Re: [Patents] newsscan: Software patent limits 'go too far'

[Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron@free.fr>]

Hum, 

> The one category of people who should have no say is jurists.  Their
> role is syntax, not semantics.

I am not talking about it. 

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

What about computer scientists? :-)

Your argument is nothing but a troll... sorry for that :-)

>   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.

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. 

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?

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? Even on this small list,
everybody does not agree. Consensus could only come of discussions and
talks. That's why it's so important to let the judges do their job and
interpret law so a consensus can appear step by step. 

I think software patents are a bad thing. 

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... 

"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. 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. 

Let's not get this personnal.