Re: [Patents] Pamela Samuelson

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

Dear Hartmut,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hartmut Pilch" <

> > 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:
>
> This statement makes no sense to me.  The Commission isn't spending
> millions of euros for patent legislation.  They believe that their
> directive project of 2002-02-20 has zero costs (see accounting statement
> at the end and comments at http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/).
> And so far I can't see any workable reform proposal in the US, only
> proposals based on "patent quality", i.e. a tacit consensus between patent
> lobby and scholars:  patent lawyers get unlimited patentability, scholars
> get chance to engage in favorably funded studies on the subject.
>
Scholars are worth to hear in order to remove the dogmas

>
> > 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.
>
> They can create that momentum by refusing to do what Samuelson is doing:
> lending legitimacy to the "realities" created by the patent movement
> without legislative oversight and without consent from the concerned
> parties.  Working on "patent reform" and "patent quality" can be one of
> the ways of lending legitimacy to the movement, and the movement will
> tolerate such work only to the extent that it does this.  They will not
> tolerate any reform that leads to a predictable reduction of the number of
> patents granted.  Such a reform, be it on subject matter or on
> non-obviousness, can take place only if the patent movement is ousted from
> its bastions of power.
>
Yes de disscusion should proceed beyond bastions of powers of course.
It would be said if these bastions could not be able to revise their
position an participate in the concensus instead to fight for a total power.
The imrovemnet and not reduction of the law is the objective IMHO.

I personally can only act on the basis of understanding and not to much on
the basis of beliefs.
Best regards
Jacek Gancarson