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

[Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>]

El Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 01:24:33PM -0400, Russell McOrmond deia:
> 
> 
> 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.
>

We can argue that they were not only lower courts: they were wrong.
 
> > 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.
>

Sorry, but it looks to me you are so clever you are putting your eggs
in two baskets. But one is a basketball net, not a proper basket. I
haven't finished your report (sorry, I know this is unfair) and I
don't know when I'll be able to, but it looks well meant, well
informed, but a bit naive.
 
>   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.
> 

Maybe. Of course you know Canada better than me. But it wouldn't be democratic
if there was no way to change statutory subject matter. Unlimited 
patentability 
is unreasonable. 

>   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.
> 

You will only delay the solution, by suggesting acceptable non-solutions.
I find easier to defend solutions that I'm convinced that solve the problems
than measures that I think sound good but I know won't solve the problem.

-- 
Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis@tinet.org