industrial Property – Industry’s Enemy’, Intellectual Property Quarterly 1 (1997), 3.
25. J. Pila, ‘Dispute over the meaning of ‘‘Invention’’ in Art. 52(2) – The Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions in Europe’, IIC 36 (2005)
26. I. B. Cohen, Science and the Founding Fathers: Science in the Political Thought of Thomas Jefferson, (Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and James Madison New York: Norton, 1995).
27. C. Tapper, Computer Law 3rd edn (London: Longman, 1983), p. 4.
28. G. Kolle, ‘The Patentability of Computer Software’, p. 61.
29. H. W. Hanneman, The Patentability of Computer Software: An International Guide to the Protection of Computer-related Inventions (Deventer: Kluwer, 1985) p. 203.
30. P. Leith, ‘Judicial and Administrative Roles: the Patent Appellate System in a European Context’, Intellectual Property Quarterly 1 (2001), 50–99.
31. K. Keutzer and W. Wolf, ‘Anatomy of a Hardware Compiler’, Proceedings of the SIGPLAN ’88 conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (1988) pp. 95–104
32. H. I. Dutton, The Patent System and Inventive Activity During the Industrial Revolution, 1750–1852
33. F. Reuleaux, The Kinematics of Machinery: Outline of a Theory of Machines (1876) reprinted (New York: Dover Publications, 1963) p. 35, available online at http://historical.library.cornell.edu
34. M. Varian, ‘VM and the VM Community: Past, Present, and Future’ (1997), available online at http://www.princeton.edu/melinda/25paper.pdf (see p. 10).
35. S. Smiles, Lives of the Engineers, with an Account of their Principal Works: Comprising Also a History of Inland Communication in Britain (London: J. Murray, 1861–2).
36. P. B. Hansen, ‘The Invention of Concurrent Programming’, in P. B. Hansen, (ed.), The Origin of Concurrent Programming: From Semaphores to Remote Procedure Calls (New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002), pp. 3–61.
37. H. Aiken, reported in I. B. Cohen, Howard Aiken: Portrait of a Computer Pioneer (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1973), p. 244
38. J. N. Shklar, Legalism – Law, Morals and Political Trials (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964):
39. S. Janasoff, Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).
40. A. B. Jaffe and J. Lerner, Innovation and its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004)
41. K. A. Moore, ‘Judges, Juries, and Patent Cases – An Empirical Peek Inside the Black Box’, 98 Mich. L. Rev. (2000), 365.
42. S. Thorley, R. Miller, G. Burkill and C. Birss, Terrell on the Law of Patents 15th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2000).
43. P. Leith, ‘Revision of the EPC, the Community Patent Regulation and ‘‘European Technical judges’’’, European Intellectual Property Review 23(5) (2001), 250–4.
44. H. Abelson, G. J. Sussman and J. Sussman, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985).
45. E. W. Dijkstra, ‘ACM Turing Lecture: The Humble Programmer’, Commun. ACM 15(10) (1972), 859–66.
46. J. Slaney and S Thiebaux, ‘Blocks World revisited’, in Artificial Intelligence 125 (2001), 119–53
47. P. Leith, ‘A Programmed, Skeleton Formal Specification Method:, The OUFDM’ Computer Journal 30 (4) (1987), 337–42
48. J. McCarthy, History of Lisp (Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Stanford University 1996), available online at http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm? id=808387&dl=ACM&coll=portal
49. D. S. Chisum, ‘The Patentability of Algorithms’, 47 U. Pitt L. Rev. (1986), 959
50. P. Leith and A. Hoey, The Computerised Lawyer, 2nd edn (London: Springer- Verlag, 1998).
51. D. Knuth, Fundamental Algorithms: The Art of Computer Programming 2nd edn, vol. 1 (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1973), p. 236.
52. L. Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, T. J. Trenn and R. K. Merton (eds.) (Chicago, IL, and London: University of Chicago Press, 1979).
53. M.M. Lehman, ‘Programs, Life Cycles, and Laws of Software Evolution’, Proceedings of the IEEE 68(9) (1980) 1060–76.
54. M.M. Lehman, and L. A. Belady, Program Evolution: Processes of Software Change (London: Academic Press, 1985).
55. M.M. Lehman, ‘Programs, Life Cycles, and Laws of Software Evolution’, Proceedings of the IEEE 68(9) (1980) 1060–76.
56. M.M. Lehman, and L. A. Belady, Program Evolution: Processes of Software Change (London: Academic Press, 1985).
57. P. Leith, Formalism in AI and Computer Science (London: Ellis Horwood/Simon and Schuster, 1990), ch. 3.
58. C. A. R. Hoare, Hints On Programming Language Design, Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Memo AIM-224. STAN-CS-73–403 (1973).
59. G. D. Ritchie and F. K. Hanna, ‘AM: A Case Study in AI Methodology’, Artificial Intelligence, 23(3) (1984).
60. C. Jones, Systematic Software Development using VDM (Eaglewod Cliffs,’ NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990), available online at http://www.csr.ncl.ac.uk/vdm/ssdvdm.pdf.zip.
61. P. Leith, Harmonisation of Intellectual Property in Europe: A Case Study in Patent Procedure, vol. 3, Perspectives on Intellectual Property (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1998) and Chapter 3 of this text.
62. R. Stallman, ‘The Anatomy of a Trivial Patent’ (2000), available online at http://www. linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-05-26-004-04-OP-LF.
63. D. L. Burk and M. A. Lemley, ‘Policy Levers in Patent Law’, UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 135; Minnesota Public Law Research Paper No. 03–11 (2003).
64. J. D. Flynn, ‘Comments on the International Effort to Harmonize the Substantive Requirements of Patent Laws’, IBM submission at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/harmonization/TAB42.pdf.
65. J. H. Moor, ‘Three Myths of Computer Science’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 29(3) (1978), 213–22.
66. T. Tamai, ‘Abstraction oriented property of software and its relation to patentability’, in Information and Software Technology, 40 (1998), 253–7.
67. J. A. Schumpeter, quoted by F. M. Scherer, ‘The Innovation Lottery’, in R. Dreyfus, D. Zimmerman, and H. First (eds.), Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 3–21.
68. J. Ernst, ‘Software Patents Under the Magnifying Glass’ (2005) at http://www.juergenernst.de/info_swpat_en.htm
69. M.A. Rossi, ‘Software Patents: A Closer Look At The European Commission’s Proposal’, paper presented at 5th EPIP Conference European Policy for Intellectual Property, Copenhagen, Denmark, 10–11 March 2005:
70. F. Meuller, No Lobbyists as Such (2006), p. 4, available at www.no-lobbyists-as-such.com.
71. R. Jacob, ‘Industrial Property – Industry’s Enemy’, Intellectual Property Quarterly 1 (1997) 3.
72. P. Leith, Harmonisation of Intellectual Property in Europe: A Case Study in Patent Procedure London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1998
73. P. Leith, ‘Judicial and Administrative Roles: The Patent Appellate System in a European Context’, Intellectual Property Quarterly 1 (2001) 50–99.
74. Strauss J, ‘Bedeutung des TRIPS für das Patentrecht’, GRUR Int (1996), 179–205
75. I. B. Cohen, Howard Aiken: Portrait of a Computer Pioneer (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999).
76. B. Schneier, Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World (Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley, 2004), p. 253
77. S. A. Cohen, ‘To Innovate or Not to Innovate, that is the Question’ Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 5 (1999), 1.
78. S. Lai, The Copyright Protection of Computer Software in the United Kingdom (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2000).
79. D. L. Burk, ‘Patenting speech’, Texas Law Review 99 (2000), 1–55.
80. D. H. McQueen and H. Olsson, ‘Growth of Embedded Software Related Patents’, Technovation 23 (2003), 533–44.
81. E. Feigenbaum and P. McCorduck, Creative Computing 10(8) (1984), 103, available online at http://www.atarimagazines.com/creative/v10n8/103_The_fifth_generation_ Jap.php:
82. F. D. Clery, ‘Alvey: The Betrayal of a Research Programme’, New Scientist, 1768 (11May 1991)
83. P. Leith, Formalism in AI and Computer Science, (London: Ellis Horwood/Simon and Schuster, 1990), pp. 40, 91, 166
84. E. Kaufer, The Economics of the Patent System (London: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1989), p. 5
85. W.M. Landes and R. A. Posner, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, Harvard University Press, 2003), p. 336
86. F. M. Scherer, Patents: Economics, Policy and Measurement (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2005).
87. H. Ford and S. Crowther, My Life and Work (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2003), pp. 62–3.
88. M. Haberman and R. Hill, ‘Patent Enforcement for SMEs and Lone Inventors: a system failure’ (2003), available online at http://www.intellectualproperty.gov.uk/ipac/pdf/inventors.pdf.
89. R. C. Dreyfuss, H. First and D. L. Zimmerman (eds.), Innovation Policy in an Information Age (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
90. S. L. Garfinkel, R. M. Stallman and M. Kapor, ‘Why Patents are Bad for Software’, Issues in Science and Technology (Fall 1991), pp. 50–5.
91. S. Wagner, ‘Business Method Patents in Europe and their Strategic Use – Evidence from Franking Device Manufacturers’ (2006), available online at http://epub.ub.unimuenchen.de/archive/00001265/.
92. R. P. Merges, Patents, Entry and Growth in the Software Industry (2006), working paper available at online SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=926204
93. J. Bessen and E. Maskin, ‘Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation’, November 1999, revised March 2006, p. 2, available online at http://www.researchoninnovation.org/online.htm#ip2.
94. J. Bessen and R. Hunt, ‘An Empirical Look at Software Patents’, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Working Paper 03–17 (2004).
95. P. Tang, J. Adams, and D. Pare´ Patent Protection of Computer Programmes [sic], Final Report, Brussels-Luxembourg (2001). Contract INNO-99–04.
96. R. Bakels and P. B. Hugenholtz, ‘The Patentability of Computer Programs: Discussion of European-level Legislation in the Field of Patents for Software’, JUI 107 EN (2002).
97. S. E. Hougaard Jensen, U. Kaiser, N. Malchow-Møller, J. R. Skaksen, and A. Sørensen, ‘Denmark and the Information Society: Challenges for Research and Education Policy’ (Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing, 2003).
98. J. R. Allison, M.A. Lemley, K. A. Moore, and R. D. Trunkey, ‘Valuable Patents’, Geo. L. J. 92 (2004), 435.
99. D. Bucknell in ‘The global Lipitor patent scorecard’ (available online at http://www.duncanbucknell.com)
100. U. Kaiser and T. Ronde, ‘A Danish View on Software-related Patents’, Centre for Economic and Business Research Discussion Paper (2005), available online at http://www.cebr.dk/publications%20submenu/discussion%20papers/2004/dp%202004-05.aspx
101. R. P. Merges, ‘As Many as Six Impossible Patents Before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform’, Berkeley Tech. L. J. 14 (1996), 577–615.
102. J. Straus sets the context for this problem in ‘The Patent System in the European Union – Status and Development’, Patinnova ‘97 (1997), available online at http://cordis.europa.eu/patinnova/src/straus.htm.
103. A. B. Jaffe and J. Lerner, Innovation and its Discontents (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004). See Chapter 4 in particular.
104. S. A. Merrill, R. C. Levin, and M. B. Myers, (eds.), A Patent System for the 21st Century: Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Knowledge-Based Economy Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004
105. E. F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered New York: Harper and Row, 1973
106. R. Stallman, ‘Why Software Should be Free’ in D. G. Johnson and H. Nissenbaum (eds.) Computers, Ethics and Social Values (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995).
107. R. Lloyd-Jones and M. J. Lewis, Alfred Herbert Ltd and the British Machine Tool Industry, 1887–1983 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006).
108. Henrik Dahl Sørensen, Deputy Director General of the Danish Patent and Trademark Office, Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 24 October 2002
109. E. S. Dane, Peter Stubs and the Lancashire Hand Tool Industry (Altrincham: John Sherratt & Son, 1973).
110. W. Kingston, Enforcing Small Firms’ Patent Rights (Dublin: University of Dublin Press, 2000), NB-NA-17-032-EN-C.
111. D. Lancashire, ‘Open Source and Standards’, Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy (BRIE) (2004), available online at http://programs.ssrc.org/itic/publications/ITST_materials/weberchapter.pdf.
112. M. J. Foley, ‘Is Microsoft Rattling the Linux-Patent Sabers?’, Week.com (18 November 2004).
113. D. Lyons, ‘Linux Scare Tactics’, Forbes.com (February 2004).
114. M.A. Lemley, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Standard-Setting Organizations’, Calif. L. Rev. 90 (2002), 1889
115. D. J. Gifford, ‘A Developing Model for a coherent treatment of standard-setting issues under the patent, copyright and antitrust laws’, Idea 43(3) (2003), 331–94
116. N. Hoppen, Software Innovations and Patents: A Simulation Approach Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag, 2005.
117. N. Duxbury, Random Justice: On Lotteries and Legal Decision Making (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
118. P. Leith, Harmonisation of Intellectual Property in Europe: A Case Study in Patent Procedure (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1998), p. 50.
119. C. Dent, ‘Decision-Making and Quality in the Patent Examination Process: An Australian Exploration’, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, Working Paper No. 01.06 (2006).
120. P. Heckel, ‘Debunking the Software Patent Myths’, Communications of the ACM (June 1992), available online at http://wwwswiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/articles/intprop/heckeldebunking.html
121. Mr. Heckel declined to comment on the suit.’ New York Times, 20 December 1989.
122. R. Trigg, F. Halasz and T. Moran, ‘Notecards in a nutshell’, ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 18(4) (1986), 45–52.
123. V. Bush, ‘As We May Think’, Atlantic Monthly (1945).
124. J. Erickson, ‘The Real Deal’, Dr Dobbs Journal (22 July 2001).
125. L. Ellingham, ‘Review’, New Atari User 23 (Sep/Oct 1986).
126. R. Stallman, ‘On Software Patents’, talk given in Helsinki, available online at http://db.cs.helsinki.fi/∼jhuhta/stallman.html.en.
127. P. Maggs, J. T. Soma and J. A. Sprowl, Computer Law: Cases, Comments, Questions (Minnesota: West Publishing, 1992).
128. M. Lauritsen and A. Soudakoff, ‘Power Tools for Document Preparation’ (1998), at http://www.capstonepractice.com/amlaw6.pdf
129. J. Weyand and H. Haase, ‘Patenting Computer Programs: new challenges’, IIC 36 (2005), 647–63
130. W. Greenleaf, Monopoly on Wheels: Henry Ford and the Selden Automobile Patent (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1961).
131. G. Ritchie and F. Hanna, ‘AM: A case study in methodology’, Artificial Intelligence 23 (1984).
132. P. Leith, Formalism in AI and Computer Science (London: Ellis Horwood/Simon and Schuster, 1990).
133. M. Krier and F. Zacca`, ‘Automatic categorization applications at the European patent office’, World Patent Information 24 (2002), 187–96.
134. T. S Hughes, ‘Patent Re-examination and the PTO: Compton’s Patent Invalidated at the Commissioner’s Request’, John Marshall J. of Comp. & Info. Law 14 (2) (1996).
135. K. Beresford, Patenting Software under the European Patent Convention (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2000), p. 183
136. M. Galanter, ‘Why the ‘‘Haves’’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change’, Law& Society Review 9 (1974), 95–160.
137. D. Bambauer, ‘Legal Responses to the Challenges of Sports Patents’, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 18(2) (2005).
138. A. F. Knight, ‘A Potentially New IP: Storyline Patents’, J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Society 859 (2004).
139. I. Lakatos, Proofs and Refutations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).
140. I. J. Lloyd, Information Technology Law, 4th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 439
141. M.A.L. Banks (Chairman), The British Patent System: Report of the Committee to Examine the Patent System and Patent Law (London: Stationery Office, 1970), Cmnd. 4407.
142. I. Lloyd, ‘Software Patents After Fujitsu. New Directions or (another) Missed Opportunity?’, Journal of Information, Law and Technology 2(1997)
143. D. Knuth, Fundamental Algorithms, Vol. 1, The Art of Computer Programming, 2nd edn, (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1973), p. 179
144. D. Knuth, Sorting and Searching, vol. 3, The Art of Computer Programming p. 319.
145. A. Newell, ‘The Models are Broken, the Models are Broken!’, U. Pitt, L. Rev. 47 (1986), 1023
146. D. Chisum, ‘The Patentability of Algorithms’, U. Pitt, L. Rev. 47 (1986), 959.
147. A. Newell and H. A. Simon, Human Problem Solving (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, 1972).
148. M. Kline, Mathematics in Western Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1953).
149. M. Rees, ‘The computing program of the Office of Naval Research, 1946–1953’, Communications of the ACM 30(10) (1987).
150. B. Klemens, Math You Can’t Use: Patents, Copyright, and Software Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2006
151. M. Rimmer, ‘The Freedom to Tinker: Patent Law and Experimental use’, Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1 February, pp. 167–200 (34).
152. J. Morison and P. Leith, The Barrister’s World and the Nature of Law Buckingham: Open University Press, 1992
153. G. A. Stobbs, Business Method Patents (New York: Aspen Law & Business, 2002) p. 22.
154. C. T. Taylor and Z. A. Silberston, The Economic Impact of the Patent System: A Study of the British Experience (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), p. 365
155. J. H. Moor, ‘Three Myths of Computer Science’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 29(3) (1978), 213–22.
156. S. A. Cohen, ‘To Innovate or Not to Innovate, That is the Question: The Functions, Failures, and Foibles of the Reward Function Theory of Patent Law in Relation to Computer Software Platforms’, Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 5 (1999)
157. P. Samuelson, R. Davis, M.D. Kapor and J. H. Reichman, ‘A Manifesto concerning the legal protection of computer programs’, Columbia L. Rev. 94 (1994), 2308.
158. J. B. Hawkins, Book Review, Harvard J. of Law and Technology 9(1) (1996).
159. P. Samuelson, ‘Mapping The Digital Public Domain: Threats And Opportunities’, Law & Contemp. Probs. 66 (2003), 147:
160. H. Ford, My Life and Work (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2003), pp 145–6
161. J. H. Reichman, ‘Computer Programs As Applied Scientific Know-How: Implications of copyright protection for commercialized university research’, Vanderbilt Law Review 42(3) (1989), 639–723.
162. M. A. Paley, ‘A Model Software Petite Patent Act’, Computer & High Tech. L.J. 12 (1996), 301–19.
163. Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd v. Evans Medical Ltd [1989] FSR 513.
164. P. Leith, ‘Utility Models and SMEs’ Journal of Information, Law and Technology 2 (2000).
165. M. Llewelyn, ‘Proposals for the Introduction of a Community Utility Model System: a UK Perspective’, Web JCLI 2 (1997).
166. S. L. Moritz and A. F. Christie, ‘Second-Tier Patent Systems: the Australian experience’ European Intellectual Property Review 4 (2006), 230
167. J. M. Aubry, ‘A Justification of the Patent System’, in J. Phillips, Patents in Perspective (Oxford: ESC Publishing, 1985), p. 9.
168. P. Leith, Harmonisation of Intellectual Property in Europe: A Case Study in Patent Procedure (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1998), p. 143.
169. K. Cremers, ‘Determinants of Patent Litigation in Germany’, Discussion Paper No. 04–72, Centre for European Economic Research (2004), available online hftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp0472.pdf
170. K. Nichols, Inventing Software: The Rise of ‘computer-related’ Patents (Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 1998), pp 57–77
171. M. Vivian, ‘Leberl Study’, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Patentanwa¨ lte 84.Jg. (1993) 204
172. T. Buck, ‘Hopes fade for EU patents reform initiative’, Financial Times, 6 December 2006:
173. P. Leith, ‘Judicial and Administrative Roles: The Patent Appellate System in a European Context’, Intellectual Property Quarterly 1 (2001), 50–99.
174. W. R. Cornish and D. Llewelyn, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks and Allied Rights, 5th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2003).
175. S. L. Garfinkel, R. M. Stallman and M. Kapor, ‘Why Patents are Bad for Software’, Issues in Science and Technology (Fall, 1991), 50–5.