Re: [Patents] CPTech submission to PCT reform working group

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

Dear James,

Thanks for the disclosure.


 "Or an inventor may decide to patent an Internet
        protocol,"

An internet protocol is authored, not invented. People write code, they
don't invent it. Why is that every report I see seems to think that US
practise = correct by default without any mention of legality.

       "not to commercially exploit the patent, but to
        ensure that the invention is freely available to others.
        For a variety of reasons, it may be better to obtain
        patents than to allow the invention to enter the public
        domain.  For example, there may be a need for defensive
        patenting, in order to protect the public from "embrace
        and extend" efforts to privatize inventions that were
        intended to benefit the public."

What kind of madness is this? People may want to patent software to ensure
that they can give it away. Of course we are so much better off with
patenting, under copyright this is totally free to do and doesn't require
any "defensive patents".

Now apparently we need "defensive patents" from lawyers  for no other reason
than to fend off...lawyers!. How is this an improvement on innovation?

defensive patenting of
        genes,
^

This sums up the ridiculousness of all this. Soon we will have to patent our
own genes in case someone else sues us for ownership of our DNA, should I
register my DNA as prior art now?

 How ashamed I am of all the UK politicians that have supported this
slippery slope into a technological dark ages .

Sincerely,

Christian