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

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

> Of course! One of the main points in allowing patentability is to make
> the complete description of the invention available. So the people who
> really should be involved to judge if the system really works or shows
> problems are the ones who have to deal with it. And in the case of
> software, it just does not work. No computer scientist or computer
> industry man that I am aware of has ever done research by looking at
> patent databases, it would require a lawyer to translate legalese into
> something understandable (not to mention the lack of source code in
> software patents).

I agree with you but that was not my point. I just mentionned that if
you oppose to software patentability, you have to trnslate it in legal
norms and then, you must compare your solutions with the rest of the
legal system so they can be compatible with it. 
 
> > Nobody is leazy. Problems are simply complicated and solutions can't
> > appear in just a few years.
> 
> And obviously, the jurists won't work them out if they do not work
> closely together with the people whose work they are interfering with.
> The questions above show the complete arrogance of the attitude in not
> letting the people whose problems are supposedly to be solved to have
> a part in the solution.

?!? I think I also agree with you on that point. 

The problem today is more that computer scientists are clearly evicted
from the legislative process. I totally agree with you on that again.
Still, it does not mean they should be the only ones to prepare law.
That's my only argument : computer scientists can't just come and say
what's next, they have to discuss about it and make concessions. 

But this is just THEORETICAL as computer scientists are COMPLETELY
EVICTED from the current legal process. But jurists also are. As you can
see, the patent directive is a complete legal mess absolutely
meaningless and that can be twisted in many ways. Of course, it was
never written by jurists but it was directly written by lobyying groups.


> > Can you only imagine that it needed 80 YEARS to gradually accept the
> > principle that someone fired without any reason should obtain
> > remedies from his employer...
> > 
> > What we see now is just the normal process of the birth of
> > legislation. People have opposed views, some are fair and some are
> > unfair but they tend to get closer in the end until everybody find a
> > good in-between solution. It's just not the job of computer
> > scientists to write law and it's not the job of jurists to
> > understand computer science. Both interact on each other and the
> > only thing needed is communication and explanations.
> 
> There still is the problem that the patent system provides huge
> amounts of monetary benefit for the people currently making the
> policies. So the questions you pose are to be seen the other way
> around: should lawyers or jurists, the main benefitiaries of all the
> burdens a patent system imposes upon a society, be the ones who choose
> and define how it will work?

You would the beneficiary of the opposite system, does it make you
unable to decide what's good or wrong? 

Everybody benefits from something, this argument is a complete troll.

The only point to look at, from a legal point of view, is to know if
software patents are fair or not and to explain why. 
To my mind they are clearly unfair.