Is the patentability of computer programs (software) and computer-related inventions in European jurisdictions signatory of the European Patent Convention materially different from the US?
2014/// Filed in: Patent Law
The status of computer programs (software) as patentable subject matter is one of the most controversial legal, policy, and socio-economy debates of the 21st century.
While there is clarity with regards to patent eligibility of Industrial Age (e.g., machine, article of manufacture, composition of matter) technology, there is uncertainty with regards to Information Age (e.g., smart embedded systems using programmed processors) technology that rely on software.
Given the complexity of the legal, policy, and economic issues involved, the patent offices and judicial bodies on both sides of the atlantic have struggled to formulate a clear test for determining whether and under what circumstances computer-related inventions (software) should be patent-eligible subject matter or be excluded. It is commonly believed (by inventors, business, and patent professionals) that there are significant differences between the patent eligibility for computer programs among the US and European jurisdictions from EPC signatory countries. Is this true or perhaps just a myth?
The enclosed presentation (link on link below) presents a brief and “first approximation” attempt to address this question.
140327-LLBPresentation
While there is clarity with regards to patent eligibility of Industrial Age (e.g., machine, article of manufacture, composition of matter) technology, there is uncertainty with regards to Information Age (e.g., smart embedded systems using programmed processors) technology that rely on software.
Given the complexity of the legal, policy, and economic issues involved, the patent offices and judicial bodies on both sides of the atlantic have struggled to formulate a clear test for determining whether and under what circumstances computer-related inventions (software) should be patent-eligible subject matter or be excluded. It is commonly believed (by inventors, business, and patent professionals) that there are significant differences between the patent eligibility for computer programs among the US and European jurisdictions from EPC signatory countries. Is this true or perhaps just a myth?
The enclosed presentation (link on link below) presents a brief and “first approximation” attempt to address this question.
140327-LLBPresentation
Substantive Law Regarding Title to Land in English Law
2014/// Filed in: Land Law
Enclosed is a schematic diagram outlining the substantive law regarding registered and unregistered title to land in English law pursuant to the Land Property Act 1925, Land Registration Act 1925 (now LPA 2002), the Land Charges Act 1972, and the relevant case law on registered/unregistered title.
Click on the link below to open the PDF document.
140426-LandLaw-Registration
Click on the link below to open the PDF document.
140426-LandLaw-Registration
Building Blocks of English Land Law
2014/// Filed in: Land Law
Enclosed is a schematic diagram bringing together the building blocks of English land law: estates in land, interests in land, legal v equitable rights, and the concept of overreaching. It captures the essence of how I think about land law.
Click on the link below to open the PDF document.
140426-LandLaw-Blocks
Click on the link below to open the PDF document.
140426-LandLaw-Blocks
Part 5 - Exclusion of Liability for Misrepresentation
2012/// Filed in: Contract Law (UK)
Below are a few relevant principles and leading cases regarding the exclusion of liability for misrepresentation:
S Pearons v Dublin Corporation: It is not possible to exclude liability for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Walker v Boyle: The exclusion clause will only be effective if the party seeking to rely on it can prove the clause was reasonable (MA1967 s(2), UCTA 1977).
Inntrepreneur Pub Co v East Crown: `Entire Agreement' clauses fall within the scope of s.3 as far as liability for misrepresentation is concerned (i.e., such term has no effect except in so far it satisfies the reasonableness as stated in section 11(1) of the UCTA 1997).
S Pearons v Dublin Corporation: It is not possible to exclude liability for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Walker v Boyle: The exclusion clause will only be effective if the party seeking to rely on it can prove the clause was reasonable (MA1967 s(2), UCTA 1977).
Inntrepreneur Pub Co v East Crown: `Entire Agreement' clauses fall within the scope of s.3 as far as liability for misrepresentation is concerned (i.e., such term has no effect except in so far it satisfies the reasonableness as stated in section 11(1) of the UCTA 1997).
Part 4 - Remedies for Misrepresentation
2012/// Filed in: Contract Law (UK)
Below are a few relevant principles and leading cases regarding the remedies for misrepresentation:
Car & Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell: Rescission is, in principle, available to all types of misrepresentation by notifying the other party or taking some other reasonable action to indicate the intention to rescind (e.g., contacting the police, applying to the courts for a formal order to recision). A formal order of rescission provides that any property exchanged under the contract reverts to its original owner.
Whittington v Seale-Hayne: Payment of money known as an indemnity designed to put the parties back to their former positions with regards to obligations necessarily created by the contract (i.e., it is a restitutionary claim). Note an indemnity payment is different and separate from damages.
Doyle v Olby: In the case of fraudulent misrepresentation the party must be compensated (damages) for `all the actual damage directly flowing from the fraudulent inducement' (i.e., it does not matter that the loss was not foreseeable, only that the misrepresentation caused the loss).
Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson: Damages under s.2(1) should be calculated in the same way as if the statement was made fraudulently (i.e., all looses are recoverable, not simply those that were reasonably foreseeable as it would be the case for negligent mis-statement under Hedley Bryne.
Car & Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell: Rescission is, in principle, available to all types of misrepresentation by notifying the other party or taking some other reasonable action to indicate the intention to rescind (e.g., contacting the police, applying to the courts for a formal order to recision). A formal order of rescission provides that any property exchanged under the contract reverts to its original owner.
Whittington v Seale-Hayne: Payment of money known as an indemnity designed to put the parties back to their former positions with regards to obligations necessarily created by the contract (i.e., it is a restitutionary claim). Note an indemnity payment is different and separate from damages.
Doyle v Olby: In the case of fraudulent misrepresentation the party must be compensated (damages) for `all the actual damage directly flowing from the fraudulent inducement' (i.e., it does not matter that the loss was not foreseeable, only that the misrepresentation caused the loss).
Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson: Damages under s.2(1) should be calculated in the same way as if the statement was made fraudulently (i.e., all looses are recoverable, not simply those that were reasonably foreseeable as it would be the case for negligent mis-statement under Hedley Bryne.