From Bernard.Lang@inria.fr Wed, 8 Dec 1999 11:46:31 +0100
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 11:46:31 +0100
From: Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr
Subject: [Patents] Re: [Patents] Re: [Patents] Re: [Patents] Do software patents exisit in Europe?

Well ...

I am aware that this is somewhat simplistic ...

but being simplistic also has benefits

  - it gives one clear view, though incomplete
  - it is simple to understand
  - it is a possible basis for discussion

I realise that some people are doing their job honestly.

but the sentence:
> > ...  and no one cares to know what is really needed
is accurate ... there has been no study on this topic,
only a lot of ideology, laziness (lets have a uniform system),
and lobbying from those who have money to do that.

The original Munich agreement have been subjected to constant
reinterpretation. While I do understand the EPO has been trying to
adapt to a changing economic and technological situation, the
evolution has always been in the direction on reinforced
proprietarization of intellectual resources, though there was never a
serious analysis of the pros and cons of such an evolution.

The main argument in the green book of the european commission is [not
a quote] "the USA are doing it, hence it must be the way ...".  May-be
true, ... the way for them. Our industry is not structured the same,
and furthermore we do not know how industry should/will evolve.

It is clear that the original Munich agreements have been stretched
beyond recognition (I recently attended an IP meeting, and there was a
consensus on that), and, given the trend, one can only interpret the
intended evolution of the text of the agreements as way to reset the
stretching counters so that the official texts can be stretched again.

I do not see that there is any hurry to go in that direction without
really thinking about the issues. I also believe that Seattle should
give some food for thoughts to all who believe that everything is
merchandise and property. An "intellectual resource" is not
necessarily "intellectual property", as common (deliberate ?) misuse
of the language is trying to make us believe. It becomes more obvious
everyday that the economy of intangibles works with laws and
interactions that are differents from thoses of classical material
economy, and that should taken into account. And it is not by chance
that a recent UN report stated: "The relentless march of intellectual
property rights needs to be stopped and questioned" (UNDP, United
Nations Development Program,  Human Development Report 1999 , page
73 Oxford University Press, 1999.
http://www.undp.org/hdro/index2.html

I am still waiting for official signs that the people in charge do
their job in good faith in the interest of the (all too unaware)
public.

It is the role of the entreprise to push the system for immediate
advantage, even against public interest, and I would not hold it
against them. It is the role of public bodies to look after public
interest (which may include the long term interest of enterprises as a
whole), and to resist that push. I realize it is harder to resist when
those would should be pushing the other way are not as strong in terms
of lobbying, and when the public is thankless for lack or awareness.
But that is the role of a civil servant.

Cordialement

   Bernard

On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 03:27:43PM +0100, Jean-Jacques de Jong wrote:
> Bernard, please, you are too simplistic.
> The law does not forbid it! It only forbids it under certain
> circumstances. 
> The problem is that these circumstances are not clear and are subject to
> interpretation by the boards of appeal of the EPO.
> 
> JJJ
> 
> 
> Bernard Lang wrote:
> > 
> > very simple
> > 
> > the law forbids it
> > 
> > the EPO (european patent office) scorns the law
> > 
> > the same say they need to change the law in order to do legally
> > what they are already doing
> > 
> > the purpose is to strech the law further, since they have reach the
> > point where it would break.
> > 
> > ...  and no one cares to know what is really needed
> > '
> > Bernard Lang
> > 
> > On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 08:33:17AM -0000, Richard Morrey wrote:
> > >
> > > Reading information on the freepatents.org website I get the impression that
> > > Sofware Patents have yet to be authorised in europe.
> > >
> > > However UNISYS already claim to have european patent EP0800726 on their
> > > LZW compression algorithm used in GIF.
> > >
> > > Can anyone square this circle for me?
> > >
> > 
> > --
> > Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
> > http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
> >             INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
> >          Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
> >                  CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> > http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents

-- 
Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX




