[Patents] simple questions

[dewaz dewaz@ran.es]

PILCH Hartmut wrote:
> > Allowing a behaviour that breaks a law because of lack of
> > enforcement(nowadays) is not the same that allowing the behaviour
> > thanks to a law(future). Economic consequences wouldn't be equivalent.
> 
> Why?
> I don't see a big difference, except that, since software patents are
> against the law in Europe, they often can't be enforced and people don't
> go to court but rather wait for November.

Allowing in a law to cross with your car when  red or green, no matters.
or
Not get a fine for doing so although you broke  rules.
Do you see a BIG difference now?

> 
> > Many of us would be grateful to you for ever if try to differenciate
> > in a law when soft is for "embedded systems" and when "pure software".
> 
> I don't believe Greg would advocate such a law. 

Nor do I,
Why soft of my computer sound card could be "more" patentable than any
other "pure soft" running on the "reprogrammable computer"?


> However the distinction "physical" and "logical" can be made sharp and is
> well founded in European patent jurisprudence (see
> http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/epue52/).

I presume that "logical" is an earlier stage than "physical" thus soft
patents destroy competence earlier than patents of devices or products.
I think that is harmful and has no justification.


-- 
Futuro Agonico S.A es propietaria de la patente 4129583 que protege el 
proceso de respuesta de correos electronicos.
Evite acciones judiciales subscribiendo nuestro preceptivo canon.
http://www.ran.es/personal/dewaz/paynow.htm