[Patents] Re: basic problem

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

> So, it's better no tempt "evil forces", I think; acting for honest
> aim, we must be honest ourselves.

The game that Greg plans to play is legitimate, but it doesn't go to the
basic problem.  If it is successful, it will just eliminitate some very
stupid patents and therebey strengthen those patents, that are juridically
sound but perhaps even more harmful.
   
>   I've another proposal - if we can't "unpatent" all software
> immediately, and/or abolish patent system at all, why not try to:
>     PATENT "ANYTHING_THAT_IS_MOVING" IN THE SOFTWARE FOR FREE USE
> (SIMILIAR TO GPL) ONLY ?

Similar proposals have been elaborated before, see www.openpatents.org and
the Lpf article on mutual defense.

>   I also support some changes to patent law, like: shortening
> the patent protection period (to 3 years), shortening the pendency
> period (to 6 months), "non-triviality requirement", etc, as described
> in the report "Industry at Risk" published by League for Programming
> Freedom. If we can't abolish software patents here and know, let's make
> them far less harmful.

We are no longer free to make these changes.  The patent bureaucrats have
succeeded in getting our governments to sign internationional treaties
that don't allow us to improve our legal systems.

For example, the TRIPS treaty stipulates that patents must be granted "in
all fields of technology" with an equal duration of approximately 20
years.

We are now forced to argue that information is not technology etc.  We
need to insist that "technology" implies the application of natural laws
(as stiupulated by the the definition of the German Federal Court /
BundesGerichtsHof) and that this again implies that information can not be
patented.  We currently still have the freedom to give the term
"technical" this interpretation and also to interpret terms like
"industrial application".  The TRIPS treaty is not very explicit here.
So we should focus on the freedom that we have.

--
phm