Re: [Patents] The politics of software over-protection -- moving forward..

[Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Hartmut Pilch wrote:

> 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.

  We can argue that the court rulings that have suggested that computer 
programs are patentable in the USA are lower courts and not parliament or 
the supreme court, but they are still courts -- and what they say holds 
until it is challenged in a higher court.

> More precisely: there are perhaps other good messages (e.g. "patents are
> nowadays too broad/abstract" ), but as long as no negotiation is taking
> place anywhere, you gain nothing by compromising on your messages.  The
> prime value of any message at this stage is truth and clarity.

  You may call it clarity of message, but I may call it putting all your
eggs in one basket.  This is not a war society can afford to loose, even
in the short term, so I think it is appropriate (and possibly necessary)  
to have battles happening on multiple fronts.

  The situation here in Canada may be very different than in Europe that
has an article 52 exceptions list to discuss.  Canada doesn't clarify
anything relating to statutory requirements in their Patent act other than
the mathematical algorithm exception.

  The Intellectual Property Policy Directorate (IPPD) of Industry Canada
doesn't appear to be listening to us yet, so discussing statutory
exceptions to software is not yet in the cards.  Sliding discussions of
Fair Dealings exceptions in patent law to deal with market failures as is
the case in copyright law is something that the ICT branch, competition
bureau, courts and parliamentarians can more easily discuss even if IPPD
is entirely distracted by pharmaceutical patenting.

  From my vantage point it is ICT branch that is most engaged in this
conversation, which makes sense as they are also the department with a
more on-the-ground view of what is happening in the field of ICT.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
 Any 'hardware assist' for communications, whether it be eye-glasses, 
 VCR's, or personal computers, must be under the control of the citizen 
 and not a third party.   -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/