Re: [Patents] Dreadful Guardian Article

[Richard Page <richard_page@dsl.pipex.com>]

Alex Macfie wrote:

On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 22:52, Richard Page wrote:

  

I assume the US subsidiary reference referred to EICTA

I was not very diplomatic with David Gow - suggested the article
looked
like a conversation with McGann - I am definitely not good at lobbying
:-( 

    

He needs to know *why* a conversation with McGann does not tell you what
the industry really thinks. *We* know that business often says patents
are a good idea because patent lawyers tell it so. *We* know that
EICTA's position was formulated by patent lawyers talking among
themselves without really talking to member organizations. Lots of
business journalists and managers don't understand these things.
Pointing them towards business opinion on swpat unmediated by patent
lawyers would be helpful.

Alex




  

Alex, this is my response to David Gow's reply to my complaint about the article, basically he claimed that
editing had destroyed the 'balance'

The article as published entirely misleading http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1351216,00.html
If your article, as submitted was substantially different my argument is with Larry Elliot ( or A. N. Other?)
I do have difficulty in seeing how an edit would have substantially changed the thrust of your article, that
a narrow 'open source' initiative is threatening the jobs and innovation in Europe.
Did your research include the way that The European Patents Office (EPO) and the British Patent Office
(BPO) have undermined  Article 52 of the European Patent Convention (EPC)
http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/epc52/index.en.html to issue tens of thousands of software patents.
Or the fact that the very people who have actively twisted the words of Article 52  are the ones who
support this new form of words to ensure the continuation of a lucrative revenue stream (for patent offices
and patent lawyers).
The fact that the major lobbyists are funded by the very people that have issued thousands of patents
and companies that have applied for restrictive software patents (especially in the US) would indicate
that this is not a move to prevent the patenting of software.
Even the FTC(hardly a revolutionary organisation) in the US has stated that the patenting of software
is restricting competition and innovation.