X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <rms@gnu.org>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [199.232.76.164])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E62419D3
	for <patents@aful.org>; Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:49:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10)
	id 199Pza-0006kO-00; Sat, 26 Apr 2003 09:45:26 -0400
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>
Cc: russell@flora.ca, xdrudis@tinet.org, nb@norbert.ch,
	fsl-discuss@alt.org, DMCA-Activists@gnu.org,
	DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org, fairuse-discuss@nyfairuse.org,
	patents@aful.org, seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org,
	xdrudis@tinet.org, iriXx@iriXx.org,
	C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org, s11@member.fsf.org,
	simo.sorce@xsec.it, phm@a2e.de
In-reply-to: <200304252331.TAA03772@world.std.com> (message from Gregory
	Aharonian on Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:26 -0400 (EDT))
Subject: Re: [fsl-discuss] Re: [Patents] The politics of software
    over-protection -- moving forward..
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304251818250.10329-100000@querty.oas.a2e.de>
    <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304251313310.23739-100000@calcutta3.flora.ca> <200304252331.TAA03772@world.std.com>
Message-Id: <E199Pza-0006kO-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 09:45:26 -0400
X-Validation-by: rms@gnu.org

      Fed CAFC decisions get reviewed by the Supreme Court, so
    when it comes to patent law, the CAFC is effectively the highest court.

When it comes to patent law, the Supreme Court is the highest court.
I agree we have little hope that courts will correct the injustice,
but for whatever it is worth, we can still argue that the CAFC made
an error.

Nonetheless, this is primarily a political issue, not a legal one.
The important question is whether software ideas should be monopolized
by patents, not what current US law says.

