[Patents] Re: french views (fwd)

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

> > They might have been misguided, and not have considered the issue of be=
ing
> > sued by someone else for programming techniques they thought was to tri=
vial
> > to be patented and they are using in their products.
=20
> And your opinion is that they will be in a better situation in not
> filing patents ???

Nobody said that.

Of course they should not stay unarmed but obtain all the weapons that the
EPO is eager to sell to them.
=20
> When you manage an commercial activity, in software or in all kind of
> activities, you have to take in account IP rights of your competitors,
> even when you choose not filing patents for your own innovations.

Yes, of course.
=20
> Software patents DOES EXIST IN EUROPE, and all tactic based on denying
> this reality is a bad way.

Law-bending activities do exist in Europe.=20

All tactics based on legalising the illegal are a bad way.

So are all tactics based on denying the reality of law-bending.
=20
> And I'm afraid that the european patent system will clarify the
> situation in maintaining the present practice of granting patent
> software.=20

If the European Patent Organisation does that, it could face the breakup
of the EPC.  Which would be a good thing, because we could then have a
pan-European patent system without the EPO.  All that is needed is a
mutual agreement to accept patents from any European country as long as
the meet certain formal criteria.  The rest can be done by national
lawcourts.  No need even for a national patent office, let alone an EPO.

Thus national parliaments have no reason to ratify a proposal from the EPO
that goes against the will of the citiziens.  And the EPC proposal cannot
have any effect if it is not ratified by the parliaments.  All parties in
the German parliament have recently made it clear that they don't want
software to be patentable.

> The 19 countries involved in EPO recently have unanimously assented a
> modification of art. 52 EPC.

You are saying only that 19 heads of national patent offices have agreed
that they want their power to be extended.

> (The debate that led to the 10/9 vote didn=92t concern the opportunity
> of such an amendment).

The issue was only a moratorium, not the question of whether tho change or
leave art 52.

-phm