Re: "Patently Unfair"

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

At

  http://www.acm.org/technews/articles/2004-6/0709f.html#item2

you find comments that illustrate how our ShortIntroEn, now at

        http://swpat.ffii.org/log/intro/

has made some inroads into public opinion.  Yet the result is
still quite frustrating in some points:

> ministers disagree on changes that would either firmly establish or
> disallow software patents, which were introduced through a loophole in
> 1986; 

this wording is still unfortunate, because there is no loophole, there was
a political will to bend the law.

> In 1986, a clarification to European patent law allowed patents for
> software code that had a physical effect, such as improving computer
> performance or the way in which drugs are administered.

This is even worse.  There was no 'clarification', only obfuscation, and
it was not added to European patent law but only done at the level of EPO
court decisions.

I wonder what we need to clarify ourselves in ShortIntro in order to make
people understand this difference.  Is it a difficult one?  Perhaps for 
people from Common Law background?

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
330,000 votes 3000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/