[Patents] Fw: PATNEWS: Notes from Patinnova 2001 in Cardiff (fwd)

[phm@a2e.de (PILCH Hartmut)]

Here you find Greg Aharonian's account of the Cardiff patent movement
conference at which EPO president Kober, EC DGIM swpat legislator Howard
and some other known actors participated, together with a few opposing
voices.  Bernard Lang is not mentioned by Greg, but 1 or 2 people who
voice doubts about the economic effectiveness of software patents have
their talks mentioned with bitter polemics inserted by Greg.  The
opposition to software patents is ascribed to a few "hostage takers",
supported by "governments known for stifling innovation".  Nevertheless
the accounts contain some interesting information.

> !20011021  Notes from Patinnova 2001 in Cardiff
>
> I am stilling traveling about Europe, having enjoyed the people I am
> meeting, and the talks I have been giving, this last week.  More on my
> travels in PATNEWS later this week.
>
> What follows are notes to some of the talks I listened to at the EC's
> PATINNOVA conference in Cardiff (a lovely city in Wales on the coast,
> about ten miles south of Newport, where the UK Patent Office is located).
> My notes are of most of what each speaker said, with the occasional
> alteration to what should of been said had I said it :-)  So blame
> whatever is wrong with what follows on PATNEWS.
>
>                               ====================

> In a future PATNEWS, I will go into this in more detail, but with
> regards to patenting software and business methods, most likely
> Article 52(2) of the European Patent Convention won't be amended to
> eliminate the prohibition of patenting "computer programs" and
> "business methods". Rather, Europe will rely on the idiotic loophole
> in 52(3) that only prohibits such patents "as such" (a phrase more
> ill-defined than "technical effects") by having the EPO issue
> guidelines on how to prepare patents to disclose such things not "as
> suchly" and therefore be patentable. This is all purely politics, the
> EPC revisions being held hostage to a few countries best known for
> stifling innovation.

>                               ====================
>
> Note: some pictures from the patent-information EPIDOS section of the
> conference are available at the EPO Web site at:
> www.european-patent-office.org/epidos/conf/pat_eac01/pictures/index.htm
>
>                               ====================
>
> RHODRI MORGAN
> (Mr. Morgan is the First Minster of the Welsh National Assembly)
>
> Mr. Morgan gave the welcoming speech, starting out by speaking a
> welcoming message in Welsh, which before translating explained that
> "If you have never heard the language of heaven, what I said was .."
> [Bad, but then I never heard that particular joke (which he got
> slightly wrong, Welsh being the second language, Armenian being the
> first)].
>
> He talked about an important technology transfer event that
> happened in the late 1800s.  Two brothers, the Thomas brothers, in
> the town of Blaenavon had developed and patented a process for
> turning high process iron ore into steel.  Andrew Carnegie of
> American fame, came to Wales to license the technology for 250,000
> pounds, with Carnegie saying that the technology was more important
> than all the deeds of kings and queens in England when history
> looks back.
>
> He talked about how Wales has to move up the technology food chain to
> get away from activities being lost to low-wage countries.  He
> mentioned some of the multinationals setting up in Wales, and how
> small companies don't realize the importance of patents in getting
> finance to exploit their innovation.
>
>                               ====================
>
> RON MARCHANT
> (Director of Patents, UK Patent Office)
>
> The UK Patent Office is an executive agency within the UK Dept. of
> Trade and Industry [similar to the US Commerce Department].  The
> UK government is working to improve the creation and use of science
> and technology.  IP increasingly important in knowledge economy as
> opposed to transformation of natural resources [Greg note: a nice
> subtle support for the patentability of business methods].  Francis
> Bacon, the noted English philosopher, said it - "knowledge is power".
> The knowledge economy is not detached from manufacturing technology
> [Greg note: a sentiment shared with State Street as reflected in
> Justice Newman's cited comments on the impossibility of separating
> methods of doing business from the subject technology of those
> business methods].
>
> He next mentioned a bunch of UK government white papers on IP, which
> I think are on the UKPO Web site, of the UKDTI Web site.  The UKPO
> recently launched the IP Portal.  The government awarded 120,000,000
> pounds for entrepreneurial promotion. The government is forming a
> committee to improve and promote IP.  All of this after their admitted
> lack of government attention to IP.  The UK Patent Office is working
> with its European colleagues to help make the Community Patent better,
> fairer and a more certain process.
>
>                               ====================
>
> FABIO COLASANTI
> (Direct General in the European Commission - DG Enterprise)
>
> These conferences are good for officials to meet with practitioners.
> World is changing, especially the technology sector and because of it.
> We address demands of the public that can conflict with goals of
> providing jobs.  Like cleaning dishes to achieve cleanliness, policies
> are compromises between levels of quality.  Yet for some social policies,
> hard to find room to compromise.  EC's goal is to encourage debate about
> policies, since they have little direct bureaucratic activities for
> intellectual property and entrepreneurship.
>
> The EC recently published a scoreboard for innovation.  Overall, the
> EC's innovation was less successful than for the US.  But for some
> indicators, some EC states do better than the US as a whole (but
> maybe not against US states such as Massachusetts and California).
> The best innovation is happening in Sweden, Finland and the United
> Kingdom.  Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal not doing well.
>
> The EC as a whole should learn the best practices from our European
> partners, not necessarily from just the United States.  Resistance to
> change hurts spread of our best practices.
>
> US solutions are less politically useful to mention, often being
> dismissed for being from the US.  Rather, instead of citing the a
> success story involving US venture capital, instead for example, if
> talking in Belgium, cite a venture capital success that happened
> in Denmark or Greece.
>
> Globally, EC states are getting 11 patents per million citizens, the US
> is getting 84 patents per million citizens.  For EPO patents, the
> EC is getting 18 patents per million while the US is getting 29 patents
> per million.  So the EC has a problem, even on its own home turf.
> The EC has to encourage more research and patenting.  We have to make
> patents more of an instrument of economic development.  Despite jokes
> about patent lawyers [Greg note: at a speakers dinner the previous
> night, over some cognacs, we exchanged a fair number of such jokes],
> they play an important role.
>
> We are afraid that interests of millions of EC companies are being
> held hostage to vested national interests [Greg note: I think a slight
> slap to those national politicians from a few government opposing
> logical patent reform] and special interest groups [Greg note:
> another justified slap, this time directed toward groups like the
> open sourcers opposing software patent reform].
>
>                               ====================
>
> INGO KOBER
> (President of the European Patent Office)
>
> Patent issued in 1449 for stained glass the first in the UK.  Patent
> reform is ongoing, especially the Community Patent, to help reduce
> application costs.  Last November 2000, the EPC was revised to
> modernize it while retaining fundamental strengths - the resulting
> patenting process more clearer, quicker and efficient - as well as
> to make European patenting more compatible with international laws.
>
> The EPO got approval to bring searching and examination closer
> together, which should lead to significant increase in productivity
> [Greg note: much like the USPTO, EPO officials like to make
> productivity statements without seriously measuring it, or seeking
> independent confirmation, especially when it comes to quality.  For
> example, try to find, if at all, a simple numerical table of the
> number of EPO patents issued in the last 20 years or so on the Web
> pages of EPO].
>
> Members states have to ratify such changes.  On 29 June 2001, France
> became the 10th state to London agreement on use of foreign languages
> - Article 65 of the EPC - under which translations to specific
> languages are not required in application in English, French or German
> - though maybe for claims when entering the national stage.  This is
> important such 40% of costs of European patenting is translation,
> and hopefully the London agreement will help reduce these costs.
>
> Reforming for the Community Patent.  EPO has been successful for over
> 20 years.  By 2006, they are expecting 220,000 applications.  EPO has
> advocated extending EPO patents to a unitary Community patent, which
> will require many changes to the EPC.  There will be a June 2002
> Diplomatic conference in Europe to discuss these adjustments.
>
> Patent Information.  The more distribution the better.  ESP@CENET
> gets 400,00 search queries a day - very successful.  Patent
> information providers should be able to profit by providing added
> value services.  Today, 53 companies and organizations are
> displaying at our EPIDOS show - very healthy industry.
>
> By July 2002, several more countries will be part of the EPO.
>
> They will be extensively surveying EPO users over the course of next
> year [Greg note: and hopefully, unlike the US, EPO surveys representatives
> of the citizens of EPO countries on whose behalf the EPO awards patents].
> EPO will be increasing training and educational activities, some using
> Internet.  EPOLINE (their online patenting system) will save time and
> money for applicants.
>
>                               ====================
>
> MANDY HABERMAN
> (successful inventor and entrepreneur - European Inventor Of 2000)
>
> She invented the "AnywayUp" cup (for toddlers and young children),
> which has become commercially successful.  It is a child training
> cup with a thin membrane valve that blocks liquid from draining
> when upside down, but allows liquid flow with minimum of sucking
> pressure.  Inspired by the antics of a friend's child spilling
> black currant juice on white rugs and walls.
>
> Small businesses are key to the future of industry.  Protection of
> their IP rights is important.  AnywayUp cup has revolutionized
> nursery industry.  But my problems illustrate problems of all small
> inventors.
>
> I did a comprehensive search, monitored markets, and took out patent
> insurance [Greg note: which is a bit easier to get in Europe than
> in America, but insurance rates mostly unreasonable on both sides of the
> Atlantic], and tried to build up a monopoly in the sales of my cup
> technology.
>
> I used confidentiality agreements after I filed my patent before talking
> to industry.  Their initial reaction was that there would only be minimal
> sales, or they wanted to see a production prototype, or displayed lots
> of initial excitement which lead to no deals.  But really, no serious
> interest.
>
> Some consultants suggested to do the manufacturing and sales ourselves,
> promoting the product at trade shows.  We did so, and got a fantastic
> reception, so we had to do our own manufacturing, which was
> subcontracted.  We did mostly direct sales, not through retail stores.
> Initially three big UK supermarkets didn't buy, since they typically
> don't buy from single product companies.  To get noticed, we sent a
> cup with black currant juice to their buyers, and said buy from us if
> you get this in the mail without any spillage.  One supermarket chain
> decided to buy from us, and then the other two followed.  We had a
> half million sales in the first year.
>
> We redesigned the product, and sales are up to 4 million cups a year.
> We sell in 70 countries, and have 35% of the UK market for nursery cups,
> and have won many awards.
>
> But much pain along the way - the real world of competition. Established
> companies don't like losing market share [Greg note: as a Marxist
> would argue, the fundamental inspiration for low quality patent systems].
> Established companies intimate, if not explicitly, that they will infringe
> and often get away for doing so.  This is a serious threat, since
> customers like to buy popular brands.
>
> We soon lost 70% of our sales as larger companies infringed our cup. We
> had to fight back.  Going to court was a huge financial risk for us.
> Our exclusive licensor was borrowing money for production, and hiring
> 70 people, activites we had to protect by defending our patent.
> This is very risky- loser pays the cost of litigation - a small
> company running out of money to fight for a valid patent could end
> up losing and paying such costs, even though they were in the right.
>
> We won.  Our patent was declared valid and infringed.  But that was
> just the UK.  Pendency for our patent in the US took 7 years, during
> which US companies exported to Europe, meaning more litigation in
> Europe.
>
> Infringement is the norm.  European governments waste money helping
> to establish small companies, but not to help them protect their
> inventions and enforce their patents.
>
> I have talked to other inventors with similar stories.  One inventor
> went to court to get royalties owed from licensee - a bigger company.
> The big company dragged out the court case for five years.  The
> inventor finally won in court, but the company declared bankruptcy,
> so the inventor couldn't get back legal fees and owed royalties.
> Another inventor of a hair clip (GB282757) had UK & US patents,
> but couldn't afford translation costs for European patents.  She
> granted worldwide rights to an American company.  But when 12 large
> companies infringed, the US licensee didn't want to fight back.
> Tke UK inventor started losing royalties, making it much harder to
> sue, especially since contingency lawyers much harder to find or use
> in Europe.  One infringer laughingly ripped up her letter of notice.
>
> My wish list.  Make willful infringement a criminal offense. Have
> dramatic financial deterrents like the American triple damages.
> Have speedy trials and sanctions to prevent delaying tactics.
> Eliminate translation costs for European patents.  Have a community
> patent with cross-border injunctions.  Have affordable patent
> insurance.  We pay the government for our monopoly - they should
> help enforce it.
>
>                               ====================
>
> DOMINIQEE FORAY
> (Principle Administrator for Research and Education, OECD)
>
> Patents have many virtues, but have to be protected from its own
> zeal.  Software, databases, business method patents provide
> challenges to the system.  I am interested in both individual
> and national economic benefits.
>
> New digital economy does not change economics and problems of IP.
> Same tension between providing economic incentives and distortions
> of resulting monopolies.  The new digital economy exaggerates this
> tension.  Why?
>
> Two reasons - the marginal cost of reproducing digital goods and
> the marginal cost of their distribution.  It is problematic to
> assign property rights.  Wants go unsatisfied that could have been
> satisfied at no cost [Greg note: which ignores the cost that someone
> has to pay for sending a zillion byte JPEG movie over the Internet].
> Economists who assume the patent system is there to minimize certain
> customer costs hate such waste of opportunity to distribute such as
> denying easy access to digital content.
>
> This reasoning applies to drugs, music and database access.  But in
> the real world, producers want incentives otherwise no innovation.
> They need to be given means to capture financial benefits of use
> of knowledge.
>
> Intellectual property rights (IPRs) foster innovation when the costs
> of R&D are high, high uncertainty in results and/or where there is
> easy reverse engineering.  Here IP strengthens incentives for
> innovation.  IPR retard innovation where another mechanism exists
> for protection (such as trade secrets or long lead times), where
> innovation is cumulative, where researchers are motivated by
> non-monetary incentives, or where field has strong network
> externalities.  These latter conditions are typical of the
> Internet economy.
>
> IPR is a threat to the open science model [Greg note: I am not sure
> what he means by "open science", which sounds as idiotic as "open
> source" - we call it "public domain" and public domain science has
> coexisted with IPRs for over one hundred years].  Once IPRs are
> introduced, it is almost impossible to return to open science [huh?].
>
> We need to fine tune IP system.  IPRs should be considered one of
> the incentive structures society employs to elicit innovative effort.
>
> Some solutions:
> - compulsory licensing
> - have state buy patents to put in to public domain
> - price discrimination for patented products
> - public domain patent pools
> - non-exclusive licenses
> - cross-licensing / patent pool consortiums
> - improve patent quality (i.e. tighten patent scope,
>   raise non-obviousness levels, make specifications
>   more enabling)
>
>                               ====================
>
> PUAY TANG
> (Professor - University of Sussex)
>
> Prof. Tang gave a talk titled "How SMEs perceive software protection".
> I was so enraptured I forgot to take notes.  No seriously, her talk
> was on the results of a study she did for the UK government that
> look into the attitude of SMEs (I think it stands for small
> manufacturing enterprises) towards intellectual property.  Sadly,
> she was funded to survey only a small number of software SMEs, so
> the results probably aren't indicative of anything.  That is, she
> reported that some SMEs liked and used patents, some didn't - that
> some SMEs (mostly dot.coms) were familiar with the patent system,
> some weren't, etc.  A serious topic that deserves much more funding.
>
> One suggestion for future funders of Prof. Tang's research.  Make
> sure the study has a few questions about how much software-SMEs know
> about the problems SMEs in other areas of technology experience from
> patents.  My studies show that biotech SMEs experience more such
> problems (and probably electronics SMEs as well), but don't whine
> about it as much.  And for the record I am still the only user of
> open source software to be sued as an individual for patent
> infringements (an exaggerated fear of open sourcers).
>
>                               ====================
>
> DAI REES
> (Director of Software Examination - European Patent Office)
>
> [Greg note: his talk was mostly about software and business method
> patents, under the pressure of watching me smirk about being able
> to speak a few hours later :-), though he was able to return the
> favor when I was speaking by knowing I would be speaking on his home
> turf a few days later.  Fortunately we averted a transatlantic
> incident over dinner at a Middle Eastern restaurant that night.]
>
> EPO has to interpret what the law is, what the policy makers want.
> We have to determine what types of innovation to protect, and then
> to determine what is patentable, in particular how to guide
> examiners.  Interpretation of the European Patent Convention (EPC)
> is done by EPO Board of Appeals, whose decisions are use to guide
> the EPO examiners.
>
> A brief review of the EPC.  EPC Article 52(1) talks about patents
> for industrial applications with a new and inventive step.  52(2)
> prohibits patents, though, for things such as theories, math
> methods, aesthetic creations, mental acts, games, methods of
> doing business, and computer programs.  52(3) though, relaxes
> this prohibition by saying that the exclusion is only to patent
> applications that "relates to such subject matter or activities
> AS SUCH".
>
> Article 27(1) talks about technical fields, 29(1) about technical
> features, and 30(1) about technical relationships, special technical
> features.
>
> But "technical" not defined anywhere.  Thus there is room for a
> policy discussion on what is "technical".
>
> Technical character is exhibited by a machine, article of
> manufacture, process of operating a machine.  Technical contribution
> is what is added to the prior art.  Leading cases from the EPO Board
> are Koch/Sterzel T26/86, Vicom T208/84, Sohei T769/92, IBM T1173/97,
> Pension T931/95.  Sohei was groundbreaking for allowing software
> patents.  IBM added the confusing "further technical effect" [though
> I am note sure if Dai used the word 'confusing'], though also ruled
> that computer program claims are allowable if the equivalent method
> claim would be allowable [Greg note: this is the EPO equivalent of
> Beauregard].  Pension ruled that a computer loaded with a program is
> always technical.
>
> A software invention has a further technical effect if it acts on
> physical data, has effect on the way the computer operates, or
> the implementations involve technical considerations.
>
> But (as someone has ruled) money, business data and text are not
> physical data [Greg note: which I sarcastically criticized in my
> talk by wondering if someone buried under a ton of pork bellies
> would still question if the business data of pork belly futures
> and cash data is not very physical data].
>
> How do EPO examiners assess technical contribution?  They first find
> the closest prior art.  Then they determine the difference from the
> prior art.  Then they determine if the stated "objective technical
> problem" is overcome.  If no technical problem, there is no inventive
> step.
>
>                                       ====
>
> In general, a fine talk about good examination procedures, IF ONLY
> SOMEONE IN EUROPE WOULD DEFINE "TECHNICAL".
>
>                               ====================
>
> ANTHONY HOWARD
> (Director - European Commission - DG Internal Market)
>
> The current EC state of play in software patentability
>
> - legal situation ambiguous and lacks legal certainty in member
>   states of the EC
>
> - conditions for patent validity not uniform among member states
>
> - potential negative effect on proper functioning of the internal
>   market
>
> Activites to date
>
> 1997 Commission Green paper
>
> 1999 Followup communication - need to delete "computer programs" from
>      52(2)
>
> 2000 Diplomatic conference on EPC revision, but "computer programs"
>      was not deleted, the reason being that some wanted a new
>      round of Commission consultations
>
> In an October 2000 consultation paper, there was stated a need for
> harmonization, with a basis for harmonization being the "status quo"
> whatever that means.
>
> In a poll on the issue of software patents, they had 1447 responses
> reflecting polarized views.  Many opposed to allowing any kind of
> software patenting (from people not [bothering to learn] knowing that
> such patents were already being issued), some opposed to all forms
> of patents, while most representative bodies (such as trade groups
> and industry councils being supportive of the Commission's thinking
> of dropping "computer programs" from 52(2).  He noted that the EC
> was well aware [and probably not amused] by the coordinated email
> campaign of some in the open source / Eurolinux community.
>
> Arguments received against software patents
> - threat to open source software
> - software is a "special case"
> - software is incremental, patents inappropriate
> - threat to innovation (accidental infringement)
> - high costs (such as threats from bad patents)
> - threat to interoperability
>
> [Greg note: which also holds, more so, for biotech and electronics
> patents - yet again, a good reason to survey/educates software SMEs).
>
> Arguments received for software patents
> - stimulate innovation
> - no distinction between hardware/software
> - copyright insufficient
> - possibility of losing out to the US
>
> Patent effects on those SMEs for software patents
> - weapon against big companies
> - ability to raise venture capital
>
> Patent effects on those SMEs against software patents
> - bullying by big companies
> - threat to open source
>
> What are the elements for a harmonization directive for software
> patenting?  A requirement for a 'technical character', realizing
> that most computer programs rise above being 'as such', having a
> technical contribution for a problem solved with means to solve
> an underlying problem, with effects achieved in solution of a
> problem, with technical considerations/skills (from the Sohei case).
> The invention is assessed as a whole, especially when a mix of
> technical and non-technical features.  No inventive step if the
> contribution is a non-technical feature.
>
> About business methods - new and inventive software implementations
> of business methods are protectable if meeting "technical
> contribution" test.  Non-technical features are not protectable.
>
> [Greg note:  All together now on both sides of the Atlantic -
> "WHAT THE HELL IS THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD 'TECHNICAL'?"]
>
> Next steps from the European Commission.  The EC will be publishing a
> a proposal for an amending Directive before Christmas, hopefully.  The
> legal basis will determine the exact patenting procedures.  The
> final Directive will be incorporated into national laws, and will
> possible modify the EPC.
>
>                               ====================
>
> CHRISTIAN NGUYEN VAN YEN
> (Intellectual Property Vice President at Thales Corporation)
>
> Who supports software patents?  Large industry groups such as the
> UNICE and MEDEF in France and the CBI in the UK.  Also SMEs which
> face the real world generally favor software patents. So this is
> not an issue between big businesses and good technie companies,
> though SMEs need more information about and lower costs in using
> the patent system.  Also research organizations support software
> patents, such as some of the CNRS, INRIA and Academie des Technologies
> in France and the Fraunhoffer and Max Planck institutes in Germany.
>
> A reasoned compromise is needed.  Current case law of the EPO for
> patents on program/product inventions with a "technical effect" is
> satisfactory.  It is necessary to put EPC Art 52(2)(C) in line with
> case law.  Business methods should remain non-patentable subject
> matter.
>
> There is no need for any confrontation between open sourcers and
> software patent supporters.  Indeed, serious open sourcers looking
> to license their technology are overlooking a serious economic
> consideration against their use of copyrights instead of patents.
> At least in France, the costs of amortization of patent licensing
> fees are less than the cost of amortization of copyright licensing
> fees.  This can make companies acquiring software technology more
> interested in licensing patented software than copyrighted software
> [since the patent costs are amortized over the 17 years of a patent's
> life as opposed to the 75+ years of a copyright's life, and this
> assumes that copyright actually provides any real protection to
> open source software to make it worthwhile for someone to take a
> license].
>
> Why these positions?  Basically, software is now an industry, with
> large investments, processes and big battalions of people. Its
> value is in design - what was implemented in hardware is now
> implemented in software, with code 20% of costs and design 40%
> of costs.  These aspects of software development should be as
> patentable as their hardware equivalents.  Also, we need the same
> IP weaponry as our competitors (i.e. the Americans) for negotiations
> and cross-licenses.  Filing software patents in the United States is
> not enough.  European companies need to be able to protect their
> home turf.
>
> When should these changes take place?  The EU directive on software
> patents should be taken as soon as possible.  The next EPC
> diplomatic conference must delete "computer programs" from the
> non-patentable subject matter list in EPC 52(2).
>
> The changes should be part of a broader picture of an European
> Patent System (the EPC + national patent laws + a Community patent).
> We must endorse this reality or face a definite loss of credibility
> in the entrepreneurial community.
>
>                               ====================
>                               ====================
>
> This is the last lecture I took notes for, as well as not being able
> to take notes in the parallel lectures.  The EC might want to
> consider hiring people to take explicit notes to post as transcripts
> on the Internet.
>
> I gave my talk before Christian's - we were in the same session
> together.  While I will be commenting more on both of my talks in
> general in a future PATNEWS, I would like to note a few things
> about business methods.
>
> First, the point of my lecture on business methods is to show the
> weak basis for banning business method patents using semantics, if
> like myself, one can provide a basis for allowing business method
> patents using semantics.  The two basises cancel each other.  I hope
> someone at next year's Diplomatic conference will be there to
> champion this point of logic - you all now have my paper - use it.
>
> Second, just as it is questionable to allow hardware patents and
> not allow software patents, it is similarly questionable to allow
> software patents and not all business method patents, for the
> reasons I argue in my paper.  Politically there are always grounds,
> but do so explicitly, as opposed to endlessly using but nowhere
> defining "technical" and "as such".  The EC might want to invite
> one of the CAFC judges to the Diplomatic conference (some of which
> will be a rehashing of the CAFC's discussions in State Street and
> ATT/Excel).
>
> Finally, US patent lawyers are laying the grounds to push patenting
> beyond the confines of business methods.  If the European don't want
> to be even more disadvantaged and/or fall behind, don't waste time
> trying to solve a problem (finding a scientific way to discriminate
> between hardware and software patents, and business methods from those
> aspects of business already being patented) the Americans were unable
> to solve.  IP lawyers and judges on both sides of the Atlantic are
> equally competent and incompetent.  You are trying to solve a problem
> that inherently is probably a logical contradiction.
>
>
> Greg Aharonian
> Internet Patent News Service

--
Hartmut Pilch                                         http://phm.ffii.org/
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation      http://swpat.ffii.org/
90000 signatures against software patents       http://www.noepatents.org/