Re: [Patents] Cryptographic patent... and research.

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

>   I simply don't see the question you are trying to ask as being the only
> critical question, any more than long-winded legal interpretations of
> existing acts of parliament are the only critical question.

The mind-matter distinction present in patent law is neither the only
question to talk about nor the only way of excluding something from
patentability.  But it can provide a clearer rule than almost anything
else, and, under the given legal constraints (e.g. TRIPs) there are not
many other options.

>   You are looking at this from a different direction than I am.  The
> "first principles" discussion happens with policy makers who then set the
> rules (statutory, useful, novel and unobvious).

For our approach to discussion with policy makers, see

        http://www.ffii.org/proj/kunst/swpat/pamflet/

The catch-phrases highlighted on the pamphlet are

JURI proposal:

        NO harmonisation
        NO clarification
        Less freedom
        Less property
        Less innovation
        Less competition

The JURI proposal makes patents on algorithms and business methods such
as Amazon One Click Shopping unavoidable in Europe.

Since even McCarthy & co pretend that they don't want such patents, there
is really not very much persuasion work to do concerning the desirability
of these patents.  There is also not a danger of "putting all eggs into
one basket" but only a danger of failing to get core messages through.
This is more about logistics than about philosophy.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
155,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/