tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post3947428106208890273..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: T 306/10 - Recommender systems not patentableDeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-24733789463480206292015-07-23T09:29:30.747+02:002015-07-23T09:29:30.747+02:00You are quite right of course. Thanks for adding t...You are quite right of course. Thanks for adding this additional comment.Sander van Rijnswouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-39462063995904771022015-07-23T09:26:32.179+02:002015-07-23T09:26:32.179+02:00Interesting post BUT the statement "Following...Interesting post BUT the statement "Following this decision, none of it [= recommender systems] can be protected" seems a bit bold. <br /><br />First, we are talking about the EPO, so about protection in Europe (only). What can and cannot be protected in the US, China and Japan is not the issue here. <br /><br />Second, this is a Board of Appeal decision in 2015, made by a particular Board. Another Board may come to another conclusion, and two years down the road even the same Board may take a different stance. As long as we don't have a definitive decision by the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the case law can (and probably will) be fluid.<br /><br />Third, this decision applies to a certain type of improvement in a certain type of recommender systems. Perhaps it proves to be possible to make a technical (that is, non-subjective) and therefore patentable improvement to a certain type of recommender system. <br />Romano Beitsmanoreply@blogger.com