BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> EventsMarket Pty Ltd (Patent) [2004] UKIntelP o08704 (26 March 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o08704.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o8704, [2004] UKIntelP o08704 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o08704
Summary
The invention concerns a computer-based system for a form of online betting in which the participants effectively bet against each other rather than a bookmaker. It is based on the use of 'coupons' which are created and traded in the system. A coupon is defined as having a set value if some future event occurs, and no value if the event does not occur. The coupons are traded at a price determined by supply and demand, and the price of a coupon is thus analogous to the odds on a bet. The claims under consideration related to a system including a web server, database and other components comprising means to carry out the specified transactions. An alternative set of claims directed to an apparatus for playing a game having similar components was also considered.
The applicant argued that the invention made a technical contribution because the new and simplified nature of the system resulted in reduced use of bandwidth and other physical resources in comparison with existing systems. This argument was rejected and the application refused on the grounds that such benefits are not on their own enough to warrant a finding of technical contribution if the field of the invention is itself non-technical. In this case the only effects of the invention were in the field of business methods, the invention involved the solution of no technical problem within the computer, and no technical considerations beyond the skill of the computer programmer were involved in its realisation.
An argument based on the alternative claims that Official Ruling 1926(A) (appendix to 43 RPC), which sets out criteria for acceptance of claims to board games, should be applied by analogy to a computer system claimed as a game, was rejected on the grounds that the technical contribution requirement applies to all categories of excluded matter, including methods for playing games, and cannot be avoided by simple claim reformulation.
