Re: [Patents] Voice of patenting business

["Christian Beauprez" <beauprez@beauprez.fsnet.co.uk>]

Dear Hartmut,

Thanks for the references on this.

> Because the conclusion that major countries are in breach of TRIPs creates
> an uncomfortable situation.  Most lawyers prefer interpretations that do
> not lead to such conclusions.  And in this case the motiviation to avoid
> them is particularly strong, and it is fairly easy to get around them by
> some sophistry, given that most people have very fuzzy ideas of what
> computer programs are.

Absolutely.

I think the difficulty for them now is that such sophistry - and that's the
best way to describe it is wearing increasingly thin. While they are trying
to dazzle people with technical terminology an increasingly coherant
argument is coming across from all quarters economic,  legal, philosophical
and political. While they can confuse people temporarily they cannot explain
their way around an open and shut case. First we were told that it was
necessary economically, then when MEP's stamped their feet, they were told
we were obliged legally, both of these points do not stand up anymore.

The lobby  seem to be coming up with arguments that don't even make sense
any more. At one point the talk of "technical effects" was enough to have
most MEP's (and me!) scratching their heads on this issue, but as it's gone
on even those that were more accepting of what they were being told last
time, are starting to see what this is really all about. I think providing
the MEPs are versed in how the current "compromise" draft has been thrown
together from overrun PTO practice and provides no real barriers this
sophistry will come to an abrupt end (at least in effectiveness). I must
congratulate the FFII for acting on this when many people were still unaware
of what was going on and raising awareness of these issues.



Kindest Regards

Christian