[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>
- To: Roland Orre <orre@nada.kth.se>
- Cc: rms@gnu.org, Gregory Aharonian <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
- Subject: Re: [fsl-discuss] Re: [Patents] The politics of software over-protection -- moving forward..
- Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 10:32:26 +0200
El Sun, May 04, 2003 at 08:20:06AM +0200, Roland Orre deia:
>
> I couldn't remember from where I was inspired to get that view but
> I've gone through your pages about patents that I could find
> and they are perfectly consistent and against software patents.
>
> It is possible that I was affected by the earlier discussions about
> "obvious" software patents some years ago, and it's possible that
> there were some interview where I may have misunderstood your answer
> but I can't recall which interview.
I wonder if sometimes he said something like "software patents
wouldn't be bad if they were as narrow as copyright", which you
might have misinterpreted as "there is some possibility that software
patents are good". In fact, it means "it makes no sense making
software patents an expensive substitute of copyright, which
is the only way to make them harmless, therefore software patents
make no sense".
But I'm not sure he said the first sentence at all. It's just a
vague intuition, maybe in Cambridge?.
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)