Adoption of intellectual property law, rational legislative policy to mitigate to the maximum extent possible from the negative effects that will result from the application of the Convention.
As the exaggeration in strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights will prevail interests of the advanced industrial countries, which owns the flag, money and technology at the expense of the interests of developing countries have taken into consideration in the preparation of the texts of the law to reduce the scope of protection through a patent to the least possible by the expansion of the exceptions permitted by the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, as the expansion of the law to the fullest extent possible in the exclusion of several denominations of protection of inventions by patent to the extent permitted by the TRIPS Agreement, and that's what decided the second article of the law as it stipulates that:
Does not grant a patent to the following:
(1) inventions that would be exploited prejudice national security or disturbing public order or morality or serious damage to the environment or harm to the life or health of human, animal or plant.
(2) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods, programs and schemes.
(3) methods of diagnosis and treatment, and human and animal surgery.
(4) plants and animals, whatever the degree of scarcity or strangeness, as well as ways in which to be a biological basis for the production of plants and animals, with the exception of micro-organisms and the ways non-biological and microbiological processes for the production of plants or animals.
(5) organs and tissues and live cells and biological materials and natural DNA and Genome "
It is clear from the advanced text as follows:
(1) that the law has benefited from all the exceptions that allowed the Article 27 of the Convention for the Member States to adopt. It decided to Article II of the law to exclude all denominations inventions which allowed the TRIPS Agreement states excluded from protection by the patent.
(2) ruled the law to protect plant varieties by patents. It should be noted that the law put a special system for the protection of plant varieties in the fourth book (articles 189-206), adapted from the UPOV Convention (UPOV 1991).
(3) Prohibition law to grant a patent for the members of the tissues and living cells and DNA and the genome, Fastbad so most of inventions relating to genetic engineering of the scope of protection by patent, bearing in mind that the developed countries are almost a monopoly on genetic engineering technology through its multinational.
(4) As the prohibition law granting patents for discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods, programs and schemes. It is self-evident that the discoveries and scientific theories and mathematical methods and schemes are not considered as inventions to the unavailability of the terms of the invention, therefore, excluded from protection by the patent is justified.
It is noted that the legislature has expanded the exceptions as it added to the list of exceptions "inventions that would be exploited compromising national security," he added to inventions excluded from protection by the patent "programs." This means that the Egyptian law exclude computer programs from protection by the patent. However, this does not mean that the Egyptian legislator omitted protection of computer programs, because the programs are legally protected as literary works by established copyright protection.
The position of the Egyptian law differs in this respect from both U.S. law and European law. The principle established by the provisions of the federal court recently in the United States to protect computer software through a patent application if the program leads to results useful, concrete and tangible useful, concrete and tangible. ([1])
In Europe, has interpreted Article 52, paragraph 2.3 of the Convention European Patent (EPC) broadly allows the protection of a computer program if the program is running in your Computer leads to the result art beyond what is familiar when you run the program and it is connected to the computer ([2 ]).
(41) State Street Bank and Trust Co. , V. Signature Financial Group, Inc. 149 F. 3d 1368 - Fed. Cir. 1998
(42) Decision of the Technical Board of Appeal, July 1, 1998 (International Business Machines Corporation case).
التسميات
Intellectual property