Re: [Patents] Re: EU Unveils 'Tougher' Software Patent Proposal

[Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>]

El Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 08:11:16PM +0100, PILCH Hartmut deia:
> 
> Looking at the EC press release, we also find that they in fact give no
> example of anything novel and non-obvious that would not be patentable.
> Their examples of patentable inventions are only consensus examples where
> the innovation lies in the forces of nature.
>

Exactly. I found it unbelivable that:
a- They say the only thing clear from years of deliberation is that there is 
much confusion about patentability of software (sure, as always when 
administrations
break the law). 
b- They say ww cannot put up with this anymore, and a clarification is needed,
everyone seems to agree that the confusion must stop and the EPO must follow 
clear and predictable rules.
c- They give only one example of things that would not be patentable, the 1 
click.

d- (Impressive) They can even be sure, under the new rules that their own 
example
is not patentable. It only passes from "who knows" to 
"highly unlikely". And they don't think they should give opinion on that 
because the EPO is considering the case. 


So what the hell are they writing those new rules for? (sorry, it wasn't they 
who 
wrote them). If they don't feel inclined to interfere with the EPO, that is, 
they don't hope for any control of the EPO, and even themselves are not 
convinced
of how to apply the rules to an example, they've quit any clarification 
attempt 
before starting it. 

Fine new rules. The only news is there are no longer rules, and even that is 
clear as mud.
 
  
> Bolkestein is deceiving the public, or he is clueless himself.
> 
Both, he is probably clueless (and I don't mean naive) and deceiving 
the public (who naturally expect him not to be, and to tell so and 
rennounce if he is). There's a saying in Catalan "no hi ha més sord 
que qui no vol sentir" (there isn't anyone more deaf than he who 
does not want to hear). 

> Unfortunately this is a very normal offense.  It is also how most
> online journalists behave.  They put their name behind statements which
> they can not stand for.
> 
I've seen a couple of news that seemed straight from the newsfeed. 
I'm writing letters to ask for at least another article explaining there 
are diverging views, and ideally some research by the journalist. 
The news sites were The Register, Wired and 5 dias.

It's also on slashdot and GNU friends, but it's not clueless news there
(well, slashdot is slashdot). 

> Please look to more in-depth documentation and analysis of the
> deceptive maneuvers of European Commission, BSA and other big software
> pirates under
> 
>       http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/papri/eubsa-swpat0202/
> 
That's one of the links I'm sending them. :)


-- 
Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis@tinet.org