[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>
- To: Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>
- Cc: Simo Sorce <simo.sorce@xsec.it>, Stephen Compall <s11@member.fsf.org>, <C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org>, iriXx <iriXx@iriXx.org>, Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>, <seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org>, Patent forum <patents@aful.org>, <fairuse-discuss@nyfairuse.org>, <DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org>, <DMCA-Activists@gnu.org>, <fsl-discuss@alt.org>, <nb@norbert.ch>
- Subject: Re: [Patents] The politics of software over-protection -- moving forward..
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:05:40 +0200 (CEST)
> I do not believe that these suggestions should be controversial except
> in the case of some extremists who want tax handouts and protectionism of
> their monopolies. Let us put forward reasonable suggestions, and allow
> the extremists to expose themselves for what they are.
We have been doing that all along in Europe.
The reason why software patents are pushed is that people want
unreasonably broad claims. Or they desperately want their patent model to
stay in business and just push for as much as they can get through.
You may notice that our amendment proposals are full of small steps that
nobody can be against. Yet many MEPS are afraid of proposing even such
small steps, because they believe that their bread is buttered on the side
of the patent lobby, and that lobby just wants more patents, no matter at
what conditions.
Something like "reverse the incentives to patent examiner" is much more
radical and far reaching than something like "enforce the current Art 52
EPC". It will probably not even have an opportunity to be discussed.
Creating opportunities to politicize the issue is the real challenge. If
your proposals succede in creating those opportunities, then they may be
good. But you won't achieve it just by arguing for "moderate" or
uncontroversial proposals. Usually the problem is that nobody understands
or listens.
At least in Europe we don't need strategy debates at the moment.
For the US I'd also say that "computer programs are not patentable
inventions" as stated in Art 52 EPC and held true until the early 80s
almost everywhere, is still the right message. There can be other
messages, but they are measured not by tactical arguments but by whether
you are able to transmit them to politicians.
--
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance tel. +49-89-12789608
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation http://swpat.ffii.org/
140,000 signatures against software patents http://noepatents.org/
- Re: [Patents] Re: IBM, Microsoft, BEA Snub W3C, (continued)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)