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

[Sylvain Perchaud <sylvain@europe-shareware.org>]

Le vendredi 14 juin 2002, PILCH Hartmut a écrit:

>> Unfortunately lawyers always refer to their Holy Text, the TRIPS treaty,
>> saying that all patents last for 20 years.
>
>Yes, and their whole current effort is about blurring borderlines, so that
>even without the TRIPs treaty it would be impossible to reduce patent
>duration for any specific subset of the patents.

Exactly, and that's why european shareware companies oppose software patents.
It shows that patents aren't a workable solution and that we've to use
another IPR.
I studied the latests months the utility models IP and I think that such
a solution could satisfy the lobbying from multinationals and the needs
of SMEs.

Creating another IPR such as utility models (for sure not perfect but
much better) and using it could highlight all the weaknesses of software
patents and stop the propaganda from lawyers saying that patents are the
"only" solution.

>> Another reform to engage would be to charge exponential fees after the 3
>> first years of the patent to dissuade companies to keep useless patents
>> in their portfolio.
>
>All this thinking is wasted, because the only reason why people are
>pressing for patents is parasitism by vested interests such as those of
>all the people sitting on SACEPO (standing advisory committee of the EPO).
>There is no real need from any industry, not even embedded systems.

Short life span and increasing fees after 3 years (the average life cycle
of a software, as shown by Knut Blind's economical study) could at least
avoid us sleeping bombs such as the Hyperlink (British Telecom) or the
LZW compression method patents.



--
Sylvain Perchaud
http://www.europe-shareware.org