From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Tue Dec 11 11:08:41 2001
From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 06:08:41 -0500
Subject: [Patents] more inflammatory speeches from Greg
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112110756210.1509-100000@mulix.oas.a2e.de>
Message-ID: <3C15E939.5427157B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>

I think I got it the first time!

:-)

Seth Johnson

PILCH Hartmut wrote:
> 
> Here is a version with some confusing grammatical errors corrected:
> 
> The German Constitutional Court (BVerfG) has extended the notion of
> "property rights" granted by art 14 of the Basic Law (GG, constitution) to
> include all kinds of immaterial titles, including copyright and patents.
> 
> This enlarged property concept is awkward and outrageous at first sight,
> but in fact has some advantages, because it allows a view on how property
> is acquired and limited.  Patents, like other property titles, according
> to this, need to be granted according to the principle of "social
> responsibility of property", and since copyright has been found to be the
> adequate legal rule for acquiring software property, nobody has the right
> to introduce software patents (which void copyright property and thus
> violate art 14 GG) without a change of law which takes the social
> responsibility and limitations of property etc into account and thus bring
> considerations to bear that eventually destroy the playground of semi law
> experts such as patent lawyers (or patent busters), who until now were
> acting in a legal (or "science and logic") world of their own.
> 
> ...
> 
> Copyright covers everything that individualises a work and makes it
> attributable to a creator, be it expression or not.  In the sense that
> copyright property extends only to the individualised aspects of the work,
> it fullfills the requirements of what people would call natural rights.
> If there are any such rights, the author's right to his work (i.e. to the
> individual aspects that distinguish it from the works of others) is one of
> them.  Being such, its violation by software patents cannot be treated
> lightly.
> 
> --
> Hartmut Pilch                                         http://phm.ffii.org/
> Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation      http://swpat.ffii.org/
> 95000 signatures against software patents       http://www.noepatents.org/



