[Patents] Re: security issues and technical effects

[Nick@bigfatpanda.fsnet.co.uk (Nick Fleming)]

>
>     By: John Lettice
>     http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17960.html
>     Posted: 29/03/2001 at 09:04 GMT
>
>  ..........................................
>
>
> > Pierret, who made the comments in an interview with magazine 01
> > Informatique, seems to have made a convincing bid for Open Source
> > pin-up status whle he was about it. "I support Linux and free software,"
> > he said, "because they allow faster and more robust development to put
> > public administration systems online. Commercial software raises
security
> > issues, because one doesn't know what's inside it. This is why I am
> > against software patents in Europe."
> >
> >                                       ====
> >
> > Actually his objection helps support software patents.  If his concern
is
> > security issues, and since security issues are a technical effect, his
> > economic (thus making the patents useful) objection, which resonates
with
> > nothing in patent law, becomes yet another argument for the
patentability
> > of software in Europe.

I see the argument (Greg ?) is trying to make - patents mean that the full
invention
must be disclosed and therefore patents are good in this case as they force
a
company to reveal security details.

(Im not sure why security issues are technical effects - no offence but
that doesnt make any kind of sense to me !. Sorry)

What neither Pilch or Greg mention is that patents do not provide provisions
for trade secret disclosure and the illegality of reverse engineering here
in Europe.
Remember that a company does not have to disclose ALL its secrets - only
those required for a patent to be valid - so a patent would not necessarily
cover security details.

But the real issue (i think) is allowing a private company to have a
(potentially
Europe-wide) 20 year monopoly on a public service without any hope
of competiton  - surely that is an argument against patents in this case ??

Regards

Nick Fleming.