From pb@breese.fr  Sat Oct  7 17:56:47 2000
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 19:56:47 +0200
From: Pierre BREESE pb@breese.fr
Subject: [Patents] compulsory-licensing


PILCH Hartmut a *crit :

> Lawcourts are bound to the law and nothing else. They are not entitled to
> judge whether the law is appropriate. They can develop the details of
> applying the law, but they can not change the rules that are laid down in
> the law.

Your opinion is based on art.52.2) without seriously taking in account art 52.3. Art
52.2 is not more important then 52.3, both alinea must be undestood together, and not
in a separate way with  a minor and anecdotal 52.3 that would not, in your opinion,
having the same weight as 52.2.


Such misinformation shows the necessity of improving the legibility of the law, not
in changing them, but in avoiding false interpretation as Afuls perception.

You cant reasonably contend that EPC granted 13,000 patents contradictorily to the
law, without any reaction of the board, or that the international patent
classification comprises many items as H04L-001 (the encryption system using shift
registers or memories for blockwise coding, e.g. D.E.S. systems [5] Key distribution
[5], Transmitting and receiving encryption devices synchronised or initially set up
in a particular manner [5] using a plurality of keys or algorithms [5], Encryption by
serially and continuously modifying data stream elements, e.g.,  stream cipher
systems [5], Public key, i.e. encryption algorithm being computationally infeasible
to invert and users' encryption keys not requiring secrecy [5], etc), all these
items being in your undestanding not patentable...

Pierre BREESE






