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

[PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>]

> >> 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.

As said before: the lobbying does not occur because something beyond
copyright is needed but because of the quasi-biological drive or
organisations to expand and replicate themselves.

> 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.

Nothing can stop patent lawyers from repeating their mantras, and nothing
can stop ignorant people from believing them.

If even we demand utility-certificates, this patent lawyer rhetoric will
grow even louder.  They will take our demands as a proof showing that have
a point.  That will be very helpful for their cause, because by now they
very much lack credibility and need to borrow some from us.

Utility certificates and sui generis rights can only come onto the agenda
when the patent lobby starts pushing for them.  But that is very far
fetched.  They most likely never will.  Except when software patents have
been banned and lawyers start concentrating their efforts on other legal
means.

> >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.

Increasing fees won't help much.  Fee progression is there already.
A short life span is not on any agenda for the stated reasons.

Please, please, stop thinking about compromise proposals as long as nobody
is looking for a compromise with us.

I sometimes even ask myself whether talking about the "technical
invention" is wise.  It would certainly be better if we could call for the
abolition of the patent system and let the other side come up with the
"technical invention" as a compromise proposal.  They are the ones who
should be advocating such proposals, and if we are politically capable
enough, the day will come when they will do it.  Maybe by then nobody will
any longer believe them, though.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-12789608
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
120,000 signatures against software patents      http://www.noepatents.org/