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 C4AE741F1C
	for <patents@aful.org>; Mon,  5 May 2003 16:37:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10)
	id 19Ch1B-0000nF-00; Mon, 05 May 2003 10:32:37 -0400
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>
Cc: orre@nada.kth.se, srctran@world.std.com, phm@a2e.de,
	simo.sorce@xsec.it, s11@member.fsf.org,
	C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org, iriXx@iriXx.org,
	xdrudis@tinet.org, seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org,
	patents@aful.org, fairuse-discuss@nyfairuse.org,
	DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org, DMCA-Activists@gnu.org,
	fsl-discuss@alt.org, nb@norbert.ch, russell@flora.ca
In-reply-to: <20030504083226.GB1019@crosswinds.net> (message from Xavi Drudis
	Ferran on Sun, 4 May 2003 10:32:26 +0200)
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> <200304261659.MAA21705@world.std.com> <E19A0OP-0001nk-00@fencepost.gnu.org> <1052029205.2975.6454.camel@localhost> <20030504083226.GB1019@crosswinds.net>
Message-Id: <E19Ch1B-0000nF-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 10:32:37 -0400
X-Validation-by: rms@gnu.org

    I wonder if sometimes he said something like "software patents 
    wouldn't be bad if they were as narrow as copyright",

I have indeed said things like that.  The point is that if a software
patent are not "patenting programs".  If a software patent covered a
single program, it would be harmless (but also nobody would bother to
apply for it).

