RE: [Patents] Patent (abuse) cases ie. Acacia, SightSound, USA Video

[Jo Lahaye <Jo@mmbase.org>]

Hello all,
I'm quite new to your interesting list, and I'm aware of the fact that this
is probably not the right adress for my comment. But perhaps someone has an
idea why the sites:
noepatents.org, ffii and eurolinux can't be reached at the moment? At least
that's my experience right now.
Regards,
Jo.

Jo Lahaye, Jo@mmbase.org
MMBase Foundation
tel. 035-6288088, 06-53292887
www.MMBase.org

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: patents-owner@aful.org [mailto:patents-owner@aful.org]Namens
Hartmut Pilch
Verzonden: zaterdag 6 september 2003 21:27
Aan: brandon@fightthepatent.com
CC: patents@aful.org
Onderwerp: Re: [Patents] Patent (abuse) cases ie. Acacia, SightSound,
USA Video


> Outraged at Acacia Research's tactics of sending "information packets"

Imho you should not be outraged at Acacia's tactics but at the decisions
of those who have set the rules in the patent system in such a way that
Acacia's behavior is rational and legal.

> I am currently a "one man" show, giving up my consulting time to spend
> 50+ hours a week for the last 3 weeks in contacting the "internet
> greats" to ask for assistance in finding prior art.

Better spend the time on building pressure on the US government to change
the rules of patenting.

Currently the US government, represented by its patent office, is still
bullying other countries wherever it can, be it bilateral or multilateral
negotiations, asking them to adopt the US rules of patentability of
abstract ideas dressed up in the terminology of the universal computer.

See

        http://swpat.ffii.org/players/us/

a page that gives a small glimpse.

At the recent OECD conference, the US government's representative said
that such conferences are useless and the debates of the economists
harmful, because the patent system as is is "basically good" and the US
will not permit any policy except one that "extends and strengthens" this
system.  The same representatives have also been doing their best to kill
discussions on proper limits of "IP" at WIPO and other UN organisations.

If you have 50+ hours a week (or even half or a third of that) to spend on
this fight, I would have some ideas for how you can use that time
effectively.  Or you could as Jamie Love of cptech.org.

Don't waste your time on playing the prior art game without pay.  One
campaign issue could be the "polluter pays principle": your 50+ hours
of prior art search should, in case of success, be paid by the owner
of the invalidated patent.  That of course does not remedy the basic
problem of logic patents, but it remedies a general deficiency of the
current patent system.

--
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
200,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/