<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: UK Grants Rare Computer Program Patent</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/uk-grants-rare-computer-program-patent/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/uk-grants-rare-computer-program-patent/</link>
	<description>Upgrade Your Lifestyle</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:17:47 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Peter Hartigan</title>
		<link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/uk-grants-rare-computer-program-patent/#comment-55907</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Hartigan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:24:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-55907</guid>
		<description>The Court of Appeal seems to have backed away from the seemingly clearcut 4 stage approach which it laid down in the Macrossan/Aerotal case. This is perhaps not surprising given some of the trenchant criticism of that case - see for example at  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_or_exclusions.php&quot; title=&quot;http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_or_exclusions.php&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; ref=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_...&lt;/a&gt; and at  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_considerations.php.&quot; title=&quot;http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_considerations.php.&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; ref=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_c...&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Court of Appeal seems to have backed away from the seemingly clearcut 4 stage approach which it laid down in the Macrossan/Aerotal case. This is perhaps not surprising given some of the trenchant criticism of that case &#8211; see for example at  <a href="http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_or_exclusions.php" title="http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_or_exclusions.php" target="_blank" ref="nofollow"></a><a href="http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_.." rel="nofollow">http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_..</a>. and at  <a href="http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_considerations.php." title="http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_considerations.php." target="_blank" ref="nofollow"></a><a href="http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_c.." rel="nofollow">http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_c..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Hartigan</title>
		<link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/uk-grants-rare-computer-program-patent/#comment-55908</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Hartigan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:24:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-55908</guid>
		<description>In the Symbian case, the Court of Appeal seems to have backed away somewhat from the 4 stage test it laid down in the earlier Macrossan/Aerotel case. At para. 16 of the Symbian case the Court said &quot;Tribunals not infrequently suggest a specific staged approach to resolve issues in patent cases â&#8230; While such staged approaches are often valuable, they should not necessarily be followed blindly in every case. &quot;. The Aerotel/Macrossan decision was subjected to some trenchant criticism at the time â&#8211; see for example at  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_considerations.php&quot; title=&quot;http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_considerations.php&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; ref=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_c...&lt;/a&gt; and  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_or_exclusions.php.&quot; title=&quot;http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_or_exclusions.php.&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; ref=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_...&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the Symbian case, the Court of Appeal seems to have backed away somewhat from the 4 stage test it laid down in the earlier Macrossan/Aerotel case. At para. 16 of the Symbian case the Court said &#8220;Tribunals not infrequently suggest a specific staged approach to resolve issues in patent cases â&hellip; While such staged approaches are often valuable, they should not necessarily be followed blindly in every case. &#8220;. The Aerotel/Macrossan decision was subjected to some trenchant criticism at the time â&ndash; see for example at  <a href="http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_considerations.php" title="http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_considerations.php" target="_blank" ref="nofollow"></a><a href="http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_c.." rel="nofollow">http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_c..</a>. and  <a href="http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_or_exclusions.php." title="http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_or_exclusions.php." target="_blank" ref="nofollow"></a><a href="http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_.." rel="nofollow">http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
