X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <pelegrin@labri.fr>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from iona.labri.fr (iona.labri.fr [147.210.8.143])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF1DA83D7A
	for <patents@aful.org>; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:07:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (guismo.drimm.u-bordeaux1.fr [147.210.36.243])
	by localhost.labri.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1EF51017AA;
	Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:02:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from iona.labri.fr ([147.210.8.143])
 by localhost (guismo [147.210.36.243]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP
 id 12357-01-10; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:02:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [147.210.20.11] (brol.labri.fr [147.210.20.11])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by iona.labri.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86A83101767;
	Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:02:16 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <419A0341.7050809@labri.fr>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:40:17 +0100
From: Francois PELLEGRINI <pelegrin@labri.fr>
Organization: LaBRI, Universite Bordeaux I
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804
X-Accept-Language: fr, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jonas Maebe <jonas.maebe@ugent.be>
Cc: Patent forum <patents@aful.org>
Subject: Re: [Patents] Dreadful Guardian Article
References: <419A018A.7070300@dsl.pipex.com> <C4C60925-37D4-11D9-941B-000D932B3AF8@ugent.be>
In-Reply-To: <C4C60925-37D4-11D9-941B-000D932B3AF8@ugent.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at u-bordeaux1.fr
X-Validation-by: pelegrin@labri.fr


Hello all,

Jonas Maebe wrote:
> 
> On 16 nov 2004, at 14:32, Richard Page wrote:
> 
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1351216,00.html
>>
>> A little one sided you may think
> 
> 
> It's merely a rewrite of EICTA's PR, so it's quite logical...

Yes, but there is indeed an interesting statement, at the
end : McGann says that software "is adequately protected
by copyright".  This is extremely important. We should
get the original quote.

Because now one of their arguments vanishes, and we have
"just" to ensure that the directive does not patent software,
since now they admit there is no rationale to patent it.
This is indeed a blow for EICTA members such as Microsoft
and such, which patent it in the US...           8^)


A+,

                               f.p.

