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

[Jean-Michel POURE <jm@poure.com>]

Le Vendredi 24 Octobre 2003 17:10, Jean-Baptiste Soufron a écrit :
> 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 
more 
details.

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

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

According to J. Rawls, whenever you create or adapt laws, you must make sure 
that there is a minimum social consensus about them. In order to reach a 
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 
several domains of justice (commercial law, civil law, human rights, civil 
liberties, constitutional rights, etc...) and that only the common wealth 
matters.

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

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

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

Best regards,
Jean-Michel