Re: [Patents] O'Reilly DevCenter: Perspective on Software Patents in Europe

[Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>]

The Directive's reference to "computer-implemented inventions" in
its title is still a relevant fact.

The difference is still pertinent between the supposedly limited
intention conveyed by the Directive's title and what it actually
accomplishes.

It's too simple to see the adoption of the term "software patent
directive" as an unalloyed advantage.  While the fact that the
Directive is increasingly being called what it actually is,
certainly is in one sense one of the victories of the campaign,
nevertheless the usage of the term "software patent directive" by
the opposition actually helps them at this point by validating
the basic notion of having a law that addresses patents on
software, since here there is just such a law, being pursued as
if that's reasonable in the first place.

At the same time, there are still parties on the opposing side
that stress that the Directive is only for something called
"computer-implemented inventions" (see recent statements of
McCreevy and EICTA, and the UK PO, etc.).

Remember that before we started, and before the Council put out
their May 2004 draft, speaking of it as a "software patent
directive" was an almost absolute no-no.  When you observe that
incredible pains were originally taken taken to get the Directive
passed by presenting it as only patenting "CII's" you see that
not referring to the title that the Directive was given (and
thereby moving on as if the contradiction is no longer relevant),
is not necessarily so important as a number of other such "rules
about language use" that many in the movement adhere to.

The story of the Directive remains that it was represented as one
thing, with a deceptive name, is still being presented in that
manner, and that that is in contradiction with what it actually
would accomplish.

When we win, it will be very satisfying to always use the term
"software patent directive" in every sentence referring to the
Directive.


Seth



PILCH Hartmut wrote:
> 
> > have been granted. The Computer Implemented Inventions Directive
> > (CIID)
> 
> No such directive exists.
> 
> There is a proposed directive "on the patentability of computer
> implemented inventions" (software patent directive).
> 
> By naming the directive as above, you deliberately chose to say that
> software solutions are inventions in the sense of patent law, and
> its your own choice of name, not that of the EU, nothing to put in
> quotes.  Why are you doing that.  Is Tom Chance here?
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.6.3 - Release Date: 3/7/05

-- 

RIAA is the RISK!  Our NET is P2P!
http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.