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 31FF098B51
	for <patents@aful.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:49:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (guismo.drimm.u-bordeaux1.fr [147.210.36.243])
	by iona.labri.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94FF21017A4;
	Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:50:19 +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 20783-06; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:50:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [82.235.173.177] (magenta.dachary.org [82.235.173.177])
	(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 CED72101768;
	Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:50:18 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4238EBEF.4070306@labri.fr>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 03:31:11 +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: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Cc: Florian Mueller <florian@mysql.com>,
	'PILCH Hartmut' <phm@a2e.de>, fairuse-talk@nyfairuse.org,
	patents@aful.org
Subject: Re: [Patents] O'Reilly DevCenter: Perspective on Software Patents
 in    Europe
References: <200503091826.j29IQSBA017133@mail.mysql.com> <422F4142.2176CC80@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <1110408462.422f7d0e1e655@iona.labri.fr> <422F8A35.E90D33B6@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <422F8A35.E90D33B6@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
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


Re all,

Seth Johnson wrote:
> The right line is that the title is designed to convey an idea
> that hides its contradictory actual purpose.  Some may choose to
> simply call it the "software patent directive."  Some may choose
> to keep on the task of showing the deceptions in the way the
> Directive is presented.  Just as there are defects in the
> uncritical use of the term "CII," simply requiring that it be
> called the "software patent directive" also has its defects and
> is just too simple.

When addressing the general public as well
as the press, it is important to have them
grasp the global picture in a one-line pitch.
In this respect, talking about the "software patent
directive" is much more efficient. BTW, even
the opposite side is now acknowledging that
the directive allows to patent pure software.



                           f.p.


