X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <cphil3@wanadoo.fr>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from mwinf0303.wanadoo.fr (smtp3.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.28])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902A848FDF
	for <patents@aful.org>; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:20:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from betti.cphil.net (AToulouse-102-1-1-210.w81-49.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.49.2.210])
	by mwinf0303.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id B942C5000860
	for <patents@aful.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:59:24 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:59:23 +0200
From: Philippe Coulonges <cphil3@wanadoo.fr>
To: patents@aful.org
Subject: Re: [Patents] newsscan: Software patent limits 'go too far'
Message-Id: <20031022235923.44ed811c.cphil3@wanadoo.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20031022190606.4ebf620a.jbsoufron@free.fr>
References: <200310211749.NAA08462@world.std.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0310212228460.8183-100000@calcutta.flora.ca>
	<20031022114552.33d1bab5.jbsoufron@free.fr>
	<20031022183451.D8505@margaux.inria.fr>
	<20031022190606.4ebf620a.jbsoufron@free.fr>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.0claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Validation-by: cphil3@wanadoo.fr

Le Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:06:06 +0200
Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron@free.fr> =E9crivait :

> I just say that law needs to be interpretated. The text in itself
> means nothing, only the intepretation does.=20

Another great punch in democracy, it seems.
The text means something. Only comprehension impaired people need an
interpretation.
And as it seems there are many people in the law business that need an
interpretation, the interpretation is :

The political source of the law has made a special rule to explain
that software patents is a special case.
Interpreting this as if there is no special case is BAD.

Moreover, even if that special case did not exist in the first place
(and it exists), we now have sufficient data and studies to show that it
should exist. Period.

> >    This is a technological and economic matter, and jurists want
> >    more patents only so that they can levy even more money out of
> >    the
> > economy. Though jurists can have a necessary role in social life,
> > their over expansion in modern society (number multiplied by 2.5 in
> > 20 years in France) is nothing but a social cancer.
>=20
> What about computer scientists? :-)
>=20
> Your argument is nothing but a troll... sorry for that :-)

Not at all.
For any enterprise, computer scientists bring added value, jurists do
not, they are charges (except for their own business).

> >   When both technicians and economists agree that sofware patents
> >   are
> > bad for the economy and the technology, would the jurists be kind
> > enough to acknowledge and SHUT UP.
>=20
> Why? At the end of the XIXth century, everybody agreed that an
> employee could be fired without any compensation and without any
> explanation. Hopefully some jurists did not not agree with that and
> they interpretated laws in other ways to allow the system to evolve.=20

I must be dreaming. Where you on some barricade lately ?

> Just look at the ambiguity of your arguments : I guess that smokers
> and cigarette manufacturers all agree that tobacco should cost less
> and be more easy to get. Should we let them decide because they all
> agree on it?

In that case, there is a third party, the health ministry. Forgetting it
makes your argumentation irrelevant.

> Plus, it does not look like everybody agrees. There are also questions
> raised by people afraid if there is no software patents. For example,
> why is it better to let them software be free when people who live
> from patented softwares could lose their jobs?

Don't worry, you will find other cases to bring in courts.

> I don't think there is enough consensus on it and on why so we could
> just ask everybody to shut up and listen to what computer scientists
> believe. Why not patents? What instead? Is author's rights a good
> solution? If yes, should we still protect it 70 years after the death
> of the author? What about DRM protected by author's right then? And so
> on...=20
>=20
> "NO to software patents" but please, we're here on a list to discuss
> about it, let the discussion happen and people make their own opinion
> about it. I am sure you know, it's called democracy.

No, that's free speech.
Democracy is letting the people representants decide and admit the
decision, without afterwheenings.

> And, by the way,
> if you want to fight someone, I suggest you fight politics corrupted
> by lobbying more than jurists who tries to translate what you all want
> in legal terms.=20

I admit that translating thoughts in unambigous term in a loose langage
is much more difficult than translating it in a formal langage such as
computer langages, but remember you're talking to professionals of
this kind of exercices.

> Let's not get this personnal.=20

Just for fun.

CU
CPHIL

