[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>
- To: patents@aful.org
- Subject: Re: [Patents] UK patent lawyer responses to GregNews on Technicity
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:36:43 +0100 (CET)
> I think here our otherwise fairly objective UK lawyer again glides into a
> typical patent lawyer FUD mode, perhaps encouraged by Greg's pretense of
> "grounding" in ultra-modern science.
Upon re-reading I find these words a bit too hard. While the cited UK
lawyer does fail to give a fair account of german jurisprudence on
technicity, the general observation that there is too much notional
jurisprudence in patent jurisdiction on these matters is very much to the
point. And it hits Greg more than anyone else. Greg's
inferences from dictionary definitions and ultra-modern science can, even
without looking at their contents, be dismissed as a form of notional
jurisprudence: an attempt/pretense of creating a consistent system without
an analysis of interests which the system is supposed to accomodate.
--
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation http://swpat.ffii.org/
300,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents http://noepatents.org/
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)