[Patents] compulsory-licensing

[Pierre BREESE pb@breese.fr]

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 Aful’s perception.

You can’t 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