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

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

Le vendredi 14 juin 2002, Gregory Aharonian a écrit:

>For one reason.  For the most part, sui generis systems don't work.
>They end up being hybrids of patent and copyright, and tend to inherit
>many of the problems they were trying to avoid by being sui generis.

because of bad gravitational forces such as some multinationals or Patent
Offices.
This is true that we've to reform and prescribe a strict democratical
control over the EPO (or simply to close it and to create an EU
institution), that's another reason why we've to oppose software patents.

>With regards to patent terms, I consider it hypocritical to talk about
>shortening patent terms without talking about shortening copyright
>rights.  It is hypocritical to say a software patent should last five
>years, but then give over 100 years of copyright protection to the
>software

Copyright is the natural IPR for softwares, it protects from dumb
imitation and piracy (and software companies suffer much more from piracy
than from illegal use of patented "technologies").

Remember that software innovation is sequential.
While it's normal that you can't copy the work of somebody else without
improving anything, it's good for the innovation that you can use the
innovations of the latests generations of softwares and add on top of it
your own technical contribution.

The actual browser war (IE vs Opera) is showing the benefits of the lack
of patents on this side of the Atlantic.
As Opera Software is based in Europe, Microsoft can't sue it with its CSS
stylesheet patents and you can have a true, modern and commercial
(shareware) choice other than the Microsoft monopole.


Considering the average software innovation cycle, a 20 years patent
protection would be a measure against free competition and freedom of
choice for the customers.


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