Re: [Patents] Re: Summary of legal arguments

[Mattias Lundström <mattias.lundstrom@digitalroute.com>]

And the first challenger for the title "most obvious troll of
the year" is...

John Smith wrote:

...

> So Mr Pilch's view of the legal situation is based on wishful thinking.


A matter of interpretation, I guess. If with "legal situation" you mean
the law he seems to have a fairly objective and well informed position.

Perhaps the view that the EPO and the courts should be bound by the
letter of the law is wishful thinking, though.

> Secondly, the notion that these people are easy to influence is a sign 
> that Mr Pilch has never presented a case in front of them. I'm not aware 
> of any "large international lawywer group" exerting influence, at least, 

> no-one's ever invited me to join it. Personally I've always subscribed 
> to the cock-up theory of history whereas Mr Pilch clearly believes in 
> the conspiracy theory.


There is no consiparacy theory. This more about the "common truths"
that has developed in the patent lawyer subculture which is religiously
pro-patent.
That this affects the courts is not very surprising.

> Thirdly, all the trouble arises from the obscure wording of the EPC. MR 


What obscure wording?

> Finally, although I've occasionally seen articles attacking 
> interpretations made by the EPO, afaik (remember, I'm not one of the 
> Illuminati) the only person who consistently seeks to pressurise the EPO 
> in general and the Boards of Appeal in particular to follow a specific 
> line is Mr Pilch, who I gather works for a somewhat unprofitable sofware 
> company. Cui bono?


And which world do you live in?

-- Mattias