Re: [Patents] Re: US==EU

[Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Gregory Aharonian wrote:

> >.... and says that patents are "more and more" viewed as the "protection
> >.... of choice for software".
> >
> >.. Is this the academic standard in law schools in the US ?
> 
> Yes, in those law schools that realize that software is essentilly
> something that is useful, functional, comprising processes and methods.

  Software is unique in what it is. If you want to make an analogy of
software to something else you would be far better served to compare it to
policy than technology.  Software is the policy that controls computer
hardware, and while hardware is technology the software is not.


  You want to create statutory monopolies on policy and then try to make a
living trying to do minor 'error correction' of what will obviously result
as a fundamentally flawed system.  Just as much as it is nonsense and
harmful to the social, economic and political aspects of citizens lives to
grant exclusive rights to the "useful, functional, comprising processes
and methods" involved in "Roberts Rules" or acts of parliament, so is it
nonsense to offer an exclusive right to the methods in software.

> And last time most law schools looked, "useful", "functional", 
> "processes", "methods" are all denied copyright protection in most 
> of the world.  But not patent protection.  You may not like the law,
> but at least know what it is.

  I don't think people are questioning the interpretation of the law, but
are disagreeing with some of the quite suspect understandings of the
nature of software.

-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 "Make it legal: don't litigate, use creative licensing" campaign.
 A modern answer to P2P: http://www.flora.ca/makelegal200403.shtml
 Canadian File-sharing Legal Information Network http://www.canfli.org/