[Patents] Third Paradigm between Patent and Copyright is the1844(!) french patent reinvented by Hatrmut

[jgk.novatek jgk.novatek@estelfree.net]

EXCUSE ME FOR BIG LETTERS BUT IT IS TO DIFFERENTIATE IMPORTANT ANSWERS
I  HAVE TO EARN A LIVING FOR FOUR PEOPLE AND  I CANNOT GIVE TOO MUCH TIME
FOR ANSWERS
I appreciate your honest way for searching solutions



         It is possible to integrate patent and logilege into one general
class.

U should begin with two main concepts

Aright to exclude others  is granted by a State to aperson for agiven time
Ideas as such cannot be object of such a right (copyright or patent)


But still there is a need for two subclasses:  that of concrete-physical
(technical) and that of abstract-logical innovations.

that is German philosophy and since the beginning was not accepted :
patented methods(procedes,loi de1844), patented use(German and american) of
a product or an apparatus


 Rights that would
work for the former will cause trouble when applied to the latter.
NOT TRUE
In the abstract-logical world we also have copyright.
NOT TRUE
copyright only protects the physical  expression
the "abstract-logical world" is not a saleable concept
either you have something materialized or able to be materialized
or you have an idea without proprietor reproducible by anybody
THEREFORE PROTECTION IMPLIES MATERIALIZATION
because the courts cannot judge without MATERIALIZATION

 What would be the
parallel of copyright inthe concrete-physical world?
copyright IS in physical world
PROTECTION IMPLIES MATERIALIZATION

 Perhaps ownership of
physical objects?
NO

If taken that way, we get one single paradigm for everything:
YES
Aright to exclude others  is granted by a State to aperson for agiven time
Ideas as such cannot be object of such a right (copyright or patent)

buy the book at Novatek if you want to know more

concept implementation
yes copyright
Aright to exclude others  is granted by a State to aperson for agiven time
Ideas as such cannot be object of such a right (copyright or patent)

physical patent posession

physical patent posession has NOTHING to do with the patent right
Aright to exclude others  is granted by a State to aperson for agiven time
Ideas as such cannot be object of such a right (copyright or patent)
What can be subject matter of a patent is defined by law (for example
European)
What can be the right conferred by a patent is defined by national law(for
example French but today not European law)


logical logilege copyright
Your logillege is notAright to exclude others  granted by a State to aperson
for agiven time
Your logillege is not copyright  BUT MAY CONFLICT WITH copyright

> Why should the patentee not monopolise the programmed apparatus?

He should only not monopolise it, if it is a universal computer that can
be reprogrammed.   Otherwise he would not be monopolising an apparatus but
the program as such.
THE POINT is that the patentee is in no way obliged to give a license
Ur answer is about patentability and not about enforcement


> please explain the "Legacy" "software patents"

Legacy: "granted by the EPO against the written law but no longer wanted
now".
software patents:  put in quotation marks, because the term is misleading.
  the real issue is patents on abstract-logical concepts

Aright to exclude others  is granted by a State to aperson for agiven time
Ideas as such cannot be object of such a right (copyright or patent)

rather than on
  solutions that involve a new model of natural forces to solve a problem
  posed by physical reality.

that is German philosophy and since the beginning was not accepted :
patented methods(procedes,loi de1844), patented use(German and american) of
a product or an apparatus

  Much "software" can be implemented as hardware.
> If the same mechanism is realised as software that runs
> > on a universal computer (including a user-reprogrammable automobile
> > engine) the patent would no longer be enforcable.
> yes, déjà comme ça
> this is the enforceability exception of "private or experimental
> use"(article L613-5 CPI)

no.
I mean non-enforcable against whatever use.

NO
onlynon-enforcable against whatever NONCOMMERCIAL use
because you have anyway supplementary legal means enforcable against
whatever COMMERCIAL use

onlynon-enforcable against whatever NONCOMMERCIAL use IS
EQUAL TOenforceability exception of "private or experimental
> use"(article L613-5 CPI)



> > This kind of rule would be useful for dealing with legacy patents from
the
> > EPO.  I don't believe it has much merit beyond its usefulness as a
> > compromise solution.
> yes, déjà comme ça
> but the EPO has today nopower regarding enforceability

You mean that French courts allow enforcement of software patents (I mean
patents on abstract-logical schemes which can be implemented as computer
programs on a known device, i.e. the innovative nucleus lies in the
computer program) against hardware devices (e.g. DRAM chips) but not
against computer programs?

UR question is not clear
because German philosophy is not clear
for French courts
however please look at the Schlumberger decision of around 1984
by the Appeal Court of PARIS and tell me if your question is answered

> > patents should contain implementation examples, but in the case of
> > software patents, this rule is not applied.
> do not understand

I have never seen a software patent that contained in the "implementation
examples" section a full computer program source text.

IN ORDER to facilitate and multiply infringement by big companies ??

MAY BE you can use the deposit solution as for biological material(rules28 +
EPC)
because I am not interested in reading more than 100 pages patents if I have
only
to tell a client if he is or not infringing the logilege (or the patent)


 This is contrary
to the spirit of the law, which requires the implementation section to
fully enable the man skilled in the art to rework the process.
 NO
to
disclose the invention   to   the man skilled in the art sufficiently to
enable himto carry out the invention
the man skilled in the art may use his skill as to complete
smalldeficiencies
in the description
otherwise you never find a  complete  description because you always can say
that
the description isnot   complete

basic inconsistency "  and how it is measured
If you fully enable the software engineer to rework the process, then you
must supply a reference implementation.
IN ORDER to facilitate and multiply infringement by big companies ??
MAY BE you can use the deposit solution as for biological material(rules28 +
EPC)
because I am not interested in reading more than 100 pages patents if I have
only
to tell a client if he is or not infringing the logilege (or the patent)

  But by doing that, you already
provide the "invention" itself, and this violates the patent claims,
NONSENSE
to provide the "invention" itself is NOT an infringement
> this is the enforceability exception of "private or experimental
> use"(article L613-5 CPI)
if I write down the claims or execute the claims in NONCOMMERCIAL use
it  is NOT an infringement
the aim of patents is  permitting increasing the general knowledge
which implies to be free to
write down the claims or execute the claims in NONCOMMERCIAL use


 at
least if a "computer program" or "computer program product" is claimed, as
is the case with EPO patents since 1997.
 GRANTING OF CLAIMS IS DIFFERENT FROM ENFORCEMENT
to provide the "invention" itself is NOT an infringement
> this is the enforceability exception of "private or experimental
> use"(article L613-5 CPI)
if I write down the claims or execute the claims in NONCOMMERCIAL use
it  is NOT an infringement
the aim of patents is  permitting increasing the general knowledge
which implies to be free to
write down the claims or execute the claims in NONCOMMERCIAL use

> > > I think the patent system should work like that, possibly with longer
> > > validity.
> yes, déjà comme ça
non, pas du tout.
e.g. no reward is paid for a successful opposition.
almost none of the characteristics I listed is comme ca in the patent
system.
I DO NOT AGREE BUT I AM ONLY A PROFESSIONAL SINCE  1989
AND I CANNOT DISCUSS ON ESTABLISHED POINTS OF VIEW
WE NEED PRACTICAL EXAMPLES


> > The following logilege features may not be applicable to patents:
> > (a) 3 year validity

> for free ??

Yes.  The privilege owner should pay those who falsify his claims.
THAT IS NOT A PRIVILEGE BUT A PUBLIC EXECUTION BY OTHERS
ANY BIG COMPANY INTERESTED IN THE LOGILEGE WILL SUIT THE OWNER AND CLAIM FOR
THE REWARD IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A FREE  LICENSE OF THE LOGILEGE

The longer he keeps the claims, the greater the risk that someone comes up
and falsifies them.
THAT IS NOT A PRIVILEGE BUT A PUBLIC EXECUTION BY OTHERS
ANY BIG COMPANY INTERESTED IN THE LOGILEGE WILL SUIT THE OWNER AND CLAIM FOR
THE REWARD IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A FREE  LICENSE OF THE LOGILEGE
YOU are SILENT ABOUT PUNISHING INFRINGEMENT OF THE LOGILEGE
which in fact is the real question
because otherwise   3 year validity is not interesting if you have no
enforcement period
your analysis is focused on the German praxis (expensive and complicated)
where you have to sue  first before the patentgericht for nullifying patent
(or logilege?)and second before the landgericht  for enforcing the patent
(or logilege?)

IN  FRANCE it is less expensive and simple
you only sue before the competent TGI
BOTH for nullifying patent  AND  for enforcing the patent


It is wrong if the proprietors of good claims are forced to finance an
examination system,
NO
if the proprietors of good claims finance A GOOD
examination system,
you have an independent authority granting in the name of one or more States
Aright to exclude others  to aperson for agiven time
the proprietors of Aright to exclude others  to aperson for agiven time
should pay at least a small compensation for the right to exclude others  to
aperson for agiven time
PERSONNALLY I BELIEVE THAT COPYRIGHT SHOULD ALSO BE EXAMINED  BY  an
independent authority
BECAUSE COPYRIGHT is a privilege which is AUTOMATIC and that the COPYRIGHT
licensing schemes exclude any product liability



 and it is even more wrong to create incentives for
a big bureaucracy to inflate the patent system.
YOU CANNOT ESTABLISH LOGILEGES ONLY ON PRIVATE AGREEMENT
IF YOU WISH LOGILEGE /  THE STATES WILL LIKE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE SYSTEM
BECAUSE THE STATES GRANT THE LOGILEGES
UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN  NETLAW  OR SOFTLAW  / IT IS THEREFORE  NOT POSSIBLE
TO AVOID SOME BUREAUCRACY

EVEN IN  NETLAW  OR SOFTLAW THERE MUST BE SOME KIND OF JURISDICTION
WHICH IS LIKELY TO BE AMERICANIZED  /   I WOULD NOT LIKE IT

THEREFORE I BELIEVE YOU SHOULD COOPERATE WITH NON AMERICANIZED PATENT
ATTORNEYS  BECAUSE I BELIEVE YOU ARE NOT FULLY AWARE OF THE   PRACTICAL
PROBLEMS

ANY BIG american COMPANY INTERESTED IN THE LOGILEGE WILL SUIT THE OWNER AND
CLAIM FOR THE REWARD IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A FREE  LICENSE OF THE LOGILEGE

THE FRENCH  PATENT bureaucracy   IS NOT a big bureaucracy AND SHOULD BE
BIGGER    in order to protect the  FRENCH    industry from foreign patents
THE GERMAN bureaucracy IS a big bureaucracy
THE EUROPEAN  bureaucracy IS a big bureaucracy

The logilege doesn't even need a formal examination.
FREnCH PATENT LAW OF  1844

Court fees would be paid by the loser.
THAT IS NOT A PRIVILEGE BUT A PUBLIC EXECUTION BY OTHERS
ANY BIG COMPANY INTERESTED IN THE LOGILEGE WILL SUIT THE OWNER AND CLAIM FOR
THE REWARD IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A FREE  LICENSE OF THE LOGILEGE

Court fees would be paid by the loser
WHEN ANY BIG COMPANY INTERESTED IN THE LOGILEGE SUITS THE OWNER AND CLAIMS
FOR THE REWARD
THE LITIGATION MAY LAST A LONG TIME
THE OWNER  will run out of money
IN THE END Court fees would be paid by the OWNER
THAT IS NOT A PRIVILEGE BUT A PUBLIC EXECUTION BY ANY BIG COMPANY INTERESTED
IN THE LOGILEGE


 20 year for patents but you pay each year an increasing tax
This only means that you are forced to commercially exploit your idea.

YES  or to abandon your right to exclude others for agiven time
Ideas as such cannot be object of such a right (copyright or patent)
THERE IS NO BENEFIT FOR SOCIETY if you own an idea and do not work out the
idea in order to BENEFIT to the SOCIETY


But abstract ideas often cannot be commercially exploited.
THERE IS NO BENEFIT FOR SOCIETY if you own an idea and do not work out the
idea in order to BENEFIT to the SOCIETY
IT IS THE REASON WHY Ideas as such cannot be object of such a right
(copyright or patent  OR LOGILEGE)

So only owners of huge portfolios can play poker with such items.
NOT TRUE ALL THE TIME
SMALL COMPANIES HAVE NOTHING TO PROTECT THEIR TURNOVER FROM INFRINGEMENT IF
THEY HAVE NO right to exclude ANY BIG american COMPANY for agiven time

> > (b) scope of claims must be narrow enough to enclose neither prior art
> yes, déjà comme ça for patents>
> >     nor possible future innovations
> this is the problem
> what can you do to enforce the logilege in that case ?
> the infringer is "only a future innovator" all the time

Why is that?
The typical infringers whom you want to keep away is the one who just
imitates your innovation without improving or enriching it.
SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE WITH COPYRIGHT  ?   NONE !

IF YOU HAVE CLAIMS ,  there should be a difference WITH COPYRIGHT
YOU HAVE then BROADER PROTECTION THAN COPYRIGHT  and you have AUTOMATICALLY
before court a discussion about the scope of the claims
The typical infringers say that they are
 improving or enriching the logilege and pretend that
scope of claims is not  narrow enough and encloses
their own innovations
YOU are the owner of the logilege and say this is not true
BUT   the  court
will judge that the differences between
the alleged infringement  and the subject matter of the logilege
are  "future innovations"
YOU LOSE your logilege NULLIFIED in court and YOU PAY your infringer

THE DIFFICULTY is to define legally (seems impossible to me)
or to construe the expression        "improving or enriching it"

You would have to either disclose full information on all ideas needed to
make your claims work,
IN ORDER to facilitate and multiply infringement by big companies ??
MAY BE you can use the deposit solution as for biological material(rules28 +
EPC)
because I am not interested in reading more than 100 pages patents if I have
only
to tell a client if he is or not infringing the logilege (or the patent

or you would have to narrow down your claims to
suit the little information that you are ready to provide.

CONTRADICTION  WITH
> (b) scope of claims must be narrow enough to enclose neither prior art
> >     nor possible future innovationsI
YOU should make correct claims at the time of filing the logilege
AND NOT NARROWING PROGRESSIVELY like Russian puppets
if the proprietors of good claims finance A GOOD
examination system,
you have an independent authority NARROWING the claims at the time of
examining  the logilege
OTHERWISE  ANY BIG COMPANY INTERESTED IN obtaining a LOGILEGE WILL make very
braod claims and wait if they have until they are forced to narrow the
claims
THE OTHERS WILLHAVE TO SUE the COMPANY INTERESTED
toforce COMPANY INTERESTEDto narrow the claims
THE OTHERS WILLHAVE TO pay the suit

This kind of provision is helpful for avoiding large claims
I BELIEVE THE ABOVE SHOWS THE CONTRARY
 like that of
the IBM spellcheck algorithm, which is really a generic class of possible
algorithms which all require great inventive activity to be put to work.
IBM on the other hand side wasn't particularly inventive.
I DO NOT KNOW THE CASE but we can advise if we believe feasible to make
something in this case (this is implying nonfree action , in other words
somebody has to pay becauseI  I HAVE TO EARN A LIVING FOR FOUR
administrative and secretary PEOPLE AND  I CANNOT GIVE TOO MUCH TIME FOR
ANSWERS)

  Only their
patent lawyer was, because he managed to derive an unusual super-class
from a particular algorithm.
PATENTS ARE NOT attackproof  , but I believe such attacks have to be made by
the rules  EVEN WHEN you may have already a lot of documentation  /
testimony
I DO NOT KNOW THE CASE but we can advise if we believe feasible to make
something in this case (this is implying nonfree action , in other words
somebody has to pay becauseI  I HAVE TO EARN A LIVING FOR FOUR
administrative and secretary PEOPLE AND  I CANNOT GIVE TOO MUCH TIME FOR
ANSWERS)

The claims I am referring to can be found in
http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/papri/bpatg17w6998de.html
in German.
NOT INTERESTING
WHAT IS THE OFFICIAL LANGUage  in which the patent has been granted ?
WHAT IS the family of corresponding patents ?  US  etcc...

This kind of problem is typical for abstract-logical innovations.  The
purpose of such innovations often lies in the area of abstraction.
SEE ABOVE
the "abstract-logical world" is not a juridic concept
either you have something materialized or able to be materialized
or you have an idea without proprietor reproducible by anybody
THEREFORE PROTECTION IMPLIES MATERIALIZATION
because the courts cannot judge without MATERIALIZATION


 One
way to avoid overly broad claims is to require the applicant to disclose
ideas needed to put those claims into practise.
 THIS IS NOT TRUE
it only facilitates infringement
NEVERTHELESS the claims can still be very broad
SUFFICIENCY OF DISCLOSURE IS NOT directly TIED WITH broadness of the claims
that is a German idea probably originating from the PRAXISof the patent
offices in chemical patents or second and further drug use patents,
IT IS MORE COMPLEX THAN YOU BELIEVE


> > (c) limitation by right to publish and right of interoperability
>> yes, déjà comme ça for patents
 Unclear.
Patent lawyers regularly claim that the publication of a program in the
Internet already infringes on their patent, and they even write their
claims like that.
If a program is a patentable object like any other, then making it
available to others constitutes an infringement.

making it
COMMERCIALLY available to others constitutes an infringement

making it
COMMERCIALLY available to others constitutes an infringement when there is a
LOSS of turnover for patentee
the publication of a program in the
Internet already infringes on their patent,when it is for making it
COMMERCIALLY available to others  in such a way that there is a LOSS of
turnover for patentee(same for copyright on music and MP3problem )
.
If it is not, then there is no reason to change Art 52.
 PERSONNALLY I will stay with "as such"
as long as NO GOOD examination / deposit

> > (d) inadmissibility of posterior narrowing of claims
> yes, déjà comme ça for patents

patent claims are frequently narrowed.
Most proceedings end with the acceptance of a set of auxiliary claims by
the court.
YES BEFORE EPO IN OPPOSITION AND  German  BPG
your analysis is focused on the German praxis (expensive and complicated)
where you have to sue  first before the patentgericht for nullifying patent
(or logilege?)and second before the landgericht  for enforcing the patent
(or logilege?)

IN  FRANCE it is less expensive and simple
you only sue before the competent TGI
BOTH for nullifying patent  AND  for enforcing the patent

> but will probably change under american pressure

I'd be interested in more details.
Is France different?
SOMEWHAT YES
IN  FRANCE it is less expensive and simple
you only sue before the competent TGI
BOTH for nullifying patent  AND  for enforcing the patent
IT WILL TAKE TOO MUCH TIME  TO EXPLAIN

> > Of course it could be wise to apply b-d to the whole patent system.
> yes, 75% déjà comme ça for patents
>
> > There is no reason not to apply c except that it normally is not a
> > problem with traditional patents.
>
> yes, déjà comme ça for patents
> there is a french ruling of court applying c
I'd be interested in details.
I HAVE TO SEARCH manually  for THE REFERENCE
IT WILL TAKE some TIME

> > Then there would no longer be a third paradigm but only an improved
patent
> > system with a reduced validity period for abstract-logical innovations.
> there is no problem because drugs enjoy an extended validity period
TRIPS Art 33 says that it must be 20 years or more for all patents.
TRUE but only for validity
ENFORCEMENT can be subject to compulsory licensing

> > But reforming the patent system in this way has been made impossible by
> > TRIPS, and after all it.
> then use compulsory licensing
> the States have a lot of compulsory licences schemes in their national law
> for that

Also to circumvent Art 33 of TRIPS?
FEASIBLE
 see french code de la propriété intellectuelle and article 85 of European
TREATY

>  And even if everything is integrated into one
> > system, the fact that there is a recognized borderline between
> > concrete-physical and abstract-logical as well as between publication
and
> > use of information already makes for a third paradigm.
> SEE ABOVE
DO NOT AGREE
> publication has never been infringing

Microsoft has forbidden the developpers of VirtualDub to publish their
software.
I LIKE DETAILS
  The Ghostscript source contains no LZW handling algorithm
because the programmers are afraid.  Perhaps they are just overly afraid.
MAYBE
needs a look

We would probably have to fight quite a few exemplary cases in court
before we can be sure of that.
FOR SURE
DO NOT WAIT
> > One more thing to do would be an inventivity competition:  the inventor
> > first publishes the problem and tenders for solutions.
>
> inventivity competition is a competiton and enjoys no right

It should, because inventivity is a vague concept which cannot be
determined by formal criteria to be handled by some bureaucrat (examiner).
U MUST FIND A WAY TO JUSTIFY GRANTING OF  a right
Btw, this is also the problem with the compulsory license:  it leaves
to much room for the judgment of a bureaucrat based on difficult criteria.
NO OF COURT IN FRANCE
> > For three months anybody can submit a solution.  The submitted
> > solutions

> what happens if the invention has been stolen?

We already have this problem in the patent system.  It is one reason why
the USA have a "first-to-invent" principle and a grace period.
SO YOU ARE AMERICANIZED?
this system gives a lot of litigation / the"first-to-invent" principle is
BAD

 Europe, on
the other hand, requires the applicant to exercise discipline and take the
responsibility of keeping his invention secret until the day of the
application.
AGREE  on keeping his invention CONFIDENTIAL
> > against which the logilege description, which is
> > then published, must be measured.
> what happens if the invention has been stolen?

The inventor sues the thief.

AND LOSES because theft is difficult to prove

> the inventor "first(?)" publishes the problem and has to pay his thief ?
> very fair !

He publishes only the problem.
THE COMPLETE PROBLEM ?
Every patent description has a "problem" section.
I KNOW BUT IT IS MAINly for guiding the Examiner and construing the claims
NOT FOR A PUBLIC INNovation competition

This could also be connected to a "prior art" section.
THE COMPLETE "prior art" section?
The innovator describes what had been known up to now and what was the new
problem for which he had to come up with something that prior art didn't
provide.
FOR SOFTWARE THIS IS PURE THEORY BECAUSE THE COMPLETE PROBLEM IMPLIES A PART
OF THE SOLUTION
THE "prior art" section  is never COMPLETE
SHOW A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE

He would publish this section one month ahead of the publication of the
solution.
This one month period could be used by others to submit
solutions, either from prior art or self-invented.
THIS IS A COMPETITION and gives NO right to exclude ANY BIG american COMPANY
for agiven time
because ANY BIG american COMPANY for agiven time may parallely apply for a
patent application
THE MORE IS THAT NOBODY is obliged  to participate to the competition
IF I KNEW THE SOLUTION I would not disclose it to the owner but I would file
a patent application wherever possible and let the owner believe he is the
sole inventor
AFTER THREEYEARS I would attack him for infringement of my patent because
his logilege has expired and then ask for royalties from every good faith us

er of the expired logilege because my patent has a earlier filing date than
the publication of the logilege
SO YOU ARE AMERICANIZED?
this system gives alot of litigation
PLEASE ASSUME YOU ARE UNDER CONTINENTAL LAW (not common law)
the AMERICANIZED system is so complex that GPL and a lot of alike systems
WERE NECESSARY TO BE INVENTED and are only known by a few people like you
 YOU cannot succeed if
you do not
ASSUME that  YOU ARE UNDER CONTINENTAL LAW (not common law)
and study the situation UNDER CONTINENTAL LAW (not common law)

buy the book at Novatek if you want to know more

When the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft came up with audio compression algorithms
that went into MP3, they might have applied for a logilege by specifying
the problem of "finding a way to compress audio data by a rate of 10 with
a quality loss of less than 1%".THE COMPLETE PROBLEM ?
  It is very unlikely that anyone would
have found the FhG algorithm within one month.
with THE COMPLETE PROBLEM ?
IT IS HARD TO SAY TODAY

  However, it is almost certain that thousands of people would have found
the above-cited IBM"invention" within one day.
DOES IBM "believe"enough in that patent  to enforce it OR is it a "defensive
patent" ?

This huge difference cannot be handled by the conventional criteria of the
patent system, but it can be handled by a competition game, where the
public replaces the examiner
THE PUBLIC MAY ALREADY INTERVENE
MAY BE GRANTING SHOULD be delayed IF more than hundred observations of third
parties are filed IN order to ask an advice from anticompetition Authority

 and a reward is paid to the winner.
NOTHING FOR THE OWNER ?
HOW do you finance such a COMPLETE   system  ?
HOW do you finance  the loss of time for answering ?

MY loss of time for answering since first participation is valued about 13
000  FRF
IN OTHER WORDS I steal time for answering to people thinking inAMerican

People not taking care of the loss of time for answering must be paid by the
State (INRIA?) or are ALREADY    paid for lobbying (marketing or R+D ?)  or
have nobody TO EARN A LIVING FOR FOUR PEOPLE

I  HAVE TO EARN A LIVING FOR FOUR PEOPLE AND  I CANNOT GIVE TOO MUCH TIME
FOR ANSWERS if it is only to answer old worn-out ideas
 (see POUYET book beginning of Century : BREVETS d'invention et contrefaçon)

The reason why it doesn't work otherwise is that innovation is cheap
and
poorly documented in the abstract-logical realm.

innovation is cheap BECAUSE of being poorly documented in the logiciel
realm.

innovation is being poorly documented in the logiciel realm. BECAUSE the
logiciel realm arranged for no product liability

LINUX does not allow for product liability ; otherwise MIcrosoft gets
"pleite" if LINUX were fully supported for the average user


Are you speaking on behalf of Novatek, Estelfree or rather some imaginary
non-software company?
none of that, Novatek is a VEREIN (see German law)   and Estelfree is an
access provider not depending from FRance TELECOM
 none of that, this is a"moyenne" between 3  existing non-software company
who are my clients and their name are confidential

> 2. Whether and HOW computer programs should be ENFORCED depends mainly on
>        the effects this would have on the European economy and society.
> yes , the States have a lot of compulsory licences schemes in their
national
> law for that

I agree that the idea of compulsory licensing should be revived.
But it is hard to formulate clear rules for compulsory licensing
NO
see code de la propriete intellectuelle

and
there has been a tendency to do away with this system
YES but still exists and will remain IF USED (independance nationale) like
the use of French language

or use it only
in big cases where anti-competitive behavior comes into play.
Obvious that used when useful
However every patent as such
 is anticompetitive

Such behavior is however very common, almost daily routine, in the
software industry.
  Using compulsory licenses to guarantee
interoperability would require too much bureaucracy.
IN FRANCE it would be appropriate to use Repression des Fraudes (public and
no cost)

Currently there seems to be no convenient way for anyone to obtain a
compulsory license.
 You only have to follow the existing rules
see code de la propriete intellectuelle

>  Europe should not change the law this year
> yes
>  but allow itself a 2 year moratorium to further discuss the issue.
> NO not before a solution exists for a correct examination

That is also a good point.

I believe your efforts should focus on what is a good   examination

The reason is that most abstract ideas are easy to find but hard to
implement.  Thus it is copyright which protects the difficult part of the
process.

This is not true : copyright NOT   protects  the  process.
But only the implemented work

J G KASPAR