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

[Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Hartmut Pilch wrote:

> 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.

  TRIPS discussions do currently focus on what is or is not technical,
sure, but that doesn't mean the conversation needs to stay there.

  Trade policy is not something static that just 'exists' and must be
adhered to.  It is quite dynamic and requires informed policy makers to
ensure that good public policy (rather than just special interest policy
as has far too often been the case so far) is negotiated.

  We do want to ensure that policy makers in each country advise the trade
negotiators appropriately on other aspects.  We need to retain all 4 tests
of statutory, useful, novel and unobvious (even if, and especially if, the
USTR wants to remove some of these tests - their opposition to statutory
limits needs to be ignored).  We need to push to have clarification on
each of the tests, and so-on.

> >   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/

  As you know, even as a European you come up against non-European policy
makers affecting domestic policy.  I'm a Canadian trying to understand the
situation elsewhere and help apply it to Canada.  Canada is not currently
pro-active on this topic, and the hope is that this can change and bring
this issue more to the foreground.  As with other countries, special
interests wanting to re-erect protectionism of incumbent businesses and
business models in trade agreements and domestic policy have taken over
much of the patent discussion.


> 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.

  I do believe there is a danger.  You have a politician who is saying one
thing, and doing another. You need to not assume any specific meaning:  
whether it is corruption, misinformation (she is only listening to the
special interests), or some other problem, different people should try to
approach her and others to try to deal with the problem.

  Call it a good-cop, bad-cop, private-investigator, and friend type
approach.  This isn't just a logistics problem, but a political problem.

  I also believe you don't have many other politicians being proactive in 
debating things with her.  Is there a trust of what she is saying that is 
unfounded?  Are other politicians just not interested?  Is this issue not 
visable enough?


  Someone needs to reach her and other relevant policy makers.  If she is
dismissing these "freedom fighters" (you guys) as not being reasonable,
then someone who is not perceived as from the same group needs to reach
her.  People in the Peace, Environment and Social Justice (PESJ) movements
have been dealing with this problem for years.

BTW: be very leery of people who tell you to "build coalitions" to move
political positions forward.  Sometimes they are well meaning, but
sometimes they do want to ensure their opposition is all in one basket so
that they can much more easily be dismissed.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/