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

[PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>]

> > In general, I think the discussion about the appropriate political tactics
> > should be left to the tacticians of whatever group is engaging in a
> > political game.
>
> This is an answer as much good as my one.
> Someone should go tacticts anyway. If  it's here the the right
> place or not, this may be questionable, but nevertheless someone
> should do.

Then go and organise some political campaign.
After you have contributed to our cause in some way, we can recognise your
tree by its fruits, and then we may naturally be interested in discussing
tactics.
Before that, your attempt at discussing our tactics is just an intrusion
into our private affairs.
none of your business.

> > Software doesn't just win on its merits in an environment where
> > proprietary structures make sure that there is no level playing field.
>
> Why discriminate SW from the rest?

I did not say that the above applies only to sw.

> > I still must conclude that you like software patents.
>
> It's starnge that I say things but apparently people does not
> read them. quoting myself:
>
> To answer your question, my opinion is that patents
> on SW (and SW *only*) are bad. I also see that
> in the future with tech advance, HW will take some
> role of SW, but I think that pantents on HW are
> necessary anyway.

I analysed this already.  It is an unclear statement.
And a confession that you like or don't like something doesn't say
anything.  In order to qualify for discussing the tactics of active
people here, you have to become an active person yourself.
We want to judge the tree by its fruits.

> So abstracting: "I don't like SW patents (or on process
> as you like) but do I like the other "traditional" ones.

You apparently don't like the use of the mind-matter borderline for
distinguishing between swpat and "traditional ones".  And you are telling
us to blur our criterion in order to be politically more successful.
You don't want us to oppose 3% of the EPO patents but less than that,
because you think opposing 3% of these patents is too "radical".

> > Recognise the tree by its fruits, as the Bible says.
>
> It's the way that divides us: religion vs pragmatical.

Juding the tree by its fruits is pure pragmatism, I would say.

We have got to know quite a few people who at some point appeared to share
our interests.  Greg seemed to be with us 2-3 years ago.  At one point he
started arguing that we were unrealistic and that accepting the new rules
of the PTO was the only realistic viewpoint.  Axel Horns (german patent
lawyer) had similar problems, always demanding a "reality check" from us.
These were merely excuses, attempts to camouflage the fact that our paths
are not the same.  I believe that Axel and Greg are internally quite torn
apart, which makes them all the more verbose in trying to sell their
"realism".  If we accepted such "realism", their internal world would
become peaceful again.  Maybe you, as a Siemens employee, are suffering
from the same internal unrest at the moment.  But I can assure you that
many Siemens employees have made up their mind and are on our side.  They
see that patents in the software and telecom area are not all that
beneficial, not even for Siemens, a company justly proud of the great
efficiency of its patent department, see

        http://swpat.ffii.org/players/siemens/

You can be proud of that and at the same time see that the system must be
brought back on a sustainable track if it is to have a future.

-- 
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/