Re: [Patents] US patent reform strategy inaugurated by myths & lies

[Stefano Costa <stefano.costa@icn.siemens.it>]

PILCH Hartmut wrote:

> You have yet to explain how they could aid at all.
> There is nothing for you to "admit" for now, since you have not yet
> exposed any hypothesis that anyone could have contested.

As I've hinted in the previous msg things may be described as
"Patents are annoying, but economic forces behind it are too
powerful to be ignored or declined, so the only realistic
approach is to live with it. The main focus should *not* oppose
them totally, because most likely a failure will result, with
little gain". Politically (I emphasize the wording) a compromise
should gain to free SW in general better chances to something
better. This is my opinion at least. I see a lot ideology here,
and as for real political issues, extreme wing parties gain
in actual legislations close to nothing. As I've said before,
seeing the forces on the field, I see more to gain with a
compromise rahter a negation. Probably you will say
that this is ideology as well. Maybe, but surely a soft one.

> Who is that "soft" lobby?

Anyone says something like the above.

> > similar to those of Linus Torvalds:
>
> > "I don't much like patents, but we're forced to live with them.
> > I suspect the best thing we can do is to use them as well as we can."
>
> You are confusing issues.
> What you quoted is a statement about business strategy.

No, the context was a little different. Precisely was about RT Linux
and relative patenting issues. The question who has raised the Linus
comment was "there are two options in using Linux in embedded
systems: RTAI and RTLinux. RT Linux has a patent that threatens
deployement of RT Linux in the field, while RTAI is basically a
dead end". Linus answer say that the patent  in question does not
threatens in his opinion the deployment of such product.
Not precisely a business strategy, let me say.

> We are now talking about how the rules should be set.
> And you are apparently advising us to accept whatever CEC/BSA/EPO
> legislate for us.

No: you want zero patenting, I say "we are forced to live with them, let's
care that does not hurt too much". That is not accept everything, but accept
something.
Personally I think that a better checking rule for prior art and a shorter
patent grant period (like 5 years) is something that can make a workable
solution.

Stefano