From phm@a2e.de  Sun Nov 19 20:32:54 2000
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 21:32:54 +0100 (CET)
From: PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de
Subject: [Patents] FFII Database of European Software Patents and Press
 Conference

> >... I wouldn't have put his comment into the press release, because I
> >... know that patent specialists like you will tend to treat it as
> >... silly disinformation.
> 
> Hartmut,  Are your addicted to always insulting people you disagree
> with?  

Like calling the other's arguments "silly" and "unserious" (see below)?

> Second, his flight strategy, as a preventive strategy, also is a
> waste of money.  You state that there are 30,000 software patents
> in Europe, which is more than enough to cause all sorts of legal
> problems and headaches.  But I see little actual financial losses
> occuring, especially in terms of court judgments, partly because
> you have a strong "issuance" policy that we don't have in the US,
> i.e., that the loser pays.

This does not help if you are facing some companies that have thousands of
patents and deep pockets.
 
> So again, it seems to me easy to clean up the patent examination
> process to get rid of most of these crappy patents, than to try to
> come up with some artificial distinction between software and
> all other forms of technology.  The latter requires that you play
> the same word games that the patent lawyers play (and dueling word
> games is always a losing strategy).

This is again unfair.  The distinction between matter and information,
physics and logics etc is very natural and sharp.  Much less artificial
and sharper than any attempts to distinguish between "inventive" and
"obvious".  How do you measure non-obviousness?  by the number of
brain-windings needed to arrive at the idea?  On the other hand,
the physicality criterion that has been applied both in the US and in
Europe until about 20 years ago, has worked fine and can be put to work
again just as fine.  Whether or not we do it is just a matter of social
choice, as you have stated here before.  Our social choices differ on that
point.

> In fact, if you were really serious about these issues, you would
> figure a way to sue EPO in some European court to force them to
> stop issuing patents until they can prove that they can do a good
> a job as required by the EPC.

Your strategy would take a huge effort.
It would be much easier to sue the EPO to force them to stop issuing
patents on problems whose solution consists in writing a computer program.
Because that is what the written law says and what it was intended to say.
But even that is such a huge work that we don't have the means to do it.
That doesn't mean we aren't serious about doing what we have the means to
do.

> The problem isn't the laws (though I agree that 52c should be changed)

Important moments of history reveal on which side your heart stands.  Very
few people can keep their dark sides to themselves in such
situations.  But the readers of this list will remember where Greg
Aharonian stood, when programming freedom for the world was at stake.

Almost all patent professionals believe that securing a playground for
themselves is more important than securing freedom of expression and
freedom of programming, and that programmers should be conscripted for
compulsory service in cleaning up that playground.

> but the hypocrisy of governments passing laws that they don't take
> steps to make sure are well implemented.  These types of battles are
> easier to fight because the issues are fixed, relate directly to the
> main driving force of the patent system, money, and don't require
> arguing semantics.

We are choosing a different strategy, and you should respect that.
I can respect your strategy as well and wish you good look with it.
An ideologue is someone who chooses only one fixed path for himself 
and tries to denigrate all other paths so as to remove the tiresome
need for understanding them and simultaneously raise his own self-esteem.

-phm





