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

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

Old.Timer answered why he stays anonymous:

> Perhaps he just wants to support the fundamental principles of open source
> software, but can't risk being associated with some of the radical nonsense
> that passes for discussion on this list.

> Some of us may not like the TRIPS agreement, but all the
> contracting parties of the EPC have signed up to it. If they thought the
> EPC was incompatible with TRIPS, they'd have to change the EPC.
>
> And I think you will find that software patents were being granted in Europe
> long before the 90's. I also think a lot more old timers would come out
> into the open if we fought this battle with our eyes open. It's no good
> pretending that software patents are illegal just because we wish they were.
> It will be tough enough as it is, without fighting against the facts.

Old.Timer is pretending to belong to some "we" group that "supports open
source software".  Why can't Old.Timer leave it to his readers to judge to
what camp he might belong, as far as that is of interest at all?

In fact, this discussion is not about different forms of copyright
licensing but about patents, and from looking at oldtimer's postings I see
little reason to put him/her into any "pro-opensource" camp.  Rather into
a camp of "patent realists" who oppose themselves against "opensource
social romantics" or hope that the discussion will be seen in this way.

Concerning the illegality of software patents under EPC and EPC
compatibility with TRIPs, please read

        http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/epc52/
        http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/trips/

The former also contains links to some analyses of "as such".  It is an
intonatory particle, also called appositive, with about as much meaning
as the particle "it" in "it is raining".   Art 52(3) was inserted in
response to FUD from the UK delegation in 1973 which was clamoring that
exclusion of software would lead to exclusion of all manufacturing
processes that are computer-controlled.  There is nothing mysterious
about this particle, and there is even a swedish version of Art 52(3)
which does not use it.  No need to rediscuss all this here.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
270,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/