Re: [Patents] Voice of patenting business

[Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>]

Absolutely.  What's needed is simply a clear stipulation that software is
not patentable (rather, actual application of the literal language of the
law), based on the fact that software is different in kind from patentable
subject matter.


Seth

Christian Beauprez wrote:
> 
> I agree with you here the article phrasing seems to be opposed to any
> restrictions on  patenting and the statement on small business is  IMHO
> marketing fluff, which of course is ridiculous.
> 
> In regards to software however, I don't believe that measures to make
> patents "less obvious" can work as much as I would like to believe it.
> 
> I think that the pro-camp consists of a good cop,  bad cop strategy. On one
> hand we have the "litigation zealots" who want no change, but on the other
> the "acceptable face" who wants a "compromise" on "bad patents"  which
> really isn't a compromise but an acceptance of patentability in one form or
> another, which in itself is illegal. Of course there are also lawyers who
> genuinely care about warding off vicious patent claims  as well , but it can
> be very difficult to know who's who.
> 
> Kindest Regards,
> 
> Chris

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.