La machine aide indéniablement...

http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_ii_4_1.htm

[...]

4.1

Matter contrary to "ordre public" or morality

Any invention the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to "ordre public" or morality is specifically excluded from patentability. The purpose of this is to deny protection to inventions likely to induce riot or public disorder, or to lead to criminal or other generally offensive behaviour (see also F-II, 7.2). Anti-personnel mines are an obvious example. This provision is likely to be invoked only in rare and extreme cases. A fair test to apply is to consider whether it is probable that the public in general would regard the invention as so abhorrent that the grant of patent rights would be inconceivable. If it is clear that this is the case, objection should be raised under Art. 53(a); otherwise not. The mere possibility of abuse of an invention is not sufficient to deny patent protection pursuant to Art. 53(a) EPC if the invention can also be exploited in a way which does not and would not infringe "ordre public" and morality (see T 866/01). If difficult legal questions arise in this context, then refer to C-VIII, 7.

[...]


Et en plus, il connaît des ingénieurs qui travaillent à l'Office Européen des Brevets, un à Munich et l'autre à La Haye. Décidemment... Il est également question de fiscalité légère... Tout est à revoir.