Re: [Fwd: Re: [Patents] Dreadful Guardian Article]

[Erik Josefsson <ehj@cleosan.com>]

James Heald wrote:
> Richard Page wrote:
>
> > The interesting point in all these documents is that they insist that
> > the directive has nothing to do with software.
>
> This was also McGann's line, expressed very forcefully, at the meeting 
> of Conservative bloc MEPs last Tuesday.
>
> Paraphrasing:
>
> -- "We represent the whole industry.  Not one of our members wants 
> software patents.  That's why we support the Council text.  But the 
> parliament amendments would cripple the whole industry".
>
> However, when asked specifically whether or not a new algorithm which 
> allowed a square roots to be calculated more quickly (ie the UK case 
> "Gale's application") was a software patent, he said he was unable to 
> speak for his members on that point...

James, can you correct me?

At the meeting, I remember Malcolm Harbour quoting the Council "software 
as such" aricle. I replied it would have been helpful if he had read the 
Council definition of CII instead (what a computer does etc).

But Actually, I remeber McGann also read loud from the Council text, the 
"normal physical interactions" from article 4a.2). I took it up and 
asked the audience to think about the clarity of such a law compairing 
with something more understandable like normal interaction between a 
recepie and a kitchen.

McGann came up top me afterwards and invited me to his house saying if I 
ever came by, he would show me some interaction between a recipie and a 
kitchen I would not consider normal :-)

So I guess I did something right at the Kauppi event.

//Erik