X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <jm@poure.com>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from www2.translationforge.com (easyconnect2121136-58.clients.easynet.fr [212.11.36.58])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 978BA48DD7
	for <patents@aful.org>; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:09:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from win2000.translationforge.com (win2000.translationforge.com [192.168.0.100])
	by www2.translationforge.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9P9ljLP021075;
	Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:47:45 +0200
From: Jean-Michel POURE <jm@poure.com>
Reply-To: jm@poure.com
To: Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron@free.fr>, patents@aful.org
Subject: Re: [Patents] newsscan: Software patent limits 'go too far'
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:47:50 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
References: <200310211749.NAA08462@world.std.com> <200310241348.26252.jm@poure.com> <20031024171050.234708a2.jbsoufron@free.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20031024171050.234708a2.jbsoufron@free.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200310251147.50282.jm@poure.com>
X-Validation-by: jm@poure.com

Le Vendredi 24 Octobre 2003 17:10, Jean-Baptiste Soufron a =E9crit :
> You still think that law is organised following a pyramidal architecture
> like (for example) : Constitution -> written law -> governement ->
> courts.

This is not exactly what I write, but I think we both agree if I can give m=
ore=20
details.

The background of some ideas come from the reading of J. Rawls, "A Theory o=
f=20
Justice", Belknap Press, 1971... There is nothing pyramidal in John Rawles.

On the contrary, J. Rawls tries to prioritise between systems of law ("of=
=20
justice"). He was a teacher at Harvard University and cannot be treated as =
an=20
"extremist".

According to J. Rawls, whenever you create or adapt laws, you must make sur=
e=20
that there is a minimum social consensus about them. In order to reach a=20
consensus, all parties have to discuss together.

Otherwise, laws may not apply successfully or not at all, even if written.

During the normative discussion, Jurists must keep in mind that there are=
=20
several domains of justice (commercial law, civil law, human rights, civil=
=20
liberties, constitutional rights, etc...) and that only the common wealth=
=20
matters.

In the case of patents on software, commercial law is only a small componen=
t=20
of the problem. Civil liberties, Constitutional Rights, Human Rights, Civil=
=20
Law are more important. Therefore, you can discuss during hours about the=
=20
meaning of words like "as such". In many countries, at least in France, whe=
re=20
judges protect individuals, "as such" will be understood as "Human Rights=
=20
prevail, beat it buddy".

I support the European vote because the laws proposed arise from an elected=
=20
body and have been discussed to reach a consensus.

Supporting the original EPO proposal would lead to the desctruction of the=
=20
idea of justice, and simple citizen would soon vote for extremist parties. =
It=20
would be the end of Europe.

Best regards,
Jean-Michel


