[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: "Florian Mueller" <florian@mysql.com>
- To: "'Seth Johnson'" <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>, "'PILCH Hartmut'" <phm@a2e.de>
- Cc: <fairuse-talk@nyfairuse.org>, <patents@aful.org>
- Subject: RE: [Patents] O'Reilly DevCenter: Perspective on Software Patents in Europe
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 19:26:24 +0100
> The Directive's reference to "computer-implemented inventions" in its
title is still a relevant fact.
[...]
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.). <
It's also a fact that McCreevy in his speech yesterday (which was also
published as a Commission press release) talked about "software patents".
The Commission wrote about the Council being more in favor of "software
patents" than the EP, sometime last summer.
We should use the term "software patents" instead of "CII patents" whenever
and wherever we can, which is in almost 100% of all cases. We should reject
the name by consistently and persistently saying "software patents" because
the more people do that, the better our opponents realize that the
euphemism-and-denial strategy doesn't work.
Florian
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)