Re: [Patents] Pamela Samuelson

["Jacek Gancarson Eurofresh" <jacek.gancarson@eurofresh.se>]

http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/cacm%20patent%20reform.pdf

A carefull reading of above article would save millions of  euros for the
Commission, in particular the text bellow:

Some CACM readers may think that there should be no patents on
software-related  inventions. Whatever the merits of this position [5], the
debate in the U.S. has shifted from this issue to that of patent quality.
The information technology industry, and in particular, the software
industry, would greatly benefit if the patent reforms discussed in this
column were adopted. As the FTC report points out, a well-functioning patent
system promotes innovation and competition, and a dysfunctional patent
system can undermine both societal goals. Computing professionals can-and
should-help to create the momentum necessary to make patent reform in the
U.S. a reality.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Pamela Samuelson is a Chancellor's Professor of Information Management and
of Law at the University of California at Berkeley.

**********'

The EC, by forcing a narrow-minded, explicity declaration over software
patentability, will miss the real job opportunity on improvement of patent
system. US has already moved far ahead in this process.

regards

Jacek Gancarson

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Josefsson" <ehj@cleosan.com>
To: <patents@aful.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 3:38 AM
Subject: [Patents] Pamela Samuelson


> Legally Speaking: Why Reform the U.S. Patent System?
> By
> Pamela Samuelson
>
> Computing professionals have been complaining for years about "bad"
> software and Internet-related patents. Now there's something they can do
> about it: Support reforms of the U.S. patent system recommended in three
> recent high profile reports--one issued by the Federal Trade Commission,
> one by the National Academy of Sciences, and one by the U.S. Patent and
> Trademark Office [1, 3, 5]. One short column cannot hope to do justice
> to all of the recommendations in these reports. But it is possible to
> highlight three key reforms that deserve support.
>
> http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/cacm%20patent%20reform.pdf
>
>