[Patents] Re: How decisions evolve (fwd)

[phm@a2e.de (PILCH Hartmut)]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>
Subject: Re: How decisions evolve
To: intprop-l@topica.com

Marek Lazewski <marek@lazewski.net> writes:

> > > This is a standard way that judicial decisions develop in many areas
> > > of law.
> >
> > To state that "decisions evolve" etc is a standard way of weakening the
> > sense of responsibility and accountability of those people who make tho=
se
> > decisions and who still today are responsible for deciding the future
> > course.
>
> If you are tying to argue that courts in Germany or in other civil law
> countries have no power of interpreting the statutes and that understandi=
ng
> of the concepts written in law never changes you are in a very difficult
> situation.

I am not trying to argue that.

> There is a more than 100 years old history of judicial decision that in m=
y
> personal opinion have actually made law.

[...]

Thanks for the nice examples.

There are also a lot of debates on how far this "judge's law"
(Richterrecht) can go.  Some results of these debates have been
summarised in court decisions, such as one of 1990-04-03 by the German
Constitutional Court (BVerfG), stating:

  1. Die herk=F6mmlichen Auslegungsmethoden und auch die analoge
     Anwendung einfachgesetzlicher Vorschriften ist grunds=E4tzlich
     verfassungsm=E4=DFig; Schranken ergeben sich aus dem Gesetzesvorrang
     als Element des Rechtsstaatsprinzips bzw der Rechtssicherheit
     gem=E4=DF GG Art 20 Abs 3. Der Richter darf eindeutige Entscheidungen
     des Gesetzgebers nicht durch eigene rechtspolitische
     Vorstellungen ver=E4ndern. Werden Regelungen jedoch aufgrund
     gesellschaftlichen Wandels oder rechtlicher Entwicklungen
     l=FCckenhaft oder erg=E4nzungsbed=FCrftig, ist richterliche L=FCckensu=
che
     und L=FCckenschlie=DFung verfassungsrechtlich.

  2. Auch wenn sich bei der Rechtsfortbildung verst=E4rkt das Problem des
     Umfangs richterlicher Gesetzesbindung stellt, ist die
     verfassungsrechtliche Kontrolle analoger Rechtsanwendung darauf
     beschr=E4nkt, ob das Fachgericht in vertretbarer Weise eine
     einfachgesetzliche L=FCcke angenommen und geschlossen hat und ob
     diese Erweiterung des Normenbereichs Wertungen der Verfassung,
     namentlich Grundrechten widerspricht.

To summarize shortly:

1. Judges can only jump in to fill law gaps that have arisen due to a
   change of social or legal conditions.  Applicable decisions of
   the legislator may not be replaced by judge law.

2. It is the constitutional court's job to examine whether particular
   judge law really solved an existing problem of a law gap, and
   whether the solution contradicts constitutional values, especially
   basic rights.

On both accounts, software patentability is off limits for the judge.
1. No gap to fill, nothing to clarify, unclarity itself caused by judges
2. Constitutional values such as freedom of expression and other basic
   rights including the right to property (copyright-based in this
   case) are touched upon.

Law commentators further point out that the legal order must be
reliable for the citizien and that the judicative may not be used for
achieving regulations which were not achievable through parliament.
This is also called "legality principle" (Rechtsstaatsprinzip):

   Der B=FCrger mu=DF sein Verhalten auf den Inhalt der Rechtsordnung
   einstellen und dementsprechend disponieren k=F6nnen. Hat der
   Gesetzgeber eine eindeutige Entscheidung getroffen, darf der Richter
   diese nicht aufgrund eigener rechtspolitischer Vorstellungen
   ver=E4ndern und durch eine Judikative L=F6sung ersetzen, die so im
   Parlament nicht erreichbar war (vgl. BVerfGE 69,315 (372); J. Ipsen,
   Richterrecht und Verfassung, 1975, S.236).

It cannot be permissible to turn programmers into offenders (according
to civil and criminal law) over night just by issuing a few judicial
decisions.

Thus, at least in Germany, those judicial developments that have
brought about software patents are, to say the least, legally
questionable on all three above-stated accounts.

--
Hartmut Pilch                                           http://phm.ffii.org=
/
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation=09      http://swpat.ffii.or=
g/
85000 signatures against software patents         http://www.noepatents.org=
/





=3D=3D^=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiHs.a2jybo
Or send an email To: intprop-l-unsubscribe@topica.com
This email was sent to: phm@a2e.de

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
=3D=3D^=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D